Talk:List of Australian monarchs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 18 March 2008. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Contents

[edit] Another List of Monarchs?

Reluctant as I am to belittle hard work and effort, do we really need this?--Gazzster (talk) 15:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not fully sure on how the Australian Constitution views this. There is a List of Canadian monarchs article to compare with it. Legalities vs common usage, has always been the core of the 'commonwealth realms' dispute. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I wonder why the Commonwealth realms need to have their monarchs listed, especially as they identical copies of each other! They serve no useful purpose. They just seem to be there for their own sake. But don't let me be a wet blanket! Btw, we don't have a List of monarchs of New Zealand, or of Jamaica, or List of former monarchs of South Africa. How many times do we have to plaster the names of the glorious House of Saxe-Coburg Gotha the length and breadth of Wikipedia?--Gazzster (talk) 15:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Why is George V entered twice with two different reigns?--Gazzster (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The lists may be in synch for various lengths of time, but they actually aren't identical. The same thing happens for Norway, Sweden and Denmark, as well as Naples and Spain; Navarre and France; Hanover and the United Kingdom; Poland and Lithuania. So, why not Canada, Australia, Jamaica, and the like? --G2bambino (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The shared monarchy is a unique institution in history. There has never been anything like it. It doesn't make sense to treat it like any personal union.--Gazzster (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
In what way are they not identical? Unlike the Scandinavian situation, the various countries over which the British monarchs reign have a simultaneous and instantaneous succession. A case could be made for changing the dates to local time (e.g. it was still the previous day in Canada when George VI died in the early hours of the morning), but this has not been done. TharkunColl (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
In what way are they not identical? Their lengths. --G2bambino (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Gazzster, your points are valid. Also, I think George V's reign is divided, due to the 1931 Statues of Westminister (though I'm not certain). GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
There appears to be no particular merit or significance in composing lists of the same monarchs for each of the realms. It is emphasised often enough in realm articles that the monarchy is a shared one. So why should not a single list, List of monarchs of the United Kingdom, suffice?--Gazzster (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Why is a single list not sufficient for the examples of list overlaps I pointed out above? --G2bambino (talk) 17:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
That's not answering the question. --Gazzster (talk) 17:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it is. You question the merit in separate lists; the answer may lie in what was done in identical situations. --G2bambino (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
That's somewhat like a boy justifying his behaviour by saying, 'everyone else is doing it'. Let's not worry about what others do. Why are we doing it here?--Gazzster (talk) 17:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Lol. And there may be some justification in that argument; part of the reason I don't murder people is because everybody else isn't doing it.
Anyway, in these personal union situations there appears to be two alternatives: 1) have separate lists of the rulers of each country with overlaps, or 2) have a list of rulers for each country, but where two or more nations come into personal union, have one article titled "List of monarchs of France and Navarre," or some such thing. It seems that in every personal union situation the former method has been followed, never the latter. Why would we then deviate from the norm here? --G2bambino (talk) 17:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
True, the lines of succession converge and diverge. France and Navarre for example, had divergent lines until Henry IV of France. But in the case of the Crs there is no divergence, ever.--Gazzster (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Not really true; all former Commonwealth realms diverged, whether to another royal house or a republic. A list of monarchs of Lesotho, for instance, would go from Zulu monarchs, to British monarchs, to Lesothan monarchs. The present Commonwealth realms may not have diverged, yet, but is that really important? If it were, then we would merge the lists of two or more countries into one when the convergence occurred, and split them again after divergence. But, we apparently don't. --G2bambino (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Lines of succession don't diverge to republics: a republic means the line becomes extinct. We're talking of lines of succession. In Australia the line is exactly the same as in the UK, Canada, Antigua, etc.--Gazzster (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
But we're not talking about the line of succession, we're talking about rulers of a country. --G2bambino (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and more specifically, monarchs. I repeat, the succession of monarchs is exactly the same.--Gazzster (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
As it was for all those other countries in personal unions. --G2bambino (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Lost me.--Gazzster (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The Scandinavian kingdoms are not an identical situation. Often a monarch would assume the crown of one on a different day, and sometimes would abdicate from one of them and hand it over to his successor. That is not the case here. TharkunColl (talk) 17:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Is this article (and the like), heading towards an Afd? GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Let's not leap into Afds yet. Were just talking GD.--Gazzster (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I don't commit murder because I believe it's wrong, not because the next door neighbour isn't doing it. There is a third option (many, in fact). Simply link to List of monarchs of the United Kingdom.--Gazzster (talk) 17:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe that's an option as it doesn't make clear who was the first monarch of Australia, and, more importantly, it's completely invalid to claim that any monarch of the United Kingdom was monarch of Australia after 1931. --G2bambino (talk) 17:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course they were.--Gazzster (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The High Court of Australia states otherwise. --G2bambino (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
That's just your POV I'm afraid, G2. Since George V, Edward VIII, George VI, and Elizabeth II were indeed monarchs of the UK and Australia after 1931, your statement cannot really be said to be correct. TharkunColl (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This is going to be a long discussion by the looks of it (yet again)! I just thought the Aussies deserved a list of their monarchs if the Canadians have their own one. Besides they arent identical. Aus became independent in 1901.... --Camaeron (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Kudos for the thought, mate. But I can't see any particular significance in having it. And G2, of course the monarch of the UK is the monarch of Australia. They're the same person! --Gazzster (talk) 18:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Same person, different roles. Just like Christain V. --G2bambino (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
How many of these List of 'Commonwealth realm' monarchs articles do we have? Just curious. GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
They're breeding.--Gazzster (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You lot may be interested in the discussion going on here Talk:Most Gracious Majesty. I do hate it when people who usually dont have anything to do with royalty related articles come barging in and try to merge/delete the articles on which i have worked long and hard... Perhaps some of you could add some more to the article in order to make it bigger. At the mo it really is very small but I still think it merits its own article and could be expanded in future! --Camaeron (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

