Talk:Monarchy of the United Kingdom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Monarchy of the United Kingdom article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Featured article star Monarchy of the United Kingdom is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 21, 2008.

A request has been made for this article to be copyedited by the League of Copyeditors. The progress of its reviewers is recorded below. The League is always in need of editors with a good grasp of English to review articles. Visit the Project page if you are interested in helping.
Add comments
talk 21:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Dablink reloaded -- versions

I think that Thark's version of the shortened dablink (the lower one, in the comparison below) somewhat implies that the other national monarchies are subordinate to the British monarchy.

For information more specific to any of the other distinct national monarchies also filled by the British monarch
For information specific to any of the other national monarchies over which the British monarch reigns

Given that all the national monarchies are legally equal, I suggest changing the dablink back. -- Lonewolf BC 00:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

More to the point, it's grammatically incorrect: kings and queens don't reign over monarchies, they reign over countries (or people). -- Hux 09:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Thark, you seem intent on emphasising references to the British monarchy. But in this dablink, it is entirely unecessary. Lonewolf's edit is short, succinct and balanced.--Gazzster 00:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Take note that I'm not ascribing motives, here, and recommend it be avoided all round. I just think that Thark's revision has false implications. Please, let's focus on the wording and its accuracy, not on inferred editorial intentions. -- Lonewolf BC 00:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're quite right. I apologise, Thark. But yes, I have to agree that your proposed edit carries 'false implications'.--Gazzster 00:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It was mainly the word "filled" that I was trying to rephrase - I don't think it sounds very encyclopedic. But with regards to the status of the British Crown vis-a-vis the other realms, here's a quote supplied by G2bambino on another article, from a 2003 ruling by the Ontario Supreme Court [1]: "Unilateral changes by Canada to the rules of succession, whether imposed by the court or otherwise, would be contrary to the commitment given in the Statute of Westminster, would break symmetry and breach the principle of union under the British Crown..."; "The operation of this commitment to symmetry and union of Canada under the British Crown" (my bold). In other words, the Canadian courts recognise that Canada is "under the British Crown". TharkunColl 07:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmm... "Filled" is a perfectly respectable English word. How about "held", instead? Let's think on it. Le mot jus juste likely exists. -- Lonewolf BC 07:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
The Juice Words? I don't get it...explain please Nat Tang ta | co | em 08:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll hazard a guess that it means something more like, "the juicy word", i.e. the ideal word; the one that hits the nail on the head. ;) -- Hux 12:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Err.. le mot juste, that is. Sorry. It was late. As Hux guesses despite my mistake, the expression means "the word that is just right".
Yes, "held" is a lot better. TharkunColl 08:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

'Filled' is not a perfect word, but let's keep it. Otherwise we open up the Interminable Conflict again. TharkunColl, the Canadian courts do not recognise anything of the sort. All your citations mean is that according to the Statute of Westminster 1931 the agreement of all the realms, including the United Kingdom, is necessary to amend the succession. In fact, one could argue that the United Kingdom monarchy is in that sense dependent on the Parliaments of the other Commonwealth Realms. But could I ask you to clarify your position. You said your objection was to the word 'filled' in the dablink. Now you seem to be reviving your argument that the Commonwealth Crowns are 'under the British Crown'. --Gazzster 08:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

"under the British Crown" - those are not my words, but those of the Ontario Supreme Court in 2003. The quotation is very specific. TharkunColl 08:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. First of all, can I suggest that we have moved on from this point which we have discussed at great length. The editors, including you, I believe, agree that there are distinct crowns. There is plenty of evidence that states this. Now to say that one crown, occupied by a person, is subordinate to another crown, occupied by the same person, is absurd. Because a sovereign is, by definition, without a superior. The phrase used by the courts must obviously be interpreted, I would suggest, to mean the crown as a non-specific institution residing in Britain. But in the interests of the progress of this page, can we move this particular discussion to our respective talk pages?--Gazzster 08:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the truth of the matter is that it's a fudge, a classic British compromise full of deliberate ambiguity. In some senses the crowns are separate, but in others not. Which we choose the emphasise is a matter of opinion, because in fact there is no "correct" answer. TharkunColl 08:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)\
And further, the problem with the word "crown" is that it has at least three distinct meanings in this context alone. It can refer specifically to the item worn on the monarch's head, to the monarchy as a whole, or to the government over which the monarch presides as head of state (e.g. prosecutions in the UK take the form of "The Crown v. [defendant]"). In the case of your Ontario Supreme Court quote above, it might be that the justices were implying a very general sense of the word, noting the fact that whoever is the monarch of Britain is also the monarch of Canada, separately.
But even if they were intending to say that Canada is subordinate to the British Crown, there is the issue of jurisdiction: the Ontario Supreme Court doesn't even represent the whole of Canada, much less all the Commonwealth Realms. It can say anything it likes about the relationship of Canada to the British monarchy but that doesn't make it binding; it's effectively nothing more than the court stating its opinion. -- Hux 12:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, we could go on m8, but both you and I know we too would never stop! (lol) So let's agree to diagree and drop the matter,eh?--Gazzster 08:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I had a go at re-writing the DAB again so as to avoid the (imo) ugly "filled" and the implication made by phrases such as "reigned over". I think it's a significant improvement over previous versions and would suggest that the general phrase, "of which the [nationality] monarch is sovereign", could easily be used on the other articles relating to monarchies in the Commonwealth Realms. I also reinstated the link to the British Royal Family, which I think is important to have in the DAB since I reckon a lot of readers may come here seeking information about that. What do you guys think? -- Hux 12:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Your edit is fine. I had no problems with Lonewolf's, either. To be really techical, you'd say 'for information about the other nations over which the British is sovereign', not of. But really, we can get dreadfully pedantic about all this. Do we need to discuss this anymore?--Gazzster 12:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I would disagree with "over" versus "of". The queen's official title is, "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith". "Sovereign" refers to the person, so "sovereign of" is correct; nobody says "queen over the United Kingdom". ;) -- Hux 09:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
For information about other Commonwealth monarchies, see Other realms.
For information about the family of the British monarchs, see British Royal Family.
is simpler. DrKiernan 13:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
The current dablink still seems misleading; inferring a subordination of the other Realms to the UK. DrKiernan's proposal comes very close to what I see as optimum, save for the small detail of there being Commonwealth monarchies that are not part of the personal union relationship of the Realms. I might revise the above slightly to read:
For information on the monarchies of the other Commonwealth Realms, see Other realms.
For information on the family to which British monarchs belong, see British Royal Family.
As per Thark's jumping on Rouleau's use of the term "British Crown" (which I knew he'd do as soon as I posted them), the judge refers also to a King and Queen of Canada and a Canadian Crown; he uses "British Crown" in the sense of the otherwise nameless crown shared amongst the Realms, not the Crown of the United Kingdom. There was a very lengthy - and equally beleaguered - debate about this some time ago at Monarchy in Canada that resulted in the necessary insertion of the pseudo-disambig: "The Monarchy thus ceased to be an exclusively British institution, although it has often been called 'British' since this time (in both legal and common language) for reasons historical and of convenience." It was a cumbersome insert necessary only because an editor with similar opinions to Thark insisted the OSC ruling proved Canada to be subordinate to the United Kingdom. If there are further issues about this, perhaps the discussion should continue at Talk:Monarchy in the Commonwealth Realms#Symmetry. --G2bambino 15:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Please let us keep to the subject of the dablink's best wording. The dablink should not have other links in it, nor terms such as "Commonwealth Realms" that need explaining either through a link or in situ. Gbambino, adding gratuitous personal digs to the discussion is unhelpful. Please stop it. -- Lonewolf BC 16:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Then, as the separateness of the monarchies is the key point of the dablink, and we should be specific about what realms we're talking about, let's try For information on the other nations in which the British Monarch separately acts as sovereign, see Other Commonwealth Realms.
Also, Lonewolf, I'll ask you once to kindly please not test my patience with your haughty personal digs at my supposed personal digs that were never personal digs at all. --G2bambino 16:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

To me the only issue is: is there a link referring an interested reader to more information about the shared monarchy? There is. So do we need to explain all the subtle distinctions here? No. This article is about the British Monarchy. Lets not start a tome about the Commonwealth Realms. The principle to follow here is KISS.--Gazzster 09:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Let's move on

We've dealt with this issue at length. I think we're all basically in agreement. I think we cannot avoid the use of the ambiguous term 'British monarch' in relation to other realms. We must trust the links to fully explain the situation. A dablink is not the place to go into the legal subtleties of the situation. The latest edit, (as previous ones) serve the purpose well.--Gazzster 22:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I am obviously going to, for the sake of compromise, begrudginly accept the use of the term "British Monarch" in the dablink, but still feel there needs to be a slight tweak as per my suggestion at the end of the section above. I think the minor variation on what's there now is more specific and thus better avoids any misconceptions without adding undue detail and/or text. --G2bambino 22:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You know, the more I think about this the more I think we're getting hugely sidetracked. Consider the following:

Question: What is the purpose of a disambiguation link at the top of the page?
Answer: To direct readers to the article they were actually seeking when they arrived here unexpectedly.

