Talk:Monarchies in Europe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Monarchies in Europe has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on July 4, 2006.
WikiProject Europe
Europe Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Europe and Europeans on Wikipedia.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. See comments.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Maintained The following user(s) are actively contributing to this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Nightstallion (talk • contribs • email)
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.
Peer review This Socsci article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated GA-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

Contents

[edit] Dramatic expansion of the European Union?

I hadn't realized that Liechtenstein or Norway, let alone Australia, Jamaica, etc., were in the European Union. Have I missed something? -- Hoary 09:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The table at the bottom is meant to compare all European monarchies, while the Commonwealth Realms are mentioned because they are in a personal union with the United Kingdom... I *have* been thinking about expanding it into Monarchies in Europe instead. What do you think? —Nightstallion (?) 09:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
First, I don't know what you mean by a "personal union" with the UK.
Secondly, I don't know whether this should be about the EU or about [geographical] Europe or about something else; I really have no opinion. Actually I can't see the point of the article -- why it's more needed than Bicameral legislatures in the European Union or Two-party oligopolies in Europe or indeed Monarchies on the Pacific rim. I don't mean to say that there is no point, merely that none is really apparent to me. Perhaps this is what most needs attention, or perhaps I'm just a very poor reader.
(Mmm, Monarchies on the Pacific rim would be interesting: you'd have Japan, North Korea, etc. in red; and the US would be pink, thanks to its attempts to wring dynasties out of Adamses, Kennedys and Bushes.) -- Hoary 10:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
By "personal union with the UK" I mean exactly that; the head of state of all sixteen Commonwealth Realms, which include the United Kingdom in Europe, is Elizabeth II, which means that they are technically in personal union.
I believe it's needed because monarchies in Europe have many things in common, and information about them is best presented in an article specifically about them; apart from that, there are a number of articles whose existence is far more questionable than this one's. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 11:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm certainly not questioning the last part.
Well, Canada, Jamaica, Britain, etc. certainly share the same monarch, but I can't see what significance that has for the EU.
Aside from monarches, what do the EU nations that have monarchs have in common that they don't also have in common with the EU nations that don't have monarchs? [You get a bonus five points just for parsing that.] Let's suppose that there were an EU constitution that mandated a meritocracy. Whatever else they are or aren't, inherited monarchies aren't meritocratic. It could then be interesting to compare the rationales the monarchies proffered for square monarchy with meritocracy.
I don't know much about monarchies, but I get the impression that the British and Monagesque monarchies share a strong element of soap-opera. Anything else? -- Hoary 14:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Mh, well, I believe it's significant insofar as the Queen still has a large ceremonial role in those countries (more so in Australia and Canada than elsewhere), and for the fact that it makes succession order changes more difficult. ;) Apart from that... Heck, I don't know, I'm very open to suggestions as to how to improve it... —Nightstallion (?) 15:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I wish I could help; but sorry, I'm blank. I wonder if any republican group might have some essay about how monarchy is incompatible with (modern) Europeanness. That might bring new ideas. -- Hoary 21:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rescope to "in Europe"

It seems a little arbitrary to restrict it to "in the European Union". If that is a valid topic, so, obviously, is "Monarchies in Europe", and the latter would would make the former redundant. That already seems to be the way some of the content of this page is heading. While the personal union of Commonwealth Realms (and the status of the federal Kingdom of the Netherlands) is interesting, I'm not sure it is so relevant here as to merit detailed discussion. Noting the status of the British and Dutch monarchs, and briefly mentioning republicanism in their extra-European countries, would probably keep this article focussed. TheGrappler 01:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I've also decided that "the latter would would make the former redundant" is my favourite personal Wikipedia typo so far. TheGrappler 01:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I've been thinking about expanding it to "in Europe" and will likely do that in the future; and I agree as regards your redundant superfluous would. ;) I still think, however, that republicanism in the Realms is strongly connected to the Queen's status as (informally) primarily the Queen of the UK, and as such of note in this article, wouldn't you agree? —Nightstallion (?) 05:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 ;) And if read merely as an individual sentence, "The latter would would make the former redundant" is actually wrong, for without the former would the sentence would make no sense...
As for the rescope, yes, I think republicanism in the realms (and throughout the rest of the federacy of the Netherlands) is relevant, it's just a question of degree of relevance. So perhaps cut it down a little and provide relevant links. It's generally not a great idea to include too much information on topics covered better elsewhere, especially if this isn't an "obvious" article to update when those topics change, because it is more likely to go unupdated. I think these topics are relevant to the point of giving a briefly summary and relevant links rather than writing in any kind of depth. "Republicanism in the Commonwealth Realms" may be a better place to write a fuller summary article. TheGrappler 15:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, as long as I'm here, I'll certainly keep it updated. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 06:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roman numerals

Hi Nightstallion,

Excellent article!