But isn't that kinda the point, mate? How could it be bigger? A list is a list. There's Monarchy in Australia and you don't want to risk overlapping that.I don't mean to insult- not at all mate- but Commonwealth realm articles just overlap so much. Unecessary duplication. Verbal viagra.--Gazzster (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
It is, of course, your prerogative to complain about repetition - as well as about perceived agendas - but it's something quite different to come up with a viable alternative. You would, I imagine, argue that directing everything to some UK related article is the right answer, but this would run contrary to the sovereignty of the realms and wouldn't illustrate who the first, or last, monarch of a given realm was; this may well be why the articles on other countries that were/are in personal union don't do what you suggest. --G2bambino (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
At the risk of flogging this dead horse to the point where it must now be unrecognisable - yes, we could do that. There is no danger of misrepresenting the sovereignty of the realms in doing so: every CR article clearly states the sovereignty of the realms, often more than once and frequently to the point of inducing boredom. In context there would be no problem.--Gazzster (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
And therefore to do what you propose, Wikipedia would then contradict itself. --G2bambino (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Explain, do.--Gazzster (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
As you've noted, the sovereignty of the realms is well represented in Wikipedia articles. It would thus be contradictory to state Australia is under the monarch of the United Kingdom. --G2bambino (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
It wouldn't say that, obviously. It'd say something like, for info on sovereigns of Australia, look up Monarchs of the UK. The article will have already stated the constitutionakl distinctions. I dont see the problem.--Gazzster (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, well, first off, I was talking about your more general objection to a number of Commonwealth realm related articles. As for this one list, I don't believe it's purpose is to give information on the monarchs themselves; rather, it's to list who has been monarch of Australia. To link to the list of British monarchs would a) imply Australia has always been under the monarchs of the UK, therefore not sovereign, and therefore contradicting other information given; and b) wouldn't give anyone information on who was monarch of Australia. I doubt you'd argue that the list of British monarchs should end at 1901 and then say "for information on further monarchs of the United Kingdom see List of Australian monarchs"; so why would anyone do so here? --G2bambino (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone anal enough to seek a list of Australian monarchs might find Australian monarchy and realise- gee! The monarchs of Australia and the UK are the same! So there is no point in this list Let's call it a day. I genuinely have enjoyed sparring with you.--Gazzster (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The list of British monarchs doesn't say who was the first monarch of Australia. Linking there also implies Australia is not independent. As I said, these are probably some of the reasons why no other lists of monarchs for countries that were/are in personal union doing what you propose. --G2bambino (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Let's have AfDs on these articles & get it over with. GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Equally anyone slightly less anal enough to seek out the first monarch of Australia might discover at Australian monarchy that it is Victoria Regina et Imperatrix. G2, there is a list- the same list - at Monarchy in Australia. Why duplicate it? An Afd will acheive nothing, as both G2 and I know. --Gazzster (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Mmm... there is. What is your contention, then? That there's a list at both Monarchy of Australia and one here? If so, delete the one at Monarchy of Australia. --G2bambino (talk) 20:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Why not here? Actually, I'd delete both. But I'm not going to.--Gazzster (talk) 20:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Monarchy of Australia is already long enough; this one goes into more detail with consorts, etc. Without either, one has to piece information together from articles and lists, rather than seeing it all-together in one. --G2bambino (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
What crap. You're just keeping your car in the race. But that's cool. Again, let's call it a day. Its been good! Cheers--Gazzster (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Classic response of someone who's losing an argument. Yes, it has indeed been good. --G2bambino (talk) 20:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Gentlemen, please don't? GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I called intermission because it was the end of my night shift and I was exhausted. 'Monarchy of Australia is already long enough'. I wonder if you'd make the same observation about Monarchy in Canada? It is roughly the same length, if not longer, and follows the same format. But you're suggesting that the solution to a long article is to create yet another one which duplicates material from any number of other articles.'Without either, one has to piece information together from articles and lists'. One has to do no such thing. This art. duplicates the list in MiA. Every sovereign of Aus is linked. So if some lost soul wishes to research one further, all they have to do is follow the link! No, I have still heard no compelling reason for this article.--Gazzster (talk) 03:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Monarchy of Canada is rather too long; I've numerous times tried to break some of the info out into dedicated articles, as per WP policy, only to be forced to move it back in again. As for lists here or at Monarchy of Australia, well, I guess that's up to editors here. You all know where I stand on that matter. --G2bambino (talk) 03:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. And of course, much as we do spar, I do respect your integrity. When you have a mo, share your ideas about shortening the monarcghy articles.--Gazzster (talk) 03:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
If we don't try it (AfD), we'll never know. Seeing as the topic is the article's existance (not the content), an Afd is the next step. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Well noone has declared their intentions. I havent said Ill delete it. I just think its unecessary.--Gazzster (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to Talk:Most Gracious Majesty actually. But if you'd care to take a look at the Monarchs of Canada list you'd see they have added info above the list...--Camaeron (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

As I see it, this has nothing to do with various constitutional subtleties, and is simply a question of how the information is best presented. Any information that could reasonably be included in this list already belongs at Monarchy of Australia and/or the list of British monarchs. Having yet another obscure article repeating the same information doesn't help anyone. This article should redirect to Monarchy of Australia. Referring readers there to the British list for further details doesn't imply that the Queen of the UK and the Queen of Australia are the same legal entity - it simply implies that the relevant information can be found there. If parts of this list were duplicated in several different lists it would be another matter, but in this case, the whole list is contained in the British one. Having a separate list does nothing but disrupt the presentation of information to make a point that is already well made. JPD (talk) 22:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Directing people to a list of monarchs of the United Kingdom does indeed imply Australia is under the rule of another country's monarch. Would you accept ending the British list at 1867 and then directing readers of all realm articles to a list of monarchs of Canada? It would achieve the same end.
I'll repeat again: there is a reason why no lists of country leaders converge when a personal union took place; each state has it's own continuing list, and the duplication is accepted. Perhaps we should ask the editors of those lists I pointed out earlier why they don't direct people to a list of one country's monarchs when a personal union took place. --G2bambino (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. That is what I have (albeit in my sometimes blunt way) been saying. What's this mania for creating as many monarchy articles as possible? Sometime should create Royal Corgis.--Gazzster (talk) 04:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Lol. Yes, but make sure there's a difference between the English and Scottish line of Corgis. --G2bambino (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The break in 1931

Presumably that was put in because the Statute of Westminster Act was signed on 11-Dec-1931. But the 1931 act specifically said it would not apply to Australia unless and until Parliament accepted it; and when Parliament did so in 1942, it backdated the acceptance to 3-Sep-1939 (the first day of WW2), not all the way to 1931. Until 1939 Australia remained a British colony, not an independent dominion. So the break should be in 1939. -- Zsero (talk) 04:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. Or in 1942 in real time. Or even in 1953 when Elizabeth II was titled 'Queen of Australia' by Act of Parliament. In any case the two 'reigns' of George V are not explained. And there were not two reigns. There was one continuous one.--Gazzster (talk) 10:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Or how about 1986? Breaking up a reign like that is nonsense. TharkunColl (talk) 12:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, no. Until 1939, Australia was a British colony, and there was no such thing as "king of Australia". From 1939 Australia was an independent country that happened to share a monarch with the UK. The list should really start with George V, not Victoria. (Several decades ago I argued that he should be styled George V of the UK and I of Australia, like James I of England and VI of Scotland.) -- Zsero (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I deleted George Vs doppelgänger. Next time feel free to do it yourself. Also the windsor line was wonky, and no one even told me! --Camaeron (talk) 14:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changes today

  1. I've greatly simplified the tables, and I think everyone will agree it's better this way.
  2. I've also started the lists from Australia's official independence instead of from Federation, and that is likely to be controversial. If you decide to revert me, please revert only that change, and not the previous ones which should be completely uncontroversial.

-- Zsero (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that an act of parliament cannot alter the past. Therefore the true date is 1942. Of course, there will be those who say that legal fiction is even more true than reality. TharkunColl (talk) 00:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Sovereignty is a matter of law, not of fact. And laws can certainly have retroactive effect.
The only restriction on retroactive laws is that they can't create ex post facto crimes. That was established when Henry VII made his reign effective from the day before the Battle of Bosworth Field, and then attempted to have those who fought for Richard tried for treason. Parliament wouldn't have that, and established the constitutional principle that it cannot be treason to serve the then-reigning prince, regardless of any future fiddling with dates.
So the only way in which the 1942 backdating could be invalid would be if someone had been spying on Australia for Britain between 1939 and 1942, and had been charged with treason for doing so. Since relations between the UK and Australia were never that bad, this never happened and the point is moot.
-- Zsero (talk) 01:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I can see the logic of the change. It makes sense. But a list of two monarchs is hardly a list. Which begs the question again: how useful is this article? --Gazzster (talk) 05:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
As Gazzster says, this article is not particularly useful, but in any case speaking of the "official independence" of Australia is nonsense. Australia's indepedence was not achieved on a single date. Is someone now going to push for the list to begin with the Australia Acts? JPD (talk) 07:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
True. There are any number of dates which could be considered significant: 1901, 1939, 1942, 1953, 1986. Which makes a 'List of Australian' monarchs an editorial nightmare.--Gazzster (talk) 07:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Well actually it was achieved on a single date. In practise Australia had been acting as if it were independent long before WW2, but as a matter of law it wasn't, and that became an issue when the Australian and UK gov'ts collided and the UK tried to pull rank. Which is why the previous objections to independence were finally swept aside, and the act was backdated to the beginning of the War. Before 3-Sep-1939 the Commonwealth was a British colony playing at independence by the good graces of the UK. At any moment the UK could annul any Australian law, replace the Governor General, or order the government to do anything it liked. When the UK went to war, Australia was automatically at war, without any need for an Australian declaration. The Governor General was appointed on the advice of the Home Office, not of the Australian government (though on the Isaacs appointment the Home Office bowed to Ozzie pressure and agreed to the choice, it didn't have to). As of 3-Sep-1939 none of that was true. The Australia Acts made the states independent, and cleaned up a few minor anomalies, but they didn't make the Commonwealth any more independent than it was before. -- Zsero (talk) 07:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The Commonwealth was independent from 1942 (backdated to 1939). I think it was because Australia realised it could no longer rely on the British Fleet, so it drew closer to the USA. The states were technically under UK sovereignty until 1986. The right of dominion governments to recommend an appointment to the Sovereign was recognised in 1926. So when one talks about an independent Australia one cannot pinpoint an exact date.What is true is that now it is a completely sovereign state.But to relare this to the article, several monarchs could be nominated as first monarch: Victoria (1901); George V (1907- dominion status or 1926 - Balfour Declaration) George VI (1939 or 1942); Elizabeth II (1953 or 1986).--Gazzster (talk) 08:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I think for 1907 dominion status? you'd have Edward VII. GoodDay (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
You're right, of course.--Gazzster (talk) 14:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
It was more a matter of how Australian forces were to be disposed, and who had ultimate authority over that. In particular it was about the I Corps, which Churchill wanted sent to Burma, while Curtin insisted on bringing it back to defend Australia. Essentially Churchill said "you're still a British colony and you have to do what I say", and Curtin replied "not any more we're not, so there". As a matter of law Churchill had been correct, which is why the adoption was back-dated.
As for appointing GGs, yes, since 1926 dominion governments were given the right to recommend appointments, and the Home Office would choose to accept those recommendations, but it was by the UK's grace, not by law. The official Advice to the King still came from his UK Ministers, not from the dominion ones. The SoW made it law; in matters relating to Australia, including the appointment of GGs, the Queen acts on the advice of her Australian ministers, not her UK ones. That's why in 1975, when Whitlam realised that Kerr was about to sack him, he reached for the phone to call the Queen. If he could Advise her to sack Kerr before Kerr had a chance to sack him, she would have to do so. Once Kerr had sacked him, she no longer had to act on his Advice. Before 1939, none of that would have mattered; to get Kerr sacked, Whitlam would have had to prevail upon the Home Office, which might or might not have agreed with him, and it would have had to advise the Queen what to do. -- Zsero (talk) 08:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's that simple. But rather than go off on tangents, I'll return to the pertinent point: it is hard, if not impossible, to pinpoint who was the first Sovereign of Australia as opposed to an Imperial overlord.--Gazzster (talk) 09:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Further difficulty