I think it's safe to say that nobody arriving at "British Monarchy" is actually intending to read about the Canadian, Jamaican, Australian or any other monarchy. They may not realize that whoever occupies the British throne also happens to occupy the thrones of the other Realms, but that's a fine point that needs explaining in the body of the article, not in the DAB. Therefore, I propose that the only thing that really needs to be in the DAB is a link to British Royal Family and maybe a link to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. -- Hux 09:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, exactly right about the purpose of disambiguation links. They're meant to direct, not to teach. -- Lonewolf BC 18:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't agree. If you were living in a Commonwealth Realm and wanted to know about the monarchy, you might tap in "British monarchy" in order to get information on the monarchy of your own country, not realising the fine distinction. Not everyone is as obsessed with perfect wording as we are! DrKiernan 09:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, in that case I suggest this:
This article is about the monarchy of the United Kingdom. For information about the current monarch, see Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. For information about the other monarchies of which Elizabeth II is sovereign, see Commonwealth Realm. For information about the family to which British monarchs belong see British Royal Family.
This solves two issues: 1) absolutely no possible implication that the British monarchy has power over the other realms, and 2) the DAB only points to other pages, which is what DABs are supposed to do (they're not supposed to point to sections within the same page).
Better? -- Hux 10:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Fine! Nor would I mind This article is about the British monarchy. etc. DrKiernan 10:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I like that one - or some very minor variation thereof - as well. --G2bambino 16:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I like Hux's suggestion better. Given that the article is entitled "British monarchy", saying in the DAB that it "is about the British monarchy" does not make matters any clearer. Also, in the second sentence I'd replace "current" with "reigning", purely for reason of style. In the third, "...the other monarchies of which Elizabeth II is sovereign..." sounds a little odd to me; not sure how to remedy that. In the fourth, I'd use "...about the family of the British monarchs...", as more concise. I'm not sure the royal-family link really belongs in the disambiguation. It seems more like an item for "See also". -- Lonewolf BC 18:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with "reigning" vs. "current", but stylistically "...the other monarchies of which Elizabeth II is sovereign..." sounds fine to me. The family part could be shortened though, I agree. However, I significantly disagree with the "See Also" suggestion - I really do think that people are likely to come here looking for info on the family, so it belongs in the DAB.
But anyway, the main thing is that my general suggestion appears to have united the differing opinions about previous versions, so I'll change the DAB and we'll see how it goes. (Amazing how there can be so much discussion over a few short sentences!) -- Hux 18:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "British" crown

The why call it "British"? Why not call it the "Commonwealth Crown" or something? And I also note that the ruling in question quoted the 1953 statement by the Canadian PM, clearly implying that it is neither outmoded nor inaccurate. In that, the PM stated that the Crown had no separate "offices", and that the Queen was Queen of Canada specifically because she was Queen of the UK. And, just to clear up any misunderstanding, I have never contended that Canada is subordinate to the UK. Its monarchy is part of the UK monarchy, but the country is nevertheless sovereign. TharkunColl 15:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no such term as the "Commonwealth Crown"; technically, the shared crown isn't called the "British Crown" either - in fact, the Balfour Declaration, Statute of Westminster, and other following documents went to lengths to avoid nationalizing the shared crown in any sense, saying simply "the Crown" instead. As the sentence eventually inserted at Monarchy in Canada stated: the term "British Crown" is used for tradition and convenience, not for any official purpose.
As per St. Laurent: you know perfectly well that the Queen of the UK and the Queen of Canada are the same person, therefore there is a single shared "office" that operates separately in each different jurisdiction. However, it's been proven many times over that Canada does not depend on the UK to supply a monarch; instead the two countries are bound by a treaty of sorts to always have the same person as their respective sovereign. --G2bambino 16:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I thought the key issue regarding the monarchies of the Realms was that they were all completely separate monarchies that just happened to have the same person as their monarch. If that's the case then it doesn't make sense to say that Canada's monarchy is "part of the UK monarchy". Neither does it make sense to describe it as a shared monarchy (as I argued above) since in actuality there are sixteen separate monarchies. Similarly, it also doesn't make sense to describe Elizabeth II as occupying a single, shared office - again, there are sixteen separate offices here, all of which are occupied by one person. In this respect it's the same as Steve Jobs being CEO of Apple Inc. and, separately and simultaneously, a member of the Disney board of directors: two positions, one person.
Regarding succession, I'm not certain of the exact details but I was under the impression that the succession rules for all sixteen Realms are the same, i.e. that rather than the UK stating the rules and all the other Realms saying, "our monarch is whoever is the monarch of the UK," that all the Realms have ratified those same rules separately, and that none of the Realms can change them without the consent of all the Realms. If that's true then it would not make sense to suggest that any of the non-UK Realms looks to the UK when figuring out who their monarch is; they don't need to since the succession rules are already on their own statute books.
Is that accurate? -- Hux 11:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
No, Canada's monarchy is certainly not the same thing as, or part of, the UK monarchy; that's correct. However, because the separate monarchs/monarchies/crowns are all linked in a completely symmetrical fashion, there is one monarch/monarchy/crown under which all the Commonwealth Realms exist. Richard Toporoski, a Canadian constitutional scholar, put it thusly: "I am perfectly prepared to concede, even happily affirm, that the British Crown no longer exists in Canada, but that is because legal reality indicates to me that in one sense, the British Crown no longer exists in Britain: the Crown transcends Britain just as much as it does Canada. One can therefore speak of 'the British Crown' or 'the Canadian Crown' or indeed the 'Barbadian' or 'Tuvaluan' Crown, but what one will mean by the term is the Crown acting or expressing itself within the context of that particular jurisdiction." So, I believe that's what St. Laurent meant when he spoke of there being "one office," though one divisible amongst various sovereignties.
Why he says Elizabeth is Queen of Canada beacuse she is Queen of the UK, I don't really know; by 1953 Canada already had control over succesion to the Throne for 22 years. Perhaps it was just some statement of loyalty. --G2bambino 16:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that we have a photon situation here, i.e. sometimes photons behave like particles and other times they behave like waves, so they can't be definitively described as either one or the other. In other words, in one sense there are many separate monarchies with one monarch, but in another sense there is one monarchy with one monarch that has one of sixteen aspects depending on which nation you happen to be standing in at the time. Either way, there seems to be a lot of subtlety going on here, such that not even constitutional scholars are entirely in agreement. If that's the case then the article would certainly benefit from delving into that discussion to a certain degree.
Additionally, one useful consequence of doing this would be that we would no longer need to continue arguing about terminology: the fact that the disagreement exists at the scholarly level would be noted in the article, therefore we could very easily say something like, "the British monarch is the monarch of fifteen other nations..." and point the reader to that discussion further down the page. -- Hux 18:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I see little disagreement on the present nature of the personal union under the Crown, just sometimes confusion that stems from terminology not catching up with constitutional change. Thus, I think we have to weave through the subtleties of the situation carefully because there are certain concrete facts that should not get lost with vague descriptions. It also seems the more overreaching complexities of the personal union are covered at Commonwealth Realm, so it seems redundant to go into detail about them here. --G2bambino 19:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
To say that the monarch "just happens" to be the same person completely misses the point. TharkunColl 12:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I suspect you're reading way too much into "just happens" than was intended. I was simply trying to highlight the key point that there are many monarchies but one monarch, that's all. I was not trying to gloss over or otherwise render irrelevant the historical aspects that have resulted in the current state of affairs, if that's what you were thinking.
Of course, if you meant something else by "completely misses the point" then feel free to elaborate! -- Hux 18:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The relationship between the Sovereign of the UK and the realms is certainly unique. This is why we are having trouble with coming up with precise formulas to use. As I said above, we cannot avoid using the term British monarch and the ambiguities that will arise from it. To simply say 'the Crown' in an article titled 'British Monarchy' implies cthat we are talking specifically about the British Crown. Let us simply leave the dablink as is, and trust the links to explain things.--Gazzster 22:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] To the Point

Ok. Remember, we are discussing whether we need to continue to edit the dablinl. Before we lose sight of the bigger picture again, let's racap what we agree on:

1) The person who is sovereign of the United Kingdom and its territories is also sovereign of 15 other realms. She reigns over these realms in her own right, with separate styles and titles, and separate constitutional roles. 2) In these other realms the Crown of the UK (in effect, the UK Parliament) has no jurisdiction. Elizabeth II is constitutionally sovereign in each of these realms, which means, in effect, that the Parliament of each of these realms exercises sovereign power.