One problem. The single-character Roman numerals show up as garbage on both my Mac and my Linux machines (using Firefox browser) -- at first I thought it was a weird mistake in the picture caption (which I hastily corrected), until I saw the edit history and noticed the mistake throughout the article.

I don't have a Windows machine running Internet Explorer or whatever I need to see them properly, so I'll have to take your word for it that they look better, when they render. But wouldn't you agree that maximum intelligibility should trump aesthetics in this case? That is, as long as a significant fraction of users (those using the popular browser Firefox and/or non-Windows machines, if my experience is representative) are not going to be able to read the page, we probably should stick to the more conventional I's and V's (and X's).

There's another issue here too, in my opinion -- a philosophical one. The single-character Roman numeral character set is, of course, incomplete; it obviously doesn't provide for every possible ordinal number. When you have to refer to so-and-so the XVIth, you have to use the conventional characters, right? Given that this is so, isn't it best just to use a consistent standard throughout the article? Kiscica 23:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Mh. While it *does* work for me in Firefox on WinXP, MacOS X and NetBSD, fair enough, you've got a point, I'll change it. (They *do* look better, though. ;)) —Nightstallion (?) 06:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
They may look better in a given font. In my experience -- and I see them a lot -- they much more often look worse.
Incidentally, I'd always thought they were specific to Japan, where a large percentage of people seriously believe that the roman-letter representation of number eight, for example, is a single character. -- Hoary 07:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA on hold

Good article, but a few things:

No bold title in first paragraph reworked lead to satisfy this criterion
No "See also", maybe monarchies of other areas, other government forms in EU, past monarchies, famous monarchs, etc...
Well, I've put a link to the parent article from which I branched this of, but other than that, most are referred to in the text... Could you give me, or better yet, add to the article some examples of what you were thinking of?
I only see one ref in the table, is this stuff referenced somewhere I didn't see? rectified by citing CIA sources
Foot notes in the table make it look alittle long, maybe try not to seperate continents of UK commonwealth. done
Maybe a summary or see also of past monarchies of countries now in the EU.
I initially tried to do this, but it got out of hand and became very arbitrary in what to count as the first monarchy established on the territory of a state, how much to put into it about former monarchies, especially for countries with such a complicated history as Austria and Poland... I'd like to do it, but it's *too* much work, I'm afraid... Unless you have a better idea?
And a short summary of what a monarchy is. in the new lead

I'm putting this on hold for 7 days. I think you should be able to fix it up by then.  :) Joe I 03:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, by the way the article is 74kb by yahoo. Joe I 03:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't know whether I can do it in just a week (slightly stressed currently), but I'll try, see comments above. What do you mean by "by yahoo", BTW? Didn't really get that last bit... —Nightstallion (?) 05:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Just meant it qualified as a long article(over 20kb). My searching by wikipedia isn't working, by searching for Monarchies in the European Union, I get Monarchy #1 hit and this page no where to be seen. Joe I 06:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It seems you've managed to address all my concerns. Didn't think you would so quickly. GA granted. Good Job.  :) Joe I 08:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks a lot! I still want to expand it at some point, thanks for your suggestions for improvement! :) —Nightstallion (?) 09:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Registration of voters in Denmark

I've removed the link to "voter registration" regarding the Danish material, since this article deals with a voluntary registration on the initiative of individual citizens.

In Denmark, the procedure is somewhat different and goes like this: The actual voter takes no part in the registration process. Denmark's entire population is registred by computer, since each citizen is awarded a social-security number (in Danish: CPR nummer) shortly after birth (newborns are given a temporary number by the nurse who also reports the birth of the new child). Election campaigns generally take 21 days since § 56 of the Law regarding Elections [1] specifies that it is possible to vote by mail three weeks before the election day (if e.g. the voter will be abroad on the election day.) During this period, a computer at the Ministry of Taxation will print a personal valgkort (lit: "election card") for each citizen aged 18 or above on the election day. These cards are dispatched by mail and received by the voters around 4-7 days before the election takes place. The card informs about the topic of the election as well as the location of the local polling station, including the number printed on the table the person has to report to. When arriving there, the voter will find this table manned by (normally) four people, each representing a different political party. Two of them will verify that the person's valgkort has not yet been marked as used on the official list and will exchange it for a ballot paper. If the topic of the vote is a referendum on a change to the constitution, the proposal not only requires a majority, but also that least 40 % of all potential voters to vote in favour of the change (article § 88 in the Constitution).[2] Before 1953, this number was 45 %. --Valentinian (talk) 14:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