So now we are reduced to a 'list' of two. I suggest it can be debated whether we have six, (from 1901), five (from 1907), two (from 1939/1942) or one (from 1953/1986). But even if we were to agree on the two, the significance of Westminster needs to be explained. That risks going into a small essay. For what the article purports to do its not worth it. Monarchy in Australia is an adequate treatment.--Gazzster (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

That's what wikilinks are for. The Statute of Westminster Adoption Act, 1942 is mentioned, and it's wikilinked. Anyone who doesn't know what it did or why it's significant here can go there. We don't need to repeat that article here. -- Zsero (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoever has changed it ought to take it up with the people at Australian_monarchy#monarchs of australia before changing anything here. Recently I held a talk about the monarchs of australia at college and I stated that there had been 6 of them. None of the Dr.s or history teachers ever said anything to the contrary so I am fairly confident there was no mistake! --Camaeron (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

With respect, 6 doctors saying nothing is not proof. We can talk about it here since it directly concerns the article. And in any case I made a post at MoA directing interested parties here.--Gazzster (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No, you're right I just though I'd mention it. Thanks for redirecting people here, I appreciate it. But I still maintain there have been 6 monarchs of Australia! --Camaeron (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You may be right. In Australia certainly we do not make distinctions between the monarch of the UK and the monarch of Australia. In fact HM is rarely referred to as Queen of Australia (of course I know in law she is). It is more common to hear her being referred to as the Queen of England. But we have made it an issue here, and somehow we must solve the difficulty and justify the solution to the satisfaction of the editors. If we want to be really technical, there has only been one called Queen of Australia: the one who currently reigns.--Gazzster (talk) 18:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
IMHO, we should have 'six'. GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
What does IMHO mean, by the way?--Gazzster (talk) 19:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
It's internet jargon for In My Humble Opinon. GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I'm enlightened.--Gazzster (talk) 19:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree it should be six! And btw there may only have been one Queen of Australia but there have been various queens of Australia! --Camaeron (talk) 19:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC) Notice the subtle difference!


[edit] What shall we do?

We now have a 'list' of two monarchs, and, as I see it, two unresolved difficulties:

  • what's the reason for having a list? This has not been convincingly explained.
  • if we are going to keep it, how many monarchs shall we settle for? If we keep two, it's not really a 'list' at all, isn't it? It's like having a 'list' of Cold War superpowers or a 'list' of current Anglican Archbishops of England.--Gazzster (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The list should be kept; since Australia was & is a constitutional monarchy. Plus, it should start with Queen Victoria. GoodDay (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure it is, but it's a bit anal, isn't it? Vicky wasn't Queen of Australia. She was Queen over Aus but not of it.--Gazzster (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I just figured, if there's a List of Canadian monarchs article, there'd be similiar articles for Australia & the other Commonwealth ralms. I also assumed, since Australia came into being in 1901 (just before Victoria's death), we start with her. GoodDay (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

  • As mentioned before I held a talk entitled "Monarchs of Australia" and after doing my research concluded that Victoria was indeed the first monarch of Australia. Note also the difference between "queen of Australia" and "Queen of Australia". So yet again I agree with GD! --Camaeron (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
So you're in favour of reverting the edit?--Gazzster (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well to put it plainly, yes! --Camaeron (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I prefer 'reverting' aswell. The list should start with Queen Victoria. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
If the objection is the short length of the list, why not go all the way back to 1788 and George III? After all, Arthur Phillip governed the first settlement at Sydney Cove in his name, and certainly the entire continent was seen as under British sovereignty since then. -- Zsero (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

But Australia as a state didnt exist until 1901. Victoria is also generally considered the first monarch of A, whilst I agree that rule does actually date back to George III. --Camaeron (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Whatever criteria we use to make a list will be quite arbitrary. We have, after all, a number of choices:
  • Monarchs from 1788, as Zsero says
  • Monarchs from 1901
  • Monarchs from 1942 (Statute of Westminster)
  • Monarch from 1953 (when E2 was proclaimed Queen of Australia)
  • Monarch from 1986 (Australia Act, when the states became legally independent)--Gazzster (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Support 1901. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Australia as an independent country didn't exist until 1939. From 1788 to 1900 it was a collection of several British colonies, and from 1901 to 1930 it was a British colony that was a federation of six more British colonies. From 1939 Australia was an independent country, though made up of a federation of six British colonies; each state on its own was not independent, but the Commonwealth was, and foreign affairs — including relations with the UK — were reserved for the Commonwealth. -- Zsero (talk) 21:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I just go by the Australian Prime Ministers. The recognized first Aussie PM Edmund Barton assumed office in 1901. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't prove anything. Before 1901 there was no such thing in Australia as a Prime Minister or a Parliament; but there were kings and queens. -- Zsero (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You are entitled to your view but it's popular consensus that counts in the end. --Camaeron (talk) 21:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to note: sources for Canada start the list of monarchs at Confederation in 1867. If we follow that logic, 1901 is the year to start here. --G2bambino (talk) 23:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
With the greatest unfeigned respect to that great nation, there is no reason we should use List of Canadian monarchs as a template. Australia is an odd nation constitutionally.As already pointed out, it consists of seven jurisdictions. The first, the Commonwealth, was indeed legally independent from 1942 (1939 is one wishes to count the legal fiction of retroactivity). The other six, the states, were not independent until 1986.As the states are Australia one could say the whole continent was not free of the Imperial bond until 1986.--Gazzster (talk) 03:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think, Gazzster, that I said anything other than what some Canadian sources do, and that it might be something to take into consideration here. Yes, the constitutional evolutions of the two countries are not identical, but there are similarities; their formations as federations, for example. I don't think subordination to Westminster is of importance; Canada still had legal ties to the parliament in London until 1986, but the history books and gov't sources still say Victoria was the first monarch of the country. --G2bambino (talk) 03:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have forgotten the other possibly - make this a redirect, because all the information is could/should contain should be covered elsewhere already. JPD (talk) 04:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Redirect to what? --G2bambino (talk) 04:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
To Monarchy of Australia, where there is already a list. I think that's a good solution.--Gazzster (talk) 05:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Or delete the list there. --G2bambino (talk) 05:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
That too is an option.--Gazzster (talk) 07:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
It depends what we think this list should be. If it is simply a list of monarchs (and spouses), as at present, then there is no point having them listed separately from List of British monarchs, and it should redirect there. If you would expect the list to include details of their relationship with Australia, then what we are really after is the Monarchy of Australia article. Whether that article needs a list is a separate issue. There really should be nothing wrong with pointing to the British list, from either here or there - it doesn't say anything about the nature of the crown, just that all the information can be found there. JPD (talk) 10:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
there is no point having them listed separately from List of British monarchs That might be true if a) the list of British monarchs stated 1) that it was a list of both British and Australian monarchs, and 2) stated which monarch was the first monarch of Australia at federation and which was first of an independent Australia; and b) other lists of country leaders did the same thing when there was a personal union, which they don't. --G2bambino (talk) 13:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that "personal union" is the correct term anyway? The only thing I've seen is some Canadian court ruling that describes the situation as similar to that between England and Scotland in the 17th century - similar does not mean identical. And in any case the pronouncement of a Canadian court has no legal standing in any of the other realms. TharkunColl (talk) 13:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Although (as the creator of this page) I am biased: I think this page should def. be kept. This page is an where things are mentioned about the monarch in his/her capacity as the monarch of Australia. Things that may not be deemed important enough to be included on a page about the monarchs of the UK. The monarchs of canada have their own list, how unfair would it be to remove this one? --Camaeron (talk) 13:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if that will convince the detractors here; they may simply argue that the Canadian list should redirect to the UK's as well. I still hold that consistency in format is the strongest reason to keep this list; every other state has an article on Wikipedia that lists its leaders, none appear to redirect to another state's list, ever. Why, then, would Australia (and Canada) be the odd ones out, and redirect to the list of the leaders of a foreign country? Like I asked earlier: would those pushing for such a thing agree to the list of British monarchs ending in 1867 and then directing readers to the list of Canadian monarchs? After all, the latter has the same information as the former, and, if readers want to understand if the UK is independent from Canada they can simply read Monarchy of the United Kingdom. --G2bambino (talk) 13:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