All editors seem to agree, at least in general, on these points. I suggest there is no real value in delving into the legal subtleties of the situation. Not for the purposes of this article, anyway.

As far as I can see, there are two questions we are discussing.

1) Can we refer to the 'Crown' as a transcendant institution as the 'British Crown'? 2) Can we refer to the 'Crown' as the 'shared monarchy'?

I would suggest that the question as to whether the monarchies of the 15 realms are part of the UK monarchy is irrelevant. It belongs to the realms of political theory. We should not make a point of it either way in this article, but simply state the two points we agree on.

As to the questions we are discussing, I would suggest:

1) We do not use the term 'British Crown' in the dablink to refer to the relationship with the other realms. We could use 'British monarch', or 'the encumbant of the British Throne is also monarch, etc.' We want to avoid clumsy wording however. This last suggestion does sound clumsy. Personally I would prefer British Monarch.

2) The term 'shared monarch' is used not only in Wikipedia, but elsewhere. Run a Google search and you will the term is used commonly in sites related to the monarchy.

To add a comment which I hope will be helpful: the reason we are taking so long to resolve this issue is surely that the concept of the 'shared monarchy' or whatever we wish to call it, is unique and I think will inevitably arise to certain ambiguities. So instead of trying to resolve them on this page, why don't we stick to what we know is true and capable of being sourced. And I would suggest that is confined to the two points we agree on.--Gazzster 23:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Gazzster: "Remember, we are discussing whether we need to continue to edit the dablinl." I thought we were basically finished with discussing the DAB link? From the sentiments above, at least, there seems to be a level of agreement regarding the current version where there was only disagreement before. The problems left to fix, as I see it, are about how we discuss the notion of the person union/shared monarchy (i.e. the relationship of the British monarchy to those in the other Realms) in the body of the article.
"I suggest there is no real value in delving into the legal subtleties of the situation. Not for the purposes of this article, anyway." - I agree. I think we should solve any disagreements on such subtleties by not making a big deal about it in the article and instead simply pointing the reader to Commonwealth Realm or Personal Union, where those things can (and should) be discussed in more detail.
"Can we refer to the 'Crown' as a transcendant institution as the 'British Crown'?" - Not exactly sure what you mean here. Are you referring to the use of "crown" meaning "encompassing all the monarchies of the Realms, not just Britain"? If so then I think we should avoid that. In fact, to be honest, unless the meaning is totally clear from the context in which it is used, I think it would be better to avoid the abstract use of "crown" altogether because it's so ambiguous: does it refer to the British government, or to the British monarchy, or to all the monarchies of the Realms? Lots of scope for misunderstanding!
"Can we refer to the 'Crown' as the 'shared monarchy'?" - I would say no for a combination of both the reasons above: it's inherently misleading without a lot of explanatory context and explaining those subtleties is a job best left for other articles, so let's just point the reader to those instead.
"instead of trying to resolve them on this page, why don't we stick to what we know is true and capable of being sourced. And I would suggest that is confined to the two points we agree on." - I agree. -- Hux 07:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dablink, again

I've restored the dablink to the consensus worked out on this article, pending the making of some new consensus that may rightly be applied to this article. The sweeping application, to this and other articles, of an agreement by three people at Talk:Commonwealth Realm, made in a space of hours, with no notice or invitation to comment given at the other affected articles, was not legitimate. A proposed change affecting many articles needs more thorough discussion -- broader and longer, with editors of all acticles concerned given a reasonable chance to take part. -- Lonewolf BC 18:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This misrepresents an extensive discussion which primarily took place at Talk:Commonwealth Realm, but also at Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, and which lasted over several days. The key point, and the clear (and, if you'll forgive me, obvious) reason for coming up with virtually common wording, is that the DABlink is about a group of very closely related articles. Rather than repeat that discussion here, why not first review it, and then, if you still feel that there are issues about the DABlink unique to this particular article requiring further debate, raise them here.
The DABlink text inserted by G2bambino does represent the consensus outcome of that earlier discussion. The additional comment he inserted was not explicitly agreed, but IMO is a perfectly reasonable way to warn future editors that the DABlink text has ramifications outside this particular article. --Chris Bennett 19:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it misrepresents anything. At any rate, it isn't meant to. The prior discussions notwithstanding, only a few hours elapsed and only two other people commented between proposal and its sweeping application. Coming up with a common wording for a set of alike dablinks is fair enough, but it needs to be done in such a way that all editors concerned are aware of, and have a reasonable chance to take part in the formative discussion. -- Lonewolf BC 20:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Until G2bambino edited it, the DAB on this page was settled. The changes he made have definitely not reached any reasonable consensus so TharkunColl is right to revert it for now, for the reasons stated. (And I say this as one of the three people involved in the discussion he refers to above.)
What we need to do is invite all who have been talking about this, from all the various talk pages, to discuss it and come to agreement on one of those talk pages (I propose Commonwealth Realms). Only then will there be a consensus, from which we can reasonably change the DABs on all the related pages. In the meantime, please stop editing/reverting the DABs as doing this will only make that consensus even more difficult to attain. -- Hux 20:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Minor point: I just realized I said TharkunColl when it should've been Lonewolf BC, obviously. Sorry about that! -- Hux 07:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the discussion went on at Talk:Commonwealth Realm for long enough for anyone to take part; perhaps some notice needs to be posted on each monarchy article to notify people of the now still/again ongoing discussion? I'm curious to know what concerns will be raised - there better not be any time wasting POV about the UK being no. 1 again. --G2bambino 20:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
G2bambino: "I think the discussion went on at Talk:Commonwealth Realm for long enough for anyone to take part". Length of time alone is not a good reason to argue that it was sufficient - without advertising the discussion on all the related pages we can't expect people to even know that it's happening. Plus, as Lonewolf said, three people does not a sweeping, multi-page consensus make. Let's get more people involved and (hopefully) get this settled. -- Hux 08:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, it was actually four: User:Chris Bennett, User:GoodDay, yourself and myself. My point is, though, that the discussion went on long enough for others to get involved, but nobody else did. I suspect Lonewolf, one of only two dissenters, follows my edit history enough to know there was a discussion about the dablinks going on for days at Talk:Commonwealth Realm; but, then again, I could be wrong. Anyway, I have no objection to others getting involved - do we need to go as far as an RfC? - but let's keep things under control and in perspective; we can't let our goal of balance between accuracy and national sentiments get lost in lengthy, convoluted debate. --G2bambino 14:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with this. Before reopening this issue on Talk:Commonwealth Realm, let's first see if there are actual grounds for reopening it. All I have seen so far is an objection that Lonewolf BC wasn't properly consulted. (That doesn't apply to User:Hux who was certainly was fully involved.) What are the concrete problems that Lonewolf BC sees with the text agreed in the Talk:Commonwealth Realm discussion, insofar as it applies to this page? --Chris Bennett 21:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Lonewolf has only offered the statement that he agrees with Hux's concerns. Hux, however, has made what I think to be a good proposal for a dab at Talk:Commonwealth Realm monarchies (disambiguation). So, we can only assume that whatever Hux agrees on Lonewolf can't complain about. User:TharkunColl has been dead silent on the whole affair, even though he reverted the dab at British monarchy. --G2bambino 14:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boiler plate

I've made a boiler plate of sorts that could go at the head of each Commonwealth Realm monarchy article until the discussion surrounding the dablinks is complete. Does this meet most people's approval? Suggestions/alterations welcome.
The composition of the disambiguation links at the head of this article
and the other Wikipedia articles on the monarchies of the Commonwealth Realms is under discussion
at Talk:Commonwealth Realm monarchies (disambiguation).