To me, the concept of registered voters applies in every country, as they either have to registry on their own (USA) or are registered by the state, but still should check whether they're correctly registered (as in Austria, and apparently Denmark); I've got no problem with your change, though. :) —Nightstallion (?) 06:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
BTW, I assume that I can count on you to keep us posted on when the next parliament passes the law, if it somehow happens to slip by the news? ;) —Nightstallion (?) 06:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, unless Fogh surprises everybody and calls an early election, it will probably happen around 2009. I'll try to remember. :) Valentinian (talk) 08:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I s'pose he'll do it just like last time: Wait until it's less than a year before the scheduled time, then call the election when his ratings are good... Ah, the joys of incumbent-selected election dates... ;) —Nightstallion (?) 05:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australia

Still don't see why Australia etc are listed here - even if the UK was to become a republic it might not mean Australia will. Australia could become a republic and NSW, QLD etc remain as are! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.36.120.6 (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

I agree after all the name of this article says it deals with "European Union" monarchies, if if its only legally, each Monarchy in in right of that own country now, thus Aussie or any other realms could in theory outlive a UK change. I move that we remove that part from the article Brian | (Talk) 03:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm against it, as the Commonwealth *is* closely connected to the UK and the EU. —Nightstallion (?) 12:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
This article is not talking about world monarchies, and that's where the other realm's belong, they may be closely connected, but they do not reside in the EU. Brian | (Talk) 18:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I still hold to the opinion that as the queen of the United Kingdom is also the queen of the fifteen other Commonwealth realms, notable developments in those other realms are pertaining to this article. —Nightstallion (?) 14:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The Realms have nothing to do with the EU, there is no point in having the republicanism info there. This article is called Monarchies in the European Union, Aussie, Canada, New Zealand and the other Realms, are not, and most likely will never be part of the EU. It's a disgrace to have the Realms who are not part of the EU in this article, yet this article makes no mention of the other Europe Monarchies, who are not part of the EU (Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Norway and the Vatican City). In fact this is article is completely unneutral because of this and perhaps its time for a good article review Brian | (Talk) 18:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Just because you do not agree? I'm not opposed to including a bit of info on the other European monarchies, actually, but I'm still of the opinion that the Commonwealth *IS* related to the European Union and thus to its monarchies. —Nightstallion (?) 13:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
If info was included about the other Europe Monarchies, I would not have as much of problem, however then I would suggest this article would need renaming to Monarchies in Europe or something similar.
I disagree that Commonwealth IS related to the European Union as that's not true, however the Commonwealth IS related to the UK. By following your logic through, if there was a page called Monarchies in the Caribbean Community or Monarchies in the Pacific Ocean all of the EU monarchs should be included in those lists, as the Commonwealth Realm Monarchies in those areas are related to the EU through the UK. Brian | (Talk) 18:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I meant that the Commonwealth monarchies are related to the European Union through the United Kingdom. Anyway, I'll work on including the other European monarchies; might take a bit, though, university semester starting right now. —Nightstallion (?) 08:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is a Euro person who lives in a republic so focused on Antipoden monarchies??? While the Australian/NZ Crown are linked to the UK Crown they are not in Euro and possible to ot live. Even if Australia was to become a republic, NSW, QLD etc could still be monarchies in their own right! 203.36.120.6 03:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope, that is most certainly impossible. —Nightstallion (?) 14:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Nightstallion, you are incorrect, there are many articles been published saying that can be the case, it is possible that a state can be a monarchy in its own right, while aussie as a whole can be a republic. That's why the bill for the referendum has to be passed by all state parliament's, if one state did not pass it, and the results when the other way, that state would have remained a monarchy. I might be incorrect, but I believe there was talk about that happening in Queensland Brian | (Talk) 18:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah your pretty right Brian but it would take referendum in each Australian state to change their own constitution. So in theory, Australia votes to become a republic, Commonwealth Parilement then passes the bill, GG (or Queen) signs the bill into law Commonwealth of Austrlia then becomes a republic, however each state must then have it's own referendum so it might be possible that some states become republics and others not. On the other hand it is also possible that some states might chose to become a republic and others not, while Austrlia remains a monarchy. Given the Austrlian constitution it is also possible that the Commonwealth Government might let new states join the Commonwealth who are already republic - say East Timor - or the Northern Territory (if its people select a republican form of government on becoming a state - if ever) so then it is possible that the Commonwealth of Australia could be a monarchy with a mix of republic and monarchy states. What many people overseas (and in Australia) often don't realise is that Australia is a Commonwealth/Federation of independent states - the states chose to belong and can break away at any time they so wish. To a large extent the states have as much power as an independent nation, own leagl system, laws, government and can largely do what they like with only the power the Commonwealth Government has being limited to sectionn 51 of the constitution. To a large extent it is lucky Australia states were all British colonies - if they had been a mixture of French/British/German (like PNG was before WWI) then we might already have an Austrlian Federation with a mix of both monarchies and republics.