People could argue that most states dont have a foreign head of state and thus this is the only place where this is the case...--Camaeron (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No sovereign state has a foreign head of state. But, if you mean that some would point out that most states aren't in a personal union, which makes this a special case, they'd have to remember that this "special case" is repeated fifteen times over in the Commonwealth alone, that Andorra and France are presently also in personal union and those countries do not merge lists, and that no country that was in personal union in the past redirects their list anywhere for the span of that period. --G2bambino (talk) 14:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

A very good argument, I totally agree (again!)...--Camaeron (talk) 14:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

As I requested above, G2, please provide evidence that the Commonwealth realms are in personal union. TharkunColl (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I respectfully decline your request, Thark. We have already been well around that topic. No sense in repeating ourselves. --G2bambino (talk) 14:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
If G2 cannot or will not provide citations for the idea that the Commonwealth realms are in personal union, then all such assertions need to be removed from all articles. TharkunColl (talk) 14:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Good thing it's already been done then, eh? --G2bambino (talk) 14:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
It's still in this one - personal union. TharkunColl (talk) 14:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it wasn't. But I've fixed that. --G2bambino (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a question to the Aussie editors here: is there an Australian equivalent to the Department of Canadian Heritage? I ask as the DCH is a source of some information related to the monarchy, and wonder if a similar Australian ministry or department would be as well. --G2bambino (talk) 14:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

If the Department of Canadian Heritage is responsible for promoting and safeguarding culture and history: no, there isn't an equivalent. Australia is a sort of crowned republic. The Queen does not play a large cultural role. Her significance is almost entirely symbolic. But if I might return to a point Camaeron made- with respect to him, this article gives no new information about the Monarchy of Australia. It simply replicates a list found in Monarchy of Australia and Monarchy of the United Kingdom and Monarchy of Canada. And now that precedent has been established, the same article will be repeated for 14 other realms as well. This is not about politics: we need not insult the intelligence of readers or open ourselves to ridicule by dividing the monarch like this. True, there are 16 distinct sovereignties. But it is a shared monarchy. Come on now! If we carry on like this we will give the impression that the poor old girl is schizophrenic!--Gazzster (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I thought that there surely must be a gov't department in Australia charged with promoting, archiving, documenting, etc., Australian culture and history. Oh well.
As for schizophrenia: I don't think it's a matter of splitting EIIR up, but a matter of sovereignty. As I keep saying, there's a reason why the no other state's articles direct readers to another state's list of leaders. Each country gets it's own list, regardless of repetition. Why is this case different? --G2bambino (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
This case is different because Australia and 15 other countries are unique among the nations in that they share, have always shared, and (until they become republics) will always share the same monarch. The shared monarchy can be treated as a single concept. Wikipedia, at least, acknowledges this: the article Commonwealth realm. Note that no such concept exists for the union between Great Britain and Hanover, Austria and Hungary, France and Andorra, or any personal union. --Gazzster (talk) 02:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
They aren't really unique, though, Gazz. Many other states have been in a personal union, and I've looked to what's been done with their lists of leaders to form the basis of what I think should be done here. If we want a single list called Monarchs of the Commonwealth realms, then okay. But, it would be rather confusing as there have been, what? Some thirty realms overall? Plus, there's no distinctive date on which the Dominions became realms. And, some countries, such as Canada, start their lists before the Dominion-to-realm period. So, I think given a) the practice for all other states on WP, including those currently or previously in personal union, and b) the existence of actual differences between the Commonwealth realms themselves, that we should simply stick with this list as it is, and delete the one at Monarchy of Australia. --G2bambino (talk) 15:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
In agreement. Remove the list from the 'Monarchy of Austrlia' article. GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • 'it would be rather confusing as there have been, what? Some thirty realms overall'. But you advocate, in principle, 15 identical lists standing as articles. Further, you open yourself to the possibility of thirty lists. For if we have lists of present monarchs, we have lists for past monarchies as well: List of monarchs of South Africa, etc. You don't think that is 'confusing'?
  • 'there's no distinctive date on which the Dominions became realms'. How then, can we make a list of monarchs? But as it happens, we know E2 was the first sovereign styled Queen of Australia,etc (let's not get into the Canada thing). Which would make a 'list' of exactly one.
  • Let us not forget other smaller realms: Antigua and Barbuda,St Kitts and Nevis, etc. If every Commonwealth realm deserves a list then they do too.Again, they would be lists of one, unless you wanted to go back to colonial times. But why, if the idea is making a list of heads of state? Colonies do not have heads of state because they are not nations. Similarly, rulers of Australia before 1942 (or whatever date!) were not heads of state of Australia.

So you see it is not less confusing at all to keep this 'list' and delete the one at MoA.--Gazzster (talk) 21:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Jumpin' Junipers. Every time I'm certain of this topic? bam, somebody comes up with something, to shake my certainty. GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

G2 has repeatedly commented that there are other similar cases, completely ignoring the relevant point, which Gazzster has spelt out several times. The question isn't whether the situation is in some sense similar to England/Scotland, Norway/Sweden, etc., which have lists which partially duplicate each other. The point is that this situation is different in that this list is completely contained in the British list. The sensible way to communicate such information is in a single list. As it is, this separate list conveys hardly any extra information (comparing it with Andorra is utterly ridiculous!). In the unlikely event that Aus (or Can) adopted a different monarchy, it would make sense to list monarchs starting with V or EII along with the new ones. A similar, although less compelling, argument could even be made for presidents of a republic, but not about the current situation. We're not talking about cutting short any lists and pointing to somewhere else for some span!