--G2bambino 21:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. I vote we put it on all the relevant pages, then start a new discussion at Commonwealth Realms. -- Hux 08:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Oppose -- I still don't know what the concrete problems are that Lonewolf BC sees with the text agreed in the Talk:Commonwealth Realm discussion, insofar as it applies to this page. Until its clear that there is a sunstantive issue, the motion is premature. --Chris Bennett 14:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I think it's better to open up the discussion to more people rather than limit it to a few; nobody can later complain they weren't given a chance to engage in the debate or that the debate doesn't apply to "their" article. --G2bambino 14:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, well then, with only one comment I'll assume nobody else finds this proposal idiotic or useless. I'll add this tag to the top of the monarchy pages and begin a discussion on the dabs at Talk:Commonwealth Realm monarchies (disambiguation). --G2bambino 19:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject British monarchy

Is there such a WikiProject? if not there should be. This page and relating pages, have been victims of 'edit wars'. Perhaps a WikiProject is needed to coordinate the pages, with guidelines. GoodDay 22:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

There is Wikipedia:WikiProject British Royalty. However, this is not a matter that pertains specifically to the British Monarchy. What we'd need is a Wikiproject Commonwealth Realms, or something like that. --G2bambino 22:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
That's what I was getting at, a WikiProject Commonwealth Realms. It would be a great benefit, to the Commonwealth related pages. GoodDay 22:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Brought WikiProject suggestion to talk: Commonwealth Realm. GoodDay 23:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commonwealth of Nations

I've adjusted the 'third' paragraph (concerning the Commonwealth). Though I wouldn't mind having the 'Commonwealth' not mentioned at all, it's necessary for 'historical' purposes. GoodDay 16:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, my adjustment lasted 'nearly' 24 hours (before being reverted). GoodDay 21:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
"Queen Elizabeth reigns as head of state of 15 other Commonwealth countries." but the link to Commonwealth of Nations lists 16 member nations of the Commonwealth. Which is correct? 15 or 16? Evan1261 (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Both in fact. A total of 16 member nations. UK and 15 other. 143.106.1.39 (talk) 16:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ceremonial head of state

I've removed the conjecture about EIIR occupying the "mostly ceremonial" position of head of state. The Monarch still holds many powers and only he or she can execute them, including signing bills into law, summoning and proroguing parliament, appointing and dismissing ambassadors, declaring war, etc., etc. She may act mostly on the advice of her cabinet, but that certainly doesn't neuter the Queen's status as essentially the government of the United Kingdom. --G2bambino 19:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, those are executive duties, however they're 'puppet executive duties' (that's a new term). But, I do see what you mean; the King of Sweden & Emperor of Japan (for example) have no executive duties, they're purely 'ceromonial'. GoodDay 19:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think fully exercisable powers are "puppet duties." The majority of time does not equal all the time. --G2bambino 19:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that both sides need to be (briefly) mentioned in the lead: the fact that in principle, she still retains a lot of executive power, and the fact that in practice, she does not use this power other than on the advice of others. Omitting one of these two very important facts gives the reader one of two very false impressions about the nature of the institution. And whether or not the office has been said to be purely ceremonial is not really relevant. -- Jao 20:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, both the principal amd practical descriptions should be mentioned. GoodDay 20:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I find the objection to the phrase, "now largely ceremonial position of Head of State" to be pretty ridiculous. It's not remotely conjecture - a Google search for "Elizabeth II" and "largely ceremonial" produces over 4,000 hits, and in any case there is now a citation there as well. Anyone who's studied British political history, or is even mildly interested in it, understands why the phrase is accurate: it's "largely ceremonial" because although she holds not inconsiderable powers on paper, by convention she does what she's told by the PM and the Cabinet. This is not a remotely controversial assertion.
Right now, the paragraph is a good one: it explains that the position is largely ceremonial and (thanks to Gazzster's edit) now also refers to that convention that dictates how they are exercised, as well as her reserve powers. I see no need to change it. -- Hux 11:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I highly doubt your Google search is a good foundation on which to base any edit here. In the first page of results alone there are numerous Wikipedia links, or mirror sites thereof; links to media articles, which are notoriously lazy in their accuracy; and some links show that the "largely ceremonial" part isn't related to EIIR at all.
GoodDay has it right: both the principal and practical descriptions should be mentioned. --G2bambino 14:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Your dismissal, in my opinion, lacks merit. We're talking about more than four thousand hits here. Even if you remove all the irrelevant links and all the Wikipedia links and sites that quote it verbatim, you're still left with an avalanche of hits that back up my point. And dismissing all media articles is simply absurd: as everyone knows, there are more reliable and less reliable media sources and the former are perfectly acceptable elsewhere on Wikipedia, so why not here? But anyway, you want more sources? Fine. How about this PDF document from the National Audit Office, which states:

"The Queen's role in government is now largely ceremonial, though she gives audiences to her ministers in Britain and overseas, receives accounts of Cabinet decisions and signs state papers".

The CBC, describing the structure of the UK government, says:

"The monarch has a ceremonial role in the legislature, is head of the executive, head of the judiciary, commander-in-chief of the armed forces and supreme governor of the Church of England. But like Canada's governor general, the Queen's titles are largely ceremonial and, in government matters, she acts on the advice of the prime minister and cabinet."

(In case you're unaware, "acts on the advice of", is well-known euphemism for, "she does what she's told".)
CNN, on the occasion of her 80th birthday, reported that:

"a close friend of the queen, whose duties are largely ceremonial, said she has ruled out the prospect of abdication"

Or how about Time magazine which, in an article about Charles and Camilla, notes in passing:

"In the short run, tolerance toward the flaws of an aging couple lets Charles get to the altar. But tolerance is not far from indifference, and for an institution with no real power except the power to impress, indifference is the unkindest cut of all."

And then of course there's the official website of the British monarchy, which notes on its overview page:

"The British monarchy is known as a constitutional monarchy. This means that, while The Queen is Head of State, the ability to make and pass legislation resides with an elected Parliament. Although the British Sovereign no longer has a political or executive role, he or she continues to play an important part in the life of the nation."

Then in the, "What is a constitutional monarchy?" section, it states:

"As a constitutional monarch, The Queen cannot make or pass legislation, and must remain politically neutral. On almost all matters The Queen acts on the advice of ministers."

(There's that euphemism again.)
Also, take a look at the section titled, "The Role of the Sovereign", and see if you can find anything that suggests her role is anything other than ceremonial for all practical purposes. Or how about the well-known phrase noting that the Queen "reigns but does not rule", a phrase which, in five words, succinctly makes the fact clear that she has no real, political power. That phrase didn't spring from nowhere. Or, to take different tack, when was the last time the British monarch unilaterally dismissed a Prime Minister? When was the last time he or she unilaterally refused the Royal Assent? When was the last time he or she unilaterally declared war on another country? When was the last time a British monarch did anything politically significant other than "on the advice of [his or her] ministers"? If you still disagree with all this then, since I can't prove a negative, I would suggest that the onus is on you to provide evidence that Elizabeth II has ever actually wielded such power.
Or we could just put this issue to bed and stop making mountains out of molehills. -- Hux 19:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Hux, I'm sure there are some very valid sources out there that describe the Queen's role as primarily or fully or practically ceremonial; I was merely stating that search results themselves cannot be relied on as sources. Even an astounding number of hits can't always be taken to mean something; searching for "Elizabeth II" and "Queen of England" together brings up 89,100 results, after all.
Also, I don't think anyone's actually stating that the monarch's role is not now seen as predominantly ceremonial; however, there is still a certain factual reality that he or she constitutionally wields much power. No matter how much people say the role is ceremonial, if the Queen doesn't put her name to a bill it does not become law. Ditto for ambassadorial appointments, declarations of war, etc., etc.
Thus, again, as GoodDay pointed out, it is encyclopaedic, giving a balanced view, to outline both the principal and the practical. I.e., what I just mentioned above should be added alongside your points r.e. a lack of executive power in practice. That balance, after all, is exactly what constitutional monarchy is all about. --G2bambino 20:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I see no problem with mentioning the monarch's executive duties (royal assent, appointing ambassadors etc); as long as it's explained, those duties are performed on the advice of the 'prime minister' (in other words - principal & pratical). An example of a monarch devoid of executive powers? King of Sweden, Emperor of Japan etc. Come on Hux, we're not suggesting she's an executive-monarch (like the King of Jordan). GoodDay 20:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

As long as the basic situation is properly conveyed, does it matter how it is worded? None of us seem to disagree on the facts, merely on how they should be conveyed. john k 21:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

On further review, Hux has a point. The British monarchy is 'mostly' ceromonial - that is, even when she performs her 'executive' duties (Speech from the throne, appointing ambassadors & prime ministers/ministers), there's ceremonialism surrounding those events. Furthermore, if she 'vetoed' a bill, refused a prime minister-designate etc; Parliament would consider deposition or more likely 'stripping' her of all executive duties. Hux's last edit, should stand. GoodDay 21:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree...her representative have it better...they could just "leave aside to give the honour to the Queen"...basically dumping it aside and when election time comes, the bill fails and disappears...but ya I totally agree with what GoodDay said. nattang 01:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The current status of the article is the most correct. The statement "the monarch retains all governmental powers" is confusing legal and practical reality - it is certainly true in a legal sense, however it is not so in a practical sense. --Lholden 01:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the Queen has an executive role which is not purely ceremonial. She may be called upon by the nation to appoint a PM who does not have the clear support of the majority in the House of Commons; she may also dismiss a PM who has lost such support; the monarch may appoint an interim PM even against the advise of the outgoing on; and in the unlikely event that the government of the UK should be incapacitated, the sovereign alone is responsible for the peace, well-being and governance of her subjects. In fact, according to constitutional tradition, the fount of power in the UK is the monarch, not the people, as in the USA and many other countries. Her vast powers are limited only by convention and a few laws (such as the Act of Settlement, the Bill of Rights).In fact, there is no body of laws that direct the sovereign to govern in the present conventional manner, apart from the few I have alluded to.