The best comparrison I can think of is the EU. States join the EU and pass certain powers to it but remain independent States in their own right. 123.3.0.93 21:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I think the difference is rather large -- for one, noone would think that the Australian states could join international organisations in their own right. And while it may be legally possible to have monarchical states within a republican Australia, I think it's highly unlikely and rather questionable politically... Well, we'll see, as the next (Labour) government is highly likely to hold another referendum on the issue. —Nightstallion (?) 19:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Republican movements

"although there is a significant minority of republicans in all of them" - oh dear! This phrase is already marked as "citation needed", and quite right too! I have searched really hard today to find *any* evidence at all of a republican movement in the Vatican, or in Liechtenstein, or in Andorra - I have failed! Even if the statement is false for just these three tiny nations, surely the sentence should be removed or re-written. A one-word alteration (to "although there is a significant minority of republicans in 'some' of them") would greatly improve accuracy, would it not? Timothy Titus 18:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It is nonsense relating to Denmark. Several political parties have historically had a republic as part of the party programme but the Queen is so popular that everyone attacking her position would destroy his / her own political career in a flash. The Red-Green Alliance is of course exempt from this rule, but the Socialist People's Party and the Danish Social Liberal Party would both suffer in the polls the moment they started campaigning for a republic. In Denmark, the majority supporting the monarchy is so big that it seems like ages since I read a poll on the issue. And that one had a majority of 80-90 % for the monarchy, but a few historical figures are listed on [3], see the box: "Foretrækker De en republik eller et kongehus?". Valentinian T / C 19:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, that's not right, Valentinian; the last poll I've seen is from 2004, and it's linked in the article. http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/05/12/1084289732842.html 80% is right, though. —Nightstallion (?) 09:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
In any case it is a political non-issue. It is never raised in election campaigns and it doesn't feature in the media. The Socialist People's Party used to have the republic as a very prominent feature of their party platform, but when they began realising that they were losing potential votes, they decided to ignore that part of the party programme. Even the Social Democrats are - technically speaking - anti-Monarchy, but it must be 35-40 years ago since they last spoke in earnest about ending the monarchy. The only real remnant of this policy seen in this party is that Social Democratic MPs normally don't accept decorations from the palace; cabinet ministers are automatically offered an Order of the Dannebrog. Political consensus seems to be more along the lines that should the entire royal family die out, that would mean the end of the monarchy rather than the selection of a new ruling family, as is otherwise specified in the constitution, but given that Danish society is deeply divided over many issues (the EU, left and right in politics, immigration issues), the future form of government is not considered a strongly divisive topic. Interestingly, had Denmark not been a member of the EU, support for the monarchy would most likely have been lower than it currently is, the reason being that the Danes since the founding of the EEC considered it a new "Roman" or "Frankish Empire", and this antagonism has never really worn off. It is also worth noting that the Danish constitution is incredibly difficult to change even if a political consensus to do so had existed. This is not the case. Valentinian T / C 12:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I know, I know; still, 20% support on a completely non-partisan issue is quite interesting. —Nightstallion (?) 14:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History section

This section seems like it is needed. The section should include the history of monarchies in Europe and how the monarchies interbred. Casey14 20:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to write it! :) —Nightstallion (?) 21:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Luxembourg succession laws

If in Luxembourg only men can become Grandduke, how come Luxembourg had two female monarchs already? Ivo von Rosenqvist (talk) 22:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Under the topic Succession Laws, it says the following- "Liechtenstein and Luxembourg have an even older system of succession (agnatic primogeniture/Salic law), which completely excludes women from the order of succession unless there are no male heirs of any kind present..." -that is why. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 22:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Then, what's the difference with the system they have in Britain? Ivo von Rosenqvist (talk) 12:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
In Britain, if the monarch has daughters and a brother, then the eldest daughter succeeds him or her; in Luxembourg, if the monarch has daughters and a brother, the brother succeeds him or her. Females can only become the monarch if there are NO MALE RELATIVES eligible AT ALL, not just among the children of the last monarch. —Nightstallion 11:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)