Yes, if there were a redirect, then the British list should mention the other realms, and if there are any relevant dates which can be simply described, they could be included - what would be wrong with that? Of course, as G2 points out, the dates are actually not that simple, and to deal with them properly requires more than can be put in a list, whether it is the British one or this one. (Yet another problem with the G2's facetious suggestion, but that's another matter.) It's fine for a country to have a list of monarchs which describes how the monarchy related to other monarchies with personal unions and so on, but in this case, all that we can do is describe the history of the relationship between Australia and the monarch of the UK. This needs to be done in Monarchy of Australia anyway, so we don't lose anything by not having this list. We need to stop thinking "a country must have so-and-so article" and start thinking about how to convey information effectively. JPD (talk)

Yes, 15 lists, 30 lists, 86 lists. There are 193 countries recognized by the United Nations, some more that are not, and every one of them has an article on Wikipedia that lists their leaders, whether monarch, prince or president. Who to include? As per all Wikipedia editing, base it on sources. If the country is new, the list is short. If it repeats another list, well, that seems an acceptable practice; one country, one list.
I'm not unwaveringly against a single list. But, a) reasoning would have to be given as to why these countries in personal union are different to other countries in personal union - it was mentioned that this list is contained fully within the British list. Well, so is the Andorran list contained fully within the French list, and vice-versa; but, there's still two lists. And b) simply redirecting to the British list and being done with it is not acceptable, so a viable plan for how to sort out the complexities of trying to accomodate thirty-odd countries in one list would have to be presented.
I wonder, though, if some people here are focusing too much on the "monarch" aspect, as opposed to the "head of state" characteristic; perhaps seeing this as a nationalist issue wherein the monarchs are just "British" anyway, as opposed to the heads of state of a sovereign country. It makes me wonder if retitling the article as "List of Australian leaders" or "List of Australian heads of state" would quell much of the opposition. Or, am I being too facetious for you all? --G2bambino (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The Andorran list is contained fully within the French list? Not at all! (not even true of the half of the list that is now in personal union.) I don't see why you think the monarch/head of state issue is relevant - noone had said anything to suggest that it is. I even said that it would be reasonable to have a list including both monarchs and presidents in the event of consitutional change (although France, for example, does not do this). Of course, "List of Australian heads of state" would not be a good idea, considering the "GG is head of state" line supported by the Monarchist League and others, but that is a completely separate issue.
The real nationalist argument is the one that says "we are a sovereign country, so we need our own list of leaders". On the whole, relatively few countries have a list separate from the article on the office of head of state, but even if your claim were true, it is not a good argument. A Wikipedia list of leaders shouldn't be used to as a badge of sovereignty, but as nothing more than a means of conveying information. Yes, Canada, Australia, etc. are all (now) sovereign countries, and this should be made clear whenever it is being discussed, but that doesn't mean a separate list of monarchs is necessary or helpful. JPD (talk) 23:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay then, half of the Andorran list is duplicated in the French list. By the arguments of some here that would make half the Andorran list, or the full French list, superfluous, and one should redirect to the other (or half of one and all of another). And you're right about calling this a list of Australian heads of state; that isn't even the common title for these types of lists here at Wikipedia; it's either "list of monarchs," "list of presidents," or "list of leaders," depending on if there'd been a constitutional shift at some point.
The argument isn't that a sovereign country deserves a list in a dedicated list article. It's only that it is the established pattern at Wikipedia for a sovereign state to have a list of its own, wherever that might be besides embedded in another country's list. Keep Australia's list in this separate page, or keep it in Monarchy of Australia, whatever. Try to somehow explain how all the countries' lists could possibly be combined into one. But redirecting to List of British monarchs just isn't on for at least a couple of reasons. --G2bambino (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
No, not even that is true - as I said, even the French half of the Andorran list is not completely contained in the French one, but even if you were right, noone is arguing the way you are suggesting. There is some value to showing the French and Spanish co-princes in a single list as well as separately, but there isn't any value in providing the same list of people separately for each Commonwealth realm, unless we are going into a lot more detail than any of the lists does at the moment. Redirect to Monarchy of Australia for now. If the list there is removed then there is something more to talk about, but it shouldn't be such a big deal. "The established patter" is actually rather flexible. JPD (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry; yes, of course, the French list only repeats half of the Andorran one from 1572 onward. Obviously nearly four and a half centuries of repetition is acceptable, but just over one is not. And, let's face it, this discussion always has been about repetition, touching on that which exists between this list, the one still at "Monarchy of Australia," the Canadian list, and the British list. One side is saying the repetition is unnecessary, the other is saying the repetition has established precedent. The former still has not given valid reason why Australia's list should be the only country's to redirect to another state's list, nor have they presented any workable suggestions for a single list that will cover more than one country at once. Supposed flexibility is all well and good, but, let's see the goods before making any decisions. --G2bambino (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you deliberately missing the point? Stop beating straw men. If the repetition actually gives more context, it can be helpful. This is true if the more context is simply the fact that the lists are different at some times (ignoring for a second the fact that there isn't a single French list on Wikipedia) but not at others, and, as I said, even more so if anotehr co-prince is also included. Repetition without such extra content is nothing like that situation. I don't know that there are two "sides" to this, but what I have said is that there is no need for or point to this article. Noone has said that Australia should be the only country redirecting to another list. I'm not sure anyone who doesn't want this list has even expressed a definite opinion about whether this title should redirect to Monarchy of Australia or List of British monarchs - I would prefer the former, but either is "workable", and both are better than keeping this, even right now. The only precedent for this repetition is Canada - all other examples are extremely different. If the list is to stay, I would suggest that the current Canadian list is the correct model to follow, but both of them are really pointless and unhelpful, not just repeating information, but repeating the sort of information that attracts POV warriors, creating more edit wars. It is very hard to see the point of their existence, other than as a "badge of sovereignty". I'm saying that as someone who usually pushes quite strongly for articles on the Queen, etc. to recognise all the Commonwealth realms. JPD (talk) 06:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, allow me to say that it's easy to miss a non-existent point. I might also suggest that you cease running around straw men. I have never commented on whether or not the repetition is helpful; I have merely stated that it exists beyond the scope of the Commonwealth realms' lists, that there is thus an already set precedent to follow, and that there must be a reason for the existence of that precedent. You also (purposefully?) gloss over the fact that I clearly said having the list here or having the list at "Monarchy of Australia" were both acceptable proposals to me (though I prefer the former, as MoA is getting long as it is). I also said a single list for all CRs could be acceptable if those proposing such a thing would first put forward their suggestions for how that might be built. That said, frankly, I have no idea where you stand other than in opposition to Australia's list being here. Perhaps to siphon out the more valuable information at this point we should all just simply state what we think should be done, without added opinionating or commentary. --G2bambino (talk) 15:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou for finally acknowledging that you haven't understood where I stand. The issue is firstly nothing more than what to do with this list. You have repeated stated that repetition exists beyond the scope of Commonwealth realms, but this is where you have missed the fact that the point is not about repetition in general, but about the fact that no new information is conveyed. None of the examples you have given are even vaguely similar. JPD (talk) 01:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course they are. I'm sorry you don't see that. --G2bambino (talk) 01:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
In some ways, yes, but not at all in terms of the problem that I have with this list. Each of them serves a purpose that isn't served by this list. JPD (talk) 02:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
But they don't. For instance, a good portion of the list of Norwegian monarchs could be taken out as the information contained therein doesn't serve a purpose that isn't already served by either the Swedish list or the Danish list, and vice versa. That applies to all lists for countries that are or were in personal union. The examples are exactly the same as what is taking place here. --G2bambino (talk) 02:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Please read the above discussion again. In case you still don't get it, let me say again that there is value in having the shared Norwegian monarchs listed after their Norwegian predecessors (and before their successors) as well as in lists describing a different line of succession. This is not the case for Australia. The argument that Australia is sovereign and that the Queen of Aus is separate from the Queen of the UK may or may not be a reason for this list, but it is not the same as the reason for the "repetition" in the Norwegian list. You seem to think I/we have been talking about repetition, but you are the only person who has mentioned it. Describing the objections to the list as applying to any list with a section duplicated elsewhere is nothing but a straw man. JPD (talk) 09:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A complex problem

G2, the problem of a list is more complex than you seem to suppose:

  • Andorra is a bad comparison. Andorra has two heads of state. France has one. So a redirect from Andorra to France is obviously a nonsense.
  • Even if we change the title to 'List of Australian heads of state' we have to determuine when (if ever- see MoA and discussions) the monarch was Australia's head of state. As I've pointed out, colonies do not have heads of state.

And I'll repeat the difficulties for other articles:

'it would be rather confusing as there have been, what? Some thirty realms overall'. But you advocate, in principle, 15 identical lists standing as articles. Further, you open yourself to the possibility of thirty lists. For if we have lists of present monarchs, we have lists for past monarchies as well: List of monarchs of South Africa, etc. You don't think that is 'confusing'?