However, I also agree that in effect the Queen exercises most of her powers of governance in a ceremonial manner. Perhaps 'ceremonial' is the wrong word to use. After all, constitutional monarch is the term conventionally useed to describe her role.Perhaps 'constitutional' will serve the purpose better, I'll make an edit to try that out.--Gazzster 08:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

If I may make a humourous point: Isn't it funny how EII2 is a 'constitutional monarch' reigning over a nation with no written constitution? Maybe, I'm getting too silly. GoodDay 17:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


The Term 'English Royal Family'

I think there should be a short section on the use of this term in the English media. It is of common usage and serves to alienate other Commonwealth areas and especially Scotland. I am new to this site and don't have the sources for this yet but in the meantime I would be interested to hear other peoples thoughts on the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dabhoy (talk • contribs) 19:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. There's no such thing as the English Royal Family (hasn't been since 1707). GoodDay 19:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

I've replaced the template in favour of the previous infobox as I isee a couple of possible problems with the former: Firstly, the infobox is used for positions, not institutions; regard President of the United States, President of France. The other Commonwealth Realm monarchy articles follow this form. Hence, it would be anomolous to title this infobox "British Monarchy" as opposed to "Queen of the United Kingdom..." Secondly, isn't there already a British monarchy template? Just my concerns. --G2bambino 14:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing the issue here. Using a template makes it easier to use this infobox across multiple pages (which would be useful - there are a lot of British monarchy articles that would benefit from this), and infoboxes can be used for all sorts of things (see Category:Infobox templates and Wikipedia:List of infoboxes).
Also, it really should be "British Monarchy", I think; "Queen of the United Kingdom" is redundant since we already have a template for that at the bottom of the article and, well, this article is about the monarchy, not Queen Elizabeth. -- Hux 14:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the other CR monarchy pages, I see that you recently added these boxes to all of them. If consistency is an issue then I'd argue that rather than make this one fit the rest it makes more sense for all the others to be changed to "Monarchy of..." as well, since that's the topic their articles are discussing. -- Hux 15:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
The purpose of the infobox seems to be to illustrate and summarise the occupant of the particular position that is the subject of the article the box is in. In this instance the position is not "British monarchy" but that of "Queen/King of the United Kingdom." Hence the infobox here (and at all the CR articles) parallels those used at President of the United States, President of France, and whichever other pages it's used on. It is not redundant here as the infobox is not a navbox, which is what the one at the bottom of the page is (and is titled "Queen Elizabeth II" not "Queen of the United Kingdom..." as it pertains to the person and not the position). If you wish to make a separate pan-monarchy template or navbox, so be it; it may well be useful. But, it shouldn't replace the infobox at the head of this page. --G2bambino 18:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
G2bambino: Okay, I see where you're coming from now. And since monarchs (usually) occupy their thrones for a long time, I think we can stick to "Queen of..." and just change it when (in all likelihood) Charles succeeds to the throne. I do think it ought to be a template though, since there are lots of articles about the monarchy on which this infobox could be used. What say you? -- Hux 20:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I think Nat has created a workable infobox that is a template, so that should make both of us happy. --G2bambino 02:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Yep - good stuff! -- Hux 06:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Those new Infoboxes are neat. Just one suggestion though, change the title to Monarch of ..., since the monarch can be either gender. Also, the photo & regnal name give away the fact that the current monarch is female. GoodDay 19:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I wondered about "Monarch of..." but came to the conclusion that "Queen of..." is actually the official title. --G2bambino 19:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
It should be Monarch though. Oh well, just a thought. GoodDay 21:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Did British monarchy begin in 1603 OR 1707

Basically, when did the British monarchy begin. This question has occured in discussion at List of English monarchs. GoodDay 01:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I got my answer from other articles, it's 1707. -- GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No to article name change

There is a move afoot elsewhere to change the name of this article, without even bothering to discuss it here first, simply for the sake of mindless conformity. I say,

*Yes GoodDay (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Name changes do not result from majority voting, and if a clear lack of consensus is demonstrated after the artificial time limit is up, but before the move is carried out, this ought to be taken into account - page moves are not about gaming a set of rules. There is no consensus for a move, so a move should not take place. john k (talk) 00:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
He's doing it again - this time at Talk:Commonwealth realm monarchies. Unless he gains a consensus here, on this talk page, he should not be allowed to change this article's title. TharkunColl (talk) 08:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
If a consensus is reached at Commonwealth realm monarchies to have the related articles moved to anything other then 'X monarchy'? then this article must comply. Any resistance should be treated as disruptive behaviour, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
That's simply not true. Changes to articles should be discussed on their own talk page. The true disruptive behaviour is by those who ignore this. TharkunColl (talk) 18:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Let's cross that bridge if/when we get to it. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
WP:RM instructs how to move multiple pages; the discussion need not take place at all of them. --G2bambino (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed -- Here's hoping that Wiki policy is respected, at this article. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
See Poll at talk: Commonwealth realm, consensus has been reached to move this article to Monarchy of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title Change

Honestly, to me this recent edit war about the title of the article seems a bit silly, but since several users take it seriously, I will give my opinion. First of all, I believe that since this move is disputed, discussion about the move should be carried out on this talk page. The discussion on the project page could be used to determine what pattern would be preferred for articles in this domain, however that decision should not mean that the matter should also be discussed on the individual articles if there is disagreement with the move, so that considerations specific to that article can be taken into account. Consistency is preferred, but is not mandatory, and if there is a dispute about the title, the fact that there is a pattern could serve as a argument for choosing a title in line with that pattern, but does not mean that the debate is automatically over. Statements such as: "Whatever consensus is reached here, it must be respected by all editors on all the articles in question. There should be no tolerance of resistance from anybody, I hope that's understood by everybody." are not in line with Wikipedia policy. Furthermore, there seems to be some misunderstanding about the nature of consensus. Consensus does not mean the greatest number of votes, even if the vote is 10 to 5. The way decisions are made at Wikipedia is based not on voting, but on seeking agreement through discussion. As long as users continue to provide logical arguments and to participate in the discussion process, further efforts should be made to find a solution that can be accepted by everybody. Furthermore, edit warring is extremelly disruptive and should be avoided. I urge all users involved in this debate to try to reach a compromise or to come to an agreement to have a certain version, even though others may have distinct preferences. TSO1D (talk) 03:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Consensus does not mean a majority or a supermajority, but neither does it mean everyone agrees. At some point those editors with no interest in writing an encyclopaedia just need to be left behind. WilyD 03:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

All else aside, in relation to this article, in particular, the "common name" convention is a major consideration: The title should stay "British monarchy" because that is what the subject of the article is commonly called. "Monarchy of the United Kingdom" is just a drawn out and rare way of saying the same thing. In their application to a particular article, the firmly established general guideline, agreed upon by the Wikipedia community at large, should over-rule the outcome of an omnibus move discussion among a quite narrow group of editors. That's supposing that the discussion even yielded a true consensus to move all the articles, which is moot. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 04:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting that you make it sound as if the decision was reached by some exclusive cabal of editors as opposed to through an open process in which everyone was invited to participate; via a prominent boilerplate notice at the very head of this article - not the talk - no less.
Common usage has it's place, but as it says, right at the top, it isn't unilaterally imposed. Within discussions about the organization of these particular articles, a number of different solutions were put forward; seven, to be exact. WP:CON states that a consensus is reached when a solution is found that the majority finds acceptable. The straw poll conducted for this matter wasn't a simple choice between two options, but one wherein users could show which one or ones of the options they found had merit. It was very clear which that was.
The very purpose of the discussion was to decide on how to organize the articles: all the same, not the same, some the same some not. This was done in the perfectly legitimate format set out by WP:RM for multiple page moves; indeed, we went beyond the requirements in many ways. Multi-move was used specifically so we wouldn't have to have eight confusing, non-parallel discussions/polls going on at eight different articles. Now, because of one tendentious and disruptive editor - and I mean across the board, not just here - we have to have another discussion/poll on whether or not to make this page conform to the others when the decision was already reached that it should? This is very aggravating. --G2bambino (talk) 13:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
In order to end any doubts about this article's title, we may as well have a seperate vote/opinon tally whatever. Anything, that'll end the charges of wrongdoings. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
No, G. I meant what I said, which was nothing about any supposed cabal. Let me put it this way: Granting that the omnibus move discussion yielded an outcome which conflicts with "COMMONNAME" in the case of the British monarchy, the latter should over-rule the former because "COMMONNAME" is a longstanding, Wikipedia-wide principle with extremely broad support and (so far as I know) no opposition to speak of, while the latter was arrived at by a group of editors that was (by comparison) minuscule, and within which there was very substantial, though minority opposition to the move, most particularly as regards this article. At the least, if the outcome of the omnibus move discussion may make an exception to "COMMONNAME", then a discussion here may make an exception the the outcome of the omnibus move discussion.
Blaming and finger-pointing about it are counter-productive and beside the point.
-- Lonewolf BC (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I can imagine the Northern Irish unionist prefer the title this way (as opposed to British), but that's a whole different can of worms. GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing the evidence and in consultation with fellow administrators, I have come to the conclusion that the best way to solve the problem for now is to move the article to Monarchy of the United Kingdom. I understand that this move will not satisfy everybody and that there is reasonable outstanding opposition to the move. Nevertheless, this decision is the one that represents consensus the closest. If others disagree with this decision, I would urge them first of all not to simply revert this move, as this would undoubtedly cause an edit war. If you wish to move it back, please do it through discussion on this page, however, due to the inflamed passions of the moment I would ask you to wait for a certain period of time before reopening this discussion. TSO1D (talk) 15:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] could someone please explain to me in words of one syllable why this has been moved?