  • 'there's no distinctive date on which the Dominions became realms'. How then, can we make a list of monarchs? But as it happens, we know E2 was the first sovereign styled Queen of Australia,etc (let's not get into the Canada thing). Which would make a 'list' of exactly one.
  • Let us not forget other smaller realms: Antigua and Barbuda,St Kitts and Nevis, etc. If every Commonwealth realm deserves a list then they do too.Again, they would be lists of one, unless you wanted to go back to colonial times ('if the country is new, the list is short' - yes, very short). But why, if the idea is making a list of heads of state? Colonies do not have heads of state because they are not nations. Similarly, rulers of Australia before 1942 (or whatever date!) were not heads of state of Australia.--Gazzster (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Overcategorisation

I'd suggest this article is a candidate for deletion on the grounds of overcategorisation. It, and the other lists, splices and nuances the common monarchy to the point of pedantry.--Gazzster (talk) 20:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You've the right to nominate it (for deletion). GoodDay (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Still waiting for a proposed single list, however... --G2bambino (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
There is currently no point to this list, whether there is a "single list" or not. I would support a deletion nomination. JPD (talk) 06:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see the problem here: If you want to nominate the list for deletion, then you may...you have every right to. But as G2 has previously pointed out: Sovereign states have their own lists of leaders. Australians may take offence when being redirected to a "foreign" ie British monarchy. There are thousands of Brits on wikipedia who won't take kindly to removing (or changing) the list of British monarchs page. The proposal of making one list called "Commonwealth....something or other" will never suceed. Also, it would be wrong to "create" a term that doesn't exist outside of Wikipedia. --Camaeron (talk) 13:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

We'll just have to face the current facts. We (the 16 commonwealth realms) are all connected to Elizabeth II, she's our 'Head of State'. As much as I personally find that gauling? nevertheless it's fact, she's legally equally Monarch of all these realms. GoodDay (talk) 14:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
No-one's disputing that. To Camaeron: 'Sovereign states have their own lists of leaders'. Yes, but Australia has not been sovereign for more 66 years (possibly 22). I've made this point for Australia and other CRs before and it is telling that it is being ignored.I doubt Australians would take offence to a redirect: in general we do not own the monarchy as ours anyway. Who is suggesting removing or changing List of BM? And what new term would be created? To G2, we do not need a single list. You're the only one suggesting that. JPD and myself point out that existing lists in MoA and MoUK answer to the purpose. At one time you suggested deleting the list here or in MoA. I am suggesting the list here be deleted.--Gazzster (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Gazzster, do you actually forget your own arguments for a single list? "...why should not a single list, List of monarchs of the United Kingdom, suffice?" "Simply link to List of monarchs of the United Kingdom." Etc. Though you also said earlier you wanted to delete both the list here and the one at Monarchy of Australia, if you now think the one a MoA is okay, well, fine. Keep the list there. I think I made it clear enough I haven't a real issue with that, though it's my second choice. --G2bambino (talk) 23:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I suppose that could be done. We could also delete List of Canadian monarchs & redirect it to Monarchy of Canada (with the list within that article). It's possible. GoodDay (talk) 22:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
No, that isn't possible because there is no list in Monarchy of Canada, and there isn't going to be one put in there because the article is already over 90kb long. --G2bambino (talk) 23:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I see. GoodDay (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

G2, what I meant was List of monarchs of the UK suffices by itself. The monarchy articles make it quite clear that the realms share the same monarch. You said that you hadn't seen a single list, which suggested to me that you were proposing a List of Commonwealth realm monarchs or some such thing. I videntally misunderstood you (Please noone take up that suggestion - we have 2 many lists already). Ideally, all Cr lists should be deleted, except LoMoUK.They are all copies of each other, and List of monarchs of Grenada, for example, is gonna look pretty pathetic, eh?--Gazzster (talk) 00:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"Patheticness" is subjective. We just need to stick to the facts.
I didn't suggest a single list; I think you know I support the exitence of a list for each country, as it is for all other countries on Wikipedia. What I said was I'm open to the possibility of a single list, as others had suggested, for all Commonwealth realms, but that single list would not be called List of British monarchs. --G2bambino (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, let's not use the word pathetic. How about ridiculous instead? For if the aim is to produce a list of monarchs for each sovereign realm, the following would have a list of precisely one:
  • Antigua and Barbuda
  • Belize
  • Saint Lucia
  • Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
  • The Solomon Islands
  • Tuvalu
  • Papua New Guinea
  • Jamaica
  • Saint Kitts and Nevis
  • Grenada
  • Barbados
  • The Bahamas.

In other words,12 out of 15 realms became independent during the reign of E2. I have made this point before and it has been tiptoed around so much you could fill a moat in the treadmarks.

But even with the remaining: Australia, Canada and New Zealand, a similar problem exists. If we are treating the realms as sovereign nations then Canada should only contain a 'list' of the last four sovereigns. Australia and New Zealand should have two. Far simpler simply to redirect as I've suggested.--Gazzster (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Just like President of Angola (2), List of heads of state of Cape Verde (3), List of heads of state of Djibouti (2), List of heads of state of Eritrea (1), List of Presidents of Namibia (2), List of Presidents of Zimbabwe (2), President of East Timor (2), List of Presidents of Yemen (1), President of the Czech Republic (2), and President of Serbia (3). Though you probably think those are pathetic/ridiculous, the fact is those countries have had relatively few leaders but still warrant their own lists, whether on their own or in an article on the office of the head of state. Further, other lists I saw, but didn't put here, contained leaders from before the country's independence, so your assertions r.e. Canada don't stand either. --G2bambino (talk) 23:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

??? A list of one is not a list. A list of monarchs of Jamaica would look something like this:

That's your opinion, I guess. --G2bambino (talk) 00:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Howabout we keep the longer lists (like Canada, Australia, New Zealand) only? GoodDay (talk) 00:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think it's up to us alone to decide whether or not any country gets or does not get it's own list. Besides, on what grounds would the newer realms be denied a list when, as I've just pointed out above, other countries get a list of one. If we do decide that, say, Jamaica doesn't get a list of leaders, will Gazzster, I wonder, go off to List of heads of state of Eritrea and demand it's deletion until the country gets a second president? --G2bambino (talk) 00:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I reckon, we're all in a pickle. Will Mediation be required? GoodDay (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Mmm... no, I don't think so. It seems we're just to decide whether the Australian list goes here or in Monarchy of Australia. Of course, I'd like JPD to weigh in with his opinion below, but, if he decides to go Gazzster's way, we'll end up with a 50/50 split. If that happens, we'd have to get a fifth opinion, but that shouldn't be too hard to find... I hope. --G2bambino (talk) 00:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
As I keep on saying, a list of one is not a list. So yes, List of hos of Eritrea is a candidate for deletion. Besides, Wikipedia is not self-referencing. Where there has only been one head of state, the name of the hos can nicely go in the nation's article or Politics of Shangrila or Monarchy of Narnia or whatever. When there are many hos you make a list. It's common sense. A list is more than one.And it's debateable whether two constitutes a list as well.--Gazzster (talk) 01:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
By all means, then, nominate all those lists I pointed out for deletion. --G2bambino (talk) 01:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I will if I want to. But I'm concerned about this 'list'.--Gazzster (talk) 01:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
And now, with JPD's opinion below, we're at the dreaded 50/50 split. Off to Wikipedia:Third opinion (or, fifth opinion, in this case), then? --G2bambino (talk) 01:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Btw, isn't it night on the other side of the world lol?Shouldn't you guys be sleeping or shaggin your gfs or bfs?--Gazzster (talk) 01:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest that instead of following the "sovereign states have a list" line, we look at it in a different way? We aren't "making lists" for each sovereign state, we are acknowledging that the details of who has led a country (sovereign or otherwise, really) are information that shoudl be sensible presented in an encyclopedia (at the very least, an online encyclopedia). This will often be presented in a list format. It is sometimes best included as part of an article of the office, sometimes is more helpfully presented in a separate page and could possibly even be covered somewhere else. Think about the information, not about whether countries "have their own lists of leaders" on Wikipedia. In this case, the information is helpfully combined with context in the MoA article, but by itself is no more helpful than the same information contained in the British monarchs list. (It isn't my first preference, but redirecting to that title would be not be any worse than the current title of Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, so don't bother with the offended Australians arguments. JPD (talk) 02:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree we need to make this as simple as possible. Redirecting to MoA (or even having no redirect whatsoever) is straightforward, simple. It avoids adressing issues about HoS, independence, and 'what the other boys are doing'.--Gazzster (talk) 02:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Not necessarily. This also needs to be looked at in the context of Wikipedia itself, and when only fifteen states out of all others redirect to another country's list, that itself appears to say something about those fifteen countries makes them different to all the rest. You two, Gazz & JPD, seem to think the fifteen countries are somehow different, and setting them apart from all the others is thus justified. But, you haven't really given sound reasoning as to why they're different, especially in light of how countries in the exact same situation have been dealt with.
Redirecting to Monarchy of Australia, and having a list there, is fine. That method is also something else "the other boys are doing," and so it isn't out of the ordinary. It's just not my number one choice. --G2bambino (talk) 02:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
You seem not to have understood our last 2 posts. Read JPD again.--Gazzster (talk) 02:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, don't worry. I read both of them. --G2bambino (talk) 02:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Then please address the point we made (if you want to, of course). Your present answer addresses a different point (which neither of us have made). It is useful if we can keep on track if we're to make progress.--Gazzster (talk) 03:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I did. Numerous times now, actually, as we have come to the point where we're just cycling through the same arguments over and over again. --G2bambino (talk) 03:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I guess we'll wait until a few more hop into the fray. No doubt the usual suspects will surface.--Gazzster (talk) 04:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Unless in the meantime, G2 bothers to either understand that we are making different points from the ones he is addressing, or start addressing them rather than simply stating that they are non-existant. Firstly, that we should be considering the list as a whole, not whether the current constitutional relationship is similar to those in parts of some other lists. A monarchy which has always been in personal union with another is not "the exact same situation" as a monarchy which has sometimes been in personal union, by any stretch of the imagination. (We could describe the differences in other ways too, but that's the main one.) Secondly, and perhaps of more general importance, that any tendency to approach Wikipedia in terms of comparing with articles for other countries, rather than presenting information is not realistic, let alone helpful. It's not enough to simply say "but we must think this way". Redirecting to the British list may or may not be justified (I'm not sure anyone has said it is - I wouldn't do it that way), but all it would say is that all monarchs of Australia were monarchs of the UK. JPD (talk) 10:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Is the problem that I'm not saying what you want to hear in regards to your points? Everything you say is based first and foremost on the reasoning that the Commonwealth realms' situation is not the same as any other past or present personal union. Until the relevance of that reasoning is established, there's no use in proceeding beyond it. Now, of course there are differences, such as the point that no other personal union has involved so many countries. Of course the personal union has not yet split. But, so what? The countries are still sovereign states in personal union just like all the others are/were. You, of course, say the precedent set for those other personal unions need not be followed it in this situation, on the basis of some arbitrary and irrelevant differences, but you ignore the fact that setting these countries apart - by using another country's list for theirs, no less - will in itself say something; it will leave the uninitiated wondering why these coutries are treated differently, and why they're led by another country. Yes, there may be ways to avoid that misleading ambiguity, but they would necessitate some pretty hefty changes to List of British monarchs which I highly doubt many editors there would take very well. --G2bambino (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The hefty changes to List of British monarchs may or may not be a good idea (IMHO, some not so hefty changes are required in any case - all similar situations at least mention the times when a significant personal union existed), but they are not anyone's first suggestion, so perhaps you should stop focussing on them. The problem is not that your not saying what I want to hear, it's that your addressing a completely different issue. You keep repeating the fact that the current situation of personal union is similar to previous personal unions, which noone has disputed, while dismissing the differences I/we have raised as "arbitrary and irrelevant", without showing any signs of comprehension concerning what the differences are, let alone explaining why they are irrelevant.

The differences I am talking about are not to do with constitutional structures at any one time in history, they are about the lists as a whole. The point of a list like this is to provide information about the history of a line of succession, rather than reflect current constitutional status. For this reason, the differences between the lists as a whole are more relevant than the similarities between, say Aus/UK now and Denmark/Norway in 1400. Not only has the union not yet split, but unlike in any of your examples, the separate thrones did not exist before the union, either. In all the precedents, there are two clearly different, if overlapping, lines of succession to trace. In these cases, there aren't. The only reason to treat the different cases the same way is if we consider the lists about reflecting sovereignty rather than lines of succession, but most lists actually continue even when the people mentioned were not sovereign, but vassals of another. JPD (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's leave any changes to the British list aside for the moment - though I may agree with you on possible alterations to it. That said, I don't believe I am addressing a different issue at all; perhaps I'm just seeing your issue from a different point of view. That might be demonstrated in the apparent fact that we each deem each other's percieved list differences and similarities as "arbitrary and irrelevant." After all, I am, in fact, saying that differences are important - i.e. the message sent when something is treated differently from all the others. I've already stated I see where there are similarities between the sixteen realm lists, and said I'm open to the possibility of one list. But, I don't think it's prudent to treat this case as though it existed in a vaccum and pretend there would be no consequences to ignoring how every other list is handled, and, indeed, sovereignty is definitely something to consider. --G2bambino (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Who was the last English or British monarch who was not also monarch of somewhere else? Victoria, the first on the list of Canada and Australia, did not inherit Hanover, but her predecessors were kings, and before that electors, of that state. Before them Anne and her predecessors were monarchs of Scotland in addition to England. And also Ireland. In fact, English monarchs were kings, and before that lords, of Ireland since the time of King John. And John was the last English monarch who was also Duke of Normandy. It turns out that the most recent English or British monarch who was not also monarch of somewhere else was William II, Rufus (reigned 1087-1100). I've just had a look, and there are no separate pages for lists of Norman dukes, Irish monarchs, or Hanoverian monarchs. There are brief lists on Duke of Normandy and Kingdom of Hanover, as part of the larger article, though I can't find any Irish list at all - if one exists it is no doubt similar to the first two. Should we use this as a precedent, or should we set out to create lists for these historical cases, plus approximately 30 new lists for current and former Commonwealth realms? We could do the latter, as part of some sort of project, but at the moment the whole thing is all rather ad hoc and inconsistent. TharkunColl (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

True. I believe the common monarchy is a unique institution. I hear and respect what G2 is saying but I think his anxieties about a single list are unfounded. In context the sovereignty of the realms is perfectly clear. the CR caveat is stamped everywhere. And if we decide that in principle every CR should have its own list, then 12 out of 15 present ones will have a list of one. But as he has said he has no objection in principle to a single list (kudos to him), I think we can start discussing which list we want to use: I would suggest a redirect to Monarchy of Australia, where a list already exists, an ideal solution.--Gazzster (talk) 19:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, that suggestion has already been tabled, and according to the "votes" registered below is not the most popular. Of course, a vote doesn't make a consensus, but we at least know where the majority of us stand. --G2bambino (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Opinions can change. Which is why we discuss, rather than take votes.--Gazzster (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
How long do you propose to keep discussing? --G2bambino (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC
As Michelangelo answered Julius when he asked when the Sistine Chapel would be done: 'when it is finished!'--Gazzster (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh the 'agony' and the 'estacy' of it all. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi GD! Oh dear, you're old enough to remember that movie too? (lol)--Gazzster (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Yep. It's a classic. GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of monarchs of Jamaica

Elizabeth II


[edit] See Also

[edit] References

--Gazzster (talk) 00:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hardly my opinion, G2. A fact. How do you think the list would look?--Gazzster (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Preferences for action

Please state your preferred outcome for the matter of where, if anywhere at all, to have a list of Australian monarchs.

I'd prefer the 1st choice. GoodDay (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Please clarify GoodDay: what is your 1st choice? Perhaps state this in a bullet as I did. --G2bambino (talk) 23:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Some people here seem a little confused!