Articles are named by the name which is most commonly known. So we have Elton John not Reg Dwight, regardless of whether that's his real name.

I know the google test isn't perfect but

'Monarchy of the UK'- about 82 unique google hits 'British Monarchy' - 791 unique google hits, including http://www.royal.gov.uk their own official site.:)

I'm just curious and confused.Merkinsmum 13:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It's been moved because a consensus was reachd (2/3 majority) for it to be moved to Monarchy of the United Kingdom. In fact all commonwealth realm monarchies have been moved to Monarchy of X. Why complain now, about the results? GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, and everyone had 2+ weeks to get involved in the discussion beforehand. --G2bambino (talk) 19:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
We also have Parliament of the United Kingdom, which returns around 1/9 of the google results that British Parliament would.--Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 20:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Well it is wrong then- it doesn't matter about consensus- it's policy to name things by the most common name. Not saying this article is like this, but otherwise on articles where there are only a few editors on it, they could all have such WP:FRINGE shared beliefs because they are fans of a certain view, that it could never be entered in the search engine etc by everyday people, or be referred to by that in the real world. As to this being discussed for ages- so anyone can ediit here, just because I haven't known of this debate before doesn't mean anything. Just because you hhave decided a certain thing between you, doesn't mean anything. It says a lot thhat you can't defend your reasons for doing this, except to say that that's how you've all decided to do it. I'm just saying. Not that consensus isn't great but without writing in accordance with how wikipedia articles are named, many pages would be just random depending on what editors had been working on thhem at the time. There's a certain way we are supposed to go about articles, to stop every page being randomly arranged and losing the character of wikipedia to an extent. Not that that's wrong, I'm just saying. Of course, the policy pages etc can all be edited at the moment, so you could always rewrite them to justify your actions and retroactively legitimise them.Merkinsmum 21:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
There is a difference between consensus and majority rule. Wikipedia has always been about the former and never about the latter. Unfortunately, a small, polarized group of editors has become obsessed with making changes to articles relating to the British and Commonwealth monarchies to the point where they are clearly more concerned with getting their point across than with producing the best, most useful content for Wikipedia readers. This is the reason why I stopped trying to improve these articles. (Why bother when it's obvious that people are only interested in having their point of view carry the day by majority vote, irrespective of Wikipedia's purpose?) Every time I hear about a new argument and another senseless page move/addition/deletion/whatever I know I made the right decision. Unfortunately, that decision doesn't help improve these articles, but at this point, until the editors concerned give up trying to defend their petty, online fiefdoms, I doubt anything will. -- Hux 19:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Articles should be user friendly, not made to conform to a particular mindset. And I've always been ambivalent about this consensus thing. I mean, how can you ever acheive complete consensus? It's just impossible. --Gazzster 20:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC) :Holy smokes, I didn't realise moving this article would leave such a bitter taste. Really, one editor (TharkunColl) left Wikipedia and has yet to return. It's not as though the world is gonna come to an end. Honestly, if it'll calm the waters, revert the move - no offense people, but gee weez. GoodDay (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is this 'page movement' being contested? GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, GoodDay, I don't care if it is reverted or not. I'm just expressing my opinion. The whole thing is not that important. It's not important enough to move in the first place, nor to revert it in the second. And that's kinda my point. Why get so worked up over moving? As to Tharky, I think his absence (temporary, I'm sure- honestly, no snide remark intended there Tharky) is useful for showing us that POV issues over these kind of articles is still here.--Gazzster (talk) 23:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry guys -I lost my head-, the electric power in my area was out for 12hrs; guess my nerves were fraid. GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't sweat it mate. 12 hours? Jeez.--Gazzster (talk) 03:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

After a wide call for input and lengthy discussion amongst those who decided to involve themselves, it was decided to move all the monarchy pages inline with a common title format. It seems poor form for those who don't agree with the decision, or worse, who didn't even bother to participate in its formulation, to whine and accuse people of ill motive now.
British monarchy redirects right here (just as British Parliament goes to Parliament of the United Kingdom, British Prime Minister to Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, British Navy to Royal Navy, and, worst, British Government to Her Majesty's Government), so I personally can't see how the change to the article title makes any difference to users. However, everyone is perfectly free to open their own RM and have this article moved to something else; it just means that if it's decided to return the title to "British monarchy" or something else, then the whole notion of uniformity is gone and all the monarchy articles will simply be titled as individually seen fit. Knock yourselves out. --G2bambino (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, no-one has been whining. Secondly, no-one has accused anyone of 'ill motive'. Thirdly, if you are referring to me, I have in fact remarked on this debate. And finally, I have every right to offer my remarks even after the decision has been made. If you notice, I have said to GoodDay that it is of little importance to me if the article was moved or if it is reverted now. So I have no intention of knocking myself out over it. I do however reserve mr right to comment.--Gazzster (talk) 21:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Whining: "Well it is wrong then- it doesn't matter about consensus."
Ill motive: "Unfortunately, a small, polarized group of editors has become obsessed with making changes to articles relating to the British and Commonwealth monarchies to the point where they are clearly more concerned with getting their point across than with producing the best, most useful content for Wikipedia readers."
Obviously, none of the preceeding quotes are your words, so, no, I wasn't referring to you, save for your inclusion in the group who are free to open another RM, if you see fit to do so. Not once was your right to comment denied. --G2bambino (talk) 21:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of a criticism section

Surely there's enough criticism of this backwards, elitist, undemocratic form of government to warrant simple criticism section. There's something horribly wrong when an article dedicated to an ideology, like Irish nationalism, has a criticism section, yet an institution that has committed so many crimes against humanity, such as the British Monarchy, does not. --Tocino 18:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, why not? But what are you thinking about exactly? There are articles about republicanism in Britain. And critiques of the monarchy can be found there. The idea needs some working out. By all means, let's talk about it. --Gazzster (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
A few topics I can immediately think of are... the monarchy's discrimination against Catholics; the monarchy being the driving force behind British imperialism; the British and much of the Commonwealth people being unable to elect their heads of state. --Tocino 21:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
All interesting topics. It would need some research (no problem, the sources are out there). We should be careful that such a section wouldn't have preachy overtones. There's enough monarchist sentiment in Wiki already. Let's not add republican sentiment to it. Perhaps have a study of groups that have opposed the monarchy or aspects of it: nationalist movements, republican movements, etc. --Gazzster (talk) 21:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
In regards to republican movements, there only need be a brief mention with a link to Republicanism in the United Kingdom, if there isn't one already; that article already covers the percieved issues behind the British people not electing the head of state, the Act of Settlement, etc. There might be a section here similar to the one in "Monarchy of Canada" that succinctly outlines any debate on the institution with Debate on the monarchy in Canada being the main article on that subject. I think we'd also need sources that the monarchy was "the driving force behind British imperailism." --G2bambino (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Head of State

Bring the dispute here, please. GoodDay (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It's an interesting point. Does Sovereign necessarily = head of state? Depends on how you define H of S I suppose. --Gazzster (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
It's simply that under British law there is no such thing as a head of state (i.e. in the UK - though obviously we recognise others in other countries). The monarch is the sovereign, which means that all law and administration flow from her authority. The concept of "head of state" is as alien to this system as is a written, entrenched constitution. TharkunColl (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certain about this topic, I'll let you guys straigten this one out. GoodDay (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

What Tharky says sounds like sense. But I don't know either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazzster (talk • contribs) 01:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the difference is that a head of state, such as a president, is an office set up by a constitution. In such systems - the US being the model - sovereignty resides with the people. In the UK, however, sovereignty resides with the monarch, and all law flows from her. This, to be sure, is a medieval idea - and the UK has retained the freedom to evolve without being held back by a written constitution. TharkunColl (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Head of State is opposed to Head of Government, isn't it? The terms divide the powers of state. But if all power is vested in the Sovereign, how can a distinction be made according to a division of power. Jee, did that make sense. Just thinkin aloud here folks?--Gazzster (talk) 01:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Both those terms, and the distinctions, are artifical. Only modern written constitutions have sought to give reality to them. TharkunColl (talk) 01:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Who'd a thought? Elizabeth II 'head of state' of the other commonwealth realms (arguable Australia), but not the UK. GoodDay (talk) 01:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, ironic - but those other realms have constitutions, devised to address these very issues. TharkunColl (talk) 02:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
If you think the Queen isn't a head of state, maybe you could tell her to stop using it in press releases and financial reports? --Bazzargh (talk) 03:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I think TharkunColl is overemphasizing the differences between the British system and the other Commonwealth Realms. In many (possible all - I don't know) of the other Commonwealth Realms, the office of "head of state" is not set up by their constitutions any more than it is in the UK, nor is sovereignty legally said to reside with the people in those countries. However, those countries do have the Queen as their head of state, just as the UK does, because the role of the Queen in all those countries fits the definition of "head of state". Even if the concept of head of state is a modern and artificial one, that does not mean we cannot apply that concept to older institutions.
Here is some information about a country that you recognize as having the Queen as its head of state, which I think shows that the role of the Queen is essentially defined in the same way there as it is in the UK: Just because Canada has major parts of its constitution that consist of written documents does not mean that the entirety of its constitution is laid out clear and square in a single written document, like the US. Canada's constitution, like the UK's, includes many important conventions and other unwritten principles. I don't think that the Queen in explicitly defined as the Head of State in Canada's constitution anymore than she is in the UK constitution. The core of the written part of Canada's constitution, the Constitution Act, 1867, does not mention the phrase "Head of State". The Queen is mentioned many times in it, often incidentally in stating how people can be appointed to new institutions (like the Senate or Privy Council), but there are three key places where the role of the Monarch is defined in a wider way:
A. The first section under the heading "Executive Power" is:

9. The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.

B.

15. The Command-in-Chief of the Land and Naval Militia, and of all Naval and Military Forces, of and in Canada, is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.

C. The first section under "Legislative Power" is:

17. There shall be One Parliament for Canada, consisting of the Queen, an Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of Commons.

This description of the Queen's legal and formal role in Canada seems to fit TharkunColl's description of her role in the UK: "all law and administration flow from her authority". Indeed, the preamble of the Constitution Act, 1867 says the intention is to have "a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom".
--thirty-seven (talk) 07:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah hah! Perhaps she's British Head of State afterall. GoodDay (talk) 03:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting how that page combines "Head of State" expenditure with "Head of Commonwealth" expenditure, and indeed how it is hived off from her other duties. What we are talking about here, basically, is her trips abroad where she promotes British interests, etc., and her receiving of foreign statesmen at Buckingham Palace - all that sort of thing. So yes, in that limited sense the term "Head of State" isn't exactly wrong, just highly misleaing, insofar as it's only a small part of what she does as Sovereign. TharkunColl (talk) 09:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Better let the UK government know they've got it all wrong too. Here's what Downing Street has to say:
"The UK is a long-established parliamentary democracy with a constitutional monarch as Head of State. The democracy is sustained by free elections, freedom of speech and open and equal treatment before the law." [[2]]
"As the Head of State, the Queen formally opens the next parliamentary session and sets out the policies of her government." [[3]]
"The function of the Royal Coat of Arms is to identify the person who is Head of State. In respect of the United Kingdom, the royal arms are borne only by the Sovereign." [[4]]—Preceding unsigned comment added by Billreid (talk • contribs)
The New Zealand Constitution Act 1986 defines the Sovereign as Head of state. --Lholden (talk) 12:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

By normal British English usage the Queen is head of state. In American Englsh the PM is often called head of state. 14:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.164.236 (talk)

[edit] Lead

Thark, could you explain that edit again? I don't understand what you're trying to say in your summary. --G2bambino (talk) 00:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Simply that it seems highly inappropriate to say what the subject of the article is not, in the lead paragraph. TharkunColl (talk) 00:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm still not clear. The sentence was about the use of the terms "British monarch" and "British monarchy," not about the monarchy of the UK. So, what, exactly, did it attempt to say the monarchy is not? --G2bambino (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
The monarchy of the UK is the British monarchy - indeed the latter is by far the most common term for it so the move to the current page title was wholly wrong. Furthermore, it is often the case that the term British monarchy is used to refer to its position in the overseas realms as well. It is not necessary to go any further than this in the lead paragraph. TharkunColl (talk) 00:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Nothing stated that the monarchy of the UK is not the British monarchy. Why is it not necessary to state that the use of the term "British monarchy" and "British monarch" in realms outside the UK conflicts with those countries' proper titles for both, lest readers think the application in those situations is actually accurate? Further, you still have not explained what the sentence was saying the monarchy is not, which was your initial reason given for removing it. --G2bambino (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Numbering of monarchs

The account given in the article is misleading.

  • There has never been an official policy on numbering, because this would restrict the royal prerogative of monarchs to call themselves what they like. (As an aside, note that Robert III was actually christened John, & this precedent would undoubtedly be valid for post-Union monarchs, allowing them to adopt a non-baptismal name if they wish, just like Popes.)
  • The actual numbering of post-Union monarchs is consistent with 2 different systems of numbering:
    • Follow the English numbering;
    • Follow the larger numbering.
  • In 1953 the question was raised in Parliament. One MP, Colonel Elliott, said that according to the best heraldic authorities available to him the proper system of numbering for unions of monarchies was to follow the larger numbering. The Government's reply was that in fact this had always been done (see above) & that a future monarch with a larger Scottish numbering "might well" follow that, but they stressed that neither they nor the Queen could bind their successors.
  • By convention, the sovereign's name is a matter of personal choice (except presumably if under age), but the numbering is adopted on the recommendation of the accession council.
  • As a matter of political reality, it's inconceivable that the monarch & council would tell the Scots that their monarchs don't count.

14:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It is also inconceibable, I think, that any future monarch would adopt a name from the Scottish list that would give him a larger number than what it would be from the English list. So in other words we'll never have a James, etc. Incidentally, George VI's first name was Albert, but he used George (even though he had a younger brother also called George), to emphasise continuity with his father after the abdication. And Charles has gone on record saying he might choose to be George VII. TharkunColl (talk) 15:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Can you prove that 'future' UK monarchs will always name themselves after English monarchs & never Scottish monarchs? GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
No, and nor can anyone prove that the current rules won't be changed. But in 300 years, no monarch has ever taken a name that would have given a higher Scottish number. Not proof, but a pretty good indication of practice. TharkunColl (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Assuming there's going to be a Charles III/George VII and then a William V, we'll probably never know in our lifetime. It would be interesting if Wills (should he marry & have children) were to give his 'heir' a primary Scottish name, though. GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I would be willing to bet that he will not give his heir such a name. TharkunColl (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Ya never know, he might get inspiration from his St. Andrews years. Intersting stuff, though. GoodDay (talk)
The lads seem to have been brought up by their mother to think unconventionally, so you never know what a Will V of even Harry IX (?) will do.--Gazzster (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prerogative

Does the Crown's power to issue passports implicitly include a right to determine who may become a national or citizen of the U.K., i.e., to determine whether borders shall be open or closed and how much, both for individuals by application and invitation and as to overall law, as a prerogative regardless of whether statute also addresses the issue? If so, it should be on the page.

Also discussing royal veto is a long article on the Queen in The New Yorker, 1977, which might make a good reference.

Nick Levinson (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Claim to the throne

I was wondering if details of this should be added to this article, opinions anyone?

http://www.anorak.co.uk/strange-but-true/182771.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/07/nking107.xml

http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,72776.0.html Ghyslyn (talk)

Sure.Why not? I would go for better sources though. Newspapers do like to sensationalise. I doubt that the government would seriously consider removing Charles and his sons from the succession. A German on the throne? (Hey, hang on- a German is on the throne- Betty Windsor, nee Saxe Coburg-Gotha!) Does Brown actually want to repeal the Act of Succession? He probably meant that he would like to preserve the succession as it is, but remove the anti-catholic clause. The other little prob is that there's nowhere to put this info. We need a 'Future of the Monarchy' section. I say feel free to make one. Cheers.--Gazzster (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Considering the fact that nobody has actually considered repealing the Act of Settlement en masse or at least without new provisions defining the monarch, I doubt that it should really be there. (And I hardly consider the current Queen German at all)--Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 03:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Precisely. And "nee Saxe Coburg-Gotha"? Bollocks, she was born, as she is now, without a surname. And after the family name was changed to Windsor anyway. :P † DBD 22:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh dear. Our Brit cousins are a bit touchy. Sorry guys, I only casually observed that she is descended from a German great- grandad, a German great-great grandad, a German great-great-great grandad and great-great-great grandma, etc, etc, etc. Be proud of her German heritage: sausages, sauerkraut, German sheperds, daschounds, above-the-knee shorts, floral braces, etc. Jeez, you've even descended from a German tribe, the Saxons.--Gazzster (talk) 23:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I think any mention of this should go with the rest at Act of Settlement 1701#Present debate. --G2bambino (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Poppycock, all three articles! There no longer exists the title "King of England" so that would make a claim to one somewhat irrelevant. I also agree with DBD...again = )--Cameron (t|p|c) 13:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Most notably"

The lede says that the loss of the American colonies was the most notable area lost by the Crown. How is this measured? Is this more notable in some kind of absolute sense than, say, the loss of control over so much of Africa, and India? The Wednesday Island (talk) 00:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That part does seem biased towards a US audience. Paulbrock (talk) 00:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
In context, it seems to imply only territories lost unwillingly. At best, it is an odd distinction to refer to only nonvoluntary losses and at worst, it is a bias towards USA. 128.227.87.177 (talk) 01:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I rewrote the lead last night (and I'm British). There was no deliberate bias intended. PeterSymonds | talk 06:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Layout

Am I alone in seeing vast areas of text with no pictures at all, then a succession of outlandishly huge pictures. Worst of all, Queen Victoria is far too large large dropping down into and distorting the text etc in the section below her. Giano (talk) 08:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"Queen Victoria is far too large". Are you saying she should go on a diet? Poor dear, it must have been all that stodgy Victorian fare. DrKiernan (talk) 08:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Nonsense, she's just big-boned. Article looks fine to me. Have you got image sizes set in your preferences? 4u1e (talk) 11:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
No, she was fat, no idea but I don't normally have problems - in that department at least. Giano (talk) 11:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I see what Giano's saying. There are several lengthy sections unbroken by images, and Victoria (who looks no fatter than usual) is in the wrong sections altogether; she ought to be up in the post-1707 section, which contains some surprising omissions--no mention of Anne refusing the royal assent to the militia bill (last monarch to do so), and no mention of the possible mass creation of peers (royal prerogative) under William IV nor George V. I see the Royal Assent is covered previously, but it ought to be in the narrative as well, emphasizing the gradual decline of the power of the monarch. Mackensen (talk) 11:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem appears to be that many images have been deleted since it's original author, Emsworth, last edited it [5] two years ago, and as we all know two years is a long time in Wikipedia. Perhaps, one of our Royal experts needs to take a look, and do some restoration work to bring it up to the standard we expect to see on the front page today. Giano (talk) 11:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Peter's volunteered to take a look at it.[6]. DrKiernan (talk) 12:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Good, that's fine. So long as no one FAR's it before he gets there. This really should not be on the main page. Giano (talk) 12:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
It's been my observation that images on several articles in recent months have been out of kilter; I suspect it is because the people placing the images are doing so on the belief that the images will look the same regardless of default settings or other browsers. I can say that, logged out, the image placement in this article looks worse than when logged in; I can't compare with different browsers right now. Risker (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Which images in particular? PeterSymonds | talk 17:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It's this sily business of not specifying sizes, it means images appear as postage stamps while others have gigantic proportions. It's Ok on smallpages with 1 or 2 images, but on a large page like this the images need to specified whatever the MOS says - otherwise the page looks just out of proportion and to all but those of us in the know, pain wrong! Giano (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
In answer to you, PeterSymonds, they're all just slightly off-sized, most of them just look like they're out of proportion to the surrounding text. Queen Victoria was particularly bad, she was well down into the text in the next section. It just looks sloppy. I don't have the terminology to describe it better, unfortunately; it's just that the page looks out of balance on this standard-sized screen with average resolution. Risker (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah okay, sorry, I see what you mean. The maps and that Elizabeth I are so small compared to the portraits. Maybe an exception could be made for these to be size-specified? The MOS says "no" unless necessary, so maybe this is a necessity. PeterSymonds | talk 18:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
If it's any help, I have never been able to write a long FA without specifying picture sizes, sometimes even bringing in experts to fine tune them for me. No one has ver objected on FAC about it, just every now and agaian someone comes along afterwards trying to alter them, but if the page so skew-wiff i just revert. Giano (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, my first and second FAs had specified image sizes; 200px or so is usually appropriate. I've moved some images around, taken out George III and replaced him with QV. That leaves the residences sitting nicely in the section, so hopefully that's helped a bit. PeterSymonds | talk 19:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for "getting it", Peter, sorry I couldn't explain better. I am afraid that many of our "standards" around here have been designed to give the most satisfactory reading and visual experience for logged-in Wikipedians, rather than the vast majority of people who just use our site for reference or a quick peek. Layout, infoboxes, image sizes and placements are often radically different for logged out readers, and that just doesn't do for our main page article. Risker (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed that, especially on public computers (on which I rarely log in). I suppose it's finding the best possible plan, even if it's not a perfect one. Specifying image sizes on those maps and the Elizabeth I might be an idea; I'll try a few edits in my sandbox. PeterSymonds | talk 19:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I rather liked that piccy of George III. Why did it have to go? Otherwise - your first four pictures are all on the right. How about shifting say, the constitution, over to the left for more balance?Fainites barley 21:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Images juggled a bit to accommodate George. Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 21:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Lovely! Fainites barley 22:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Succession section

Why is an image of Charles II used in that section of the article? Charles was never Monarch of the United Kingdom; he was seperately & concurrently Monarch of England, Monarch of Scotland and Monarch of Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it talks about the Act of Succession 1701, so it's not purely post 1800. Anyway, I removed it because it doesn't mention Charles II at all. I'll find something more appropriate. PeterSymonds | talk 17:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Saying he was "separately" monarch of those places gives a misleading impression. He ran a single, unified government (with three different parliaments). Bear in mind that in those days, unlike today, the monarchs actually functioned as head of government in addition to head of state. I can't understand why you keep going on about this, because the union did not come about at a single point in time, but evolved. TharkunColl (talk) 17:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Charles II reigned before the 1701 Act of Settlement; which is what the section is primarily about. That was my primary concern, with Charles II's image in the section. GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

So the obvious choice is William III then. TharkunColl (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sophia is best. PS- Do we need to have Edward VIII described as pro-Nazi? GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, he was. And that's the real reason they forced him out as well. The Wallis Simpson thing was just a very convenient excuse. TharkunColl (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
That's speculation, plain and simple. It's never been conclusive. PeterSymonds | talk 19:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely not. I'm going to remove it. PeterSymonds | talk 17:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

(To Tharkun)Well, yes, I see your point. But considering the Act settled the crown on Sophia and her descendants, don't you think she'd be more appropriate? PeterSymonds | talk 17:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

(To Tharky) William III/II was never King of the United Kingdom; so his image shouldn't be added. Sophia (again) is the correct image for this section. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That is simply not a useful way of looking at British history. This country wasn't created out of thin air in 1707. There is a long and continuous evolution. TharkunColl (talk) 18:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The English monarchy & the Scottish monarchy were equal predecessors of the British monarchy. GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No, they were not. Nothing of the Scottish state survived in the UK, except as a regional authority. This is getting slightly offensive now. TharkunColl (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

According to the treaty of union they were. Subsequent events, often in violation of that treaty, may suggest otherwise, but in legal terms you are incorrect ... 82.12.117.149 (talk) 00:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
There is a big difference between legal theory and practical reality, and there are far too many editors on Wikipedia who fail to understand this. TharkunColl (talk) 07:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Be annoyed, frustrated Tharky; but please don't be offended. GoodDay (talk) 12:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The NPOV stance would be to describe the situation as it actually is. To do otherwise is to belittle the English, which is, I admit, a major international sport. TharkunColl (talk) 23:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Break 1

Hi guys! I agreec with you Tharky, except about the Brit bashing. I don't think anyones doing that.--Gazzster (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Talking about 'Brit-bashing' sort of illustrates your point, doesn't it? What do people think about when they hear the word 'Britain'? The Scots? No? The Welsh? No. The Cornish? No. The fine citizens of the Lordship of Mann? No. We think of the English. That is mnot to denigrtate any of those other glorious peoples