[edit] Section Break

  • (To G2:)'Everything you say is based first and foremost on the reasoning that the Commonwealth realms' situation is not the same as any other past or present personal union'. No. As it happens, I believe it is true, but our reasoning is based on the superfluity of replicating 15 lists. That is why I suggested you don't understand our arguments. As JPD has said, it is about presenting information.
  • 'The countries are still sovereign states in personal union' - Neither of us dispute that. However, if you are arguing separate lists on the grounds that they are sovereign, the number of monarchs in each list will vary. Most of realms, for example, will have only one monarch, E2. Hardly a list. Australia and NZ will have 2; Canada will have 4.Our proposal neatly avoids the 'how many monarchs in right' issue by redirecting to an unqualified list.
  • 'you ignore the fact that setting these countries apart - by using another country's list for theirs, no less - will in itself say something; it will leave the uninitiated wondering why these coutries are treated differently, and why they're led by another country.' I think you vastly underestimate the intelligence of our readers. There is plenty of context here already which would make such a conclusion unlikely. No modification of LoBM is necessary, since the CR caveat is scattered the breadth and length of Wiki already. On the contrary, I rather suspect the intelligent reader will wonder why there is not a simple, efficient redirect that does not unecessarily repeat information.--Gazzster (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I really dont see what your problem is!? If you are trying to convince g2 to personally come over to your way of thinking, then there isn't much chance of that and it would be advisable to continue doing so on his/her talk page. You are (still) perfectly within your rights to nominate this article for deletion. As you can see in the above vote. Consensus at the moment wants to keep this article...--Camaeron (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
We are discussing this article. This is the talk page for this article. This is the appropriate place to talk about it.--Gazzster (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Not if it is merely a private discussion. And the above vote is already deciding the fate of this page... --Camaeron (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Private discussion!? Does this look like a private discussion? Are you seriously suggesting I get off this page?! Didn't you want to be an admin?--Gazzster (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I merely refer to your addressing of a specific user at the start. I think my last comment may have come accross differently to how I actually meant it, pray continue. Though I fail to see how my comments in any way relate to my "administrator ship", enlighten me...--Camaeron (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I am more bothered by your interpretation of votes and consensus. Discussion is generally better than voting, and a decent admin would call 3-2 non consensus. JPD (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
It is not unusual for a post to address the author who made a particular point. That hardly makes a private discussion. Anyone is free to address my last post. Do so yourself if you feel so inclined.--Gazzster (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we need to take all these List of xxx moanrchs existance to Mediation. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously it is your prerogative but do you really think it necessary? --Camaeron (talk) 21:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

If it'll break the logjam & get the traffic going? It's worth the attempt. GoodDay (talk) 21:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
And what "log jam" would that be? --G2bambino (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
No idea. Glad you are here too though! --Camaeron (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Yikes, I'm getting mixed up with the discussion at Stephen Harper. Sorry gents, I'm in a 'bird flying backwards' frame of mind - Fear not, I'll straighten myself out. GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
No worries. There are similarities between this case and that one. --G2bambino (talk) 22:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[1] - says it all, really. JPD (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting.Freudian slip?--Gazzster (talk) 09:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Summary

I'm going to try and summarise our positions. Then we can correct, modify, and discuss these positions. Hopefully we can get some balanced perspective.

Each CR to have its own list of monarchs

Pros

  • The realms are sovereign, and as such, deserve might be expected to have would usually have their own lists of heads of state, either within an article on the office of head of state or as a stand-alone list, as per all other sovereign states.
  • We avoid confusing the distinction between 16 monarchies.
  • Commonweath realm lists that would consist of one person would follow those new non-realm states which themselves have lists of one, two or three persons.
  • Redirecting to the UK's list creates the contradictory implication of a foreign office of head of state over sovereign countries.
  • Context makes separate lists necessary.

Cons

  • The line of succession is exactly the same as that of the UK. Separate lists are actually more can be confusing and tend to look absurd can look awkward.
  • If the lists are those of heads of state, as proposed above, 12 realms would have only one in the list. Two would have 2, and one would have 4.
  • Context makes separate lists unecessary.
  • For this particular article, a redirect to Monarchy of Australia is sufficient and efficient.


Have I summed up fairly?--Gazzster (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I have just crossed out a few minor things and added the bold bits for a NPOV. Hope you don't mind ; P...--Camaeron (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough.--Gazzster (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Making strong claims is not NPOV when summarising each position separately? Whatever next? Since we are now expecting participants in this discussion to not understand the points made in the cons section without pointing out that they need not agree, I'll do the same for the pros section. JPD (talk) 08:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough..but do it properly ; )..--Camaeron (talk) 11:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Considering the fact that separate lists being related to sovereignty is one of issues that is disputed, your changes are not very consistent. JPD (talk) 22:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I've expanded on the arguments. --G2bambino (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The article has been nominated for deletion so everybody who has commented here will have to consider the evidence and vote accordingly. --Camaeron (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Vote? JPD (talk) 22:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Express their opinons. GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] And brother

sheathed sword against his brother, and there was peace over the page. And verily the Wikilords spake unto the sons of Lisabett, 'lo we have given this page unto you- see that you keep it and tend it, lest the Phillistines ravage it. And there shall be peace unto you and your sons and daughters and your oxen and sheep and the birds of the air and your guinea pigs and goldfish.' And the people offerred rams and goats and guinea pigs unto the Wikilords. And verily, They gazed upon the page and spake, 'lo, it is very good'. And they rested (for now).--Gazzster (talk) 08:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Very poetic for a republican! = ) --Camaeron (t/c) 19:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Why thank you lol! Yes, some of us havent sold our souls!--Gazzster (talk) 20:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I have no sole to sell. GoodDay (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
You don't have shoes? --G2bambino (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Giggle, giggle - I meant soul. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Ooohhh.. ;) --G2bambino (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Another reading from the Booke of Queenes:
  • 'And the Lady Lisabett spake these words unto the people: these are My commandments: I am the Lady Lisabett; you shall have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not bend the knee to praesidents, pryme ministers, demagogues, or anything else that creepeth upon the face of the earth. Thou shalt set up nought but my image for to worship. I am the Lady Lisabett, and I visit my vengeance unto the children’s children; for I am a jealous Goddess. Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lady thy Goddess in vain; thou shalt not say She reigneth only in the Isles of the Britons, for I have multiplied myself for you, that I may be Lady unto you all. And thou shalt not say My Kyngdome is but one, for verily I have multiplied My Kyndomes throughout the earth, that the Gentiles might know that I am your Lady Lisabett. Lykewise thou shalt not say my Family is but one, for in like manner I have sent them forth and they have multiplied across the face of the earth. I have sent you sygnes and wonders. My Sonne shall come and the Sun shall be blotted out by his ears. My husbande shalt open his mouth and darknesse shall cover the face of the earth. I shall send forth My Family and traffic wardens shall flee. And in that day you shall knowe that I am Lisabett, thy Lady.'--Gazzster (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • That's rather mean Charles and Philip are lovely people. At least, I love them... = )--Cameron (t/c) 21:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Its all good fun, mate. Phillip-lovely, though?--Gazzster (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I mean, you obviously understood how he could be sent up.--Gazzster (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Sent up where?--Cameron (t/c) 22:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

But in lo lands at the bottom of the earth there lurked the selfly-anointed cretins of the towerly eschelons who cackled and brewed up troubyle amongst the peoples of the land. Hark! they cried from the creaking precipices of their rotted towers clad in ivory. The Lady Lisabett is but an evil, sourd witch who hath squashed you under her imperial boot, causeing the lords of far off lands to hold their bellies in laughter while thy innards eject themselves, oh humilyation! Rise up! Thou art The Peyople! The Peyople! Amass and pull down the sorceress Lilybett and her womb-spawn. Oh yes, we shall allow you, The Peyople, to hath the powyer of divine light; comraydes, thou shalt lift thy fists in unison and the heavens shall split to rayne down joy and weath and prosperyty all for you! We? Oh, we, they say, as they release glinting bubbles and cast shyning streams of goldyn promyse into the sunlight and The Peyople doth coo and awe. We are but thyne humble servants, they speak with tilted head and coy gazes from their blackened eyes. We should never journey to befowl the power of The Peyople, never to usurp the throne emptied by the cast off whore-queen Lisabett. Oh no! We carest only for thou, oh glorious comraydes in sovyet brotherhood! Then, they turn, and into the darkened shadowes of the depthly bowels of their tower of ivory do they turn, and with gnarled hands on the gnotted shoulders of their ilk, they howl with indignatyous skreeches of myrth while The Peyople doth rejoice in drunken foolery. --G2bambino (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Now that is good! That's what I like, Cameron- comeback! The monarchy pages are getting interesting for a change.--Gazzster (talk) 21:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Cameron-comeback? I dont understand...am I missing something? --Cameron (t/c) 22:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd recommend an end to this fun, agree gentlemen? GoodDay (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
O ye spoilsporte. (wink)--Gazzster (talk) 22:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Could somebody please answer my two questions. I cant stand unanswered questions...--Cameron (t/c) 22:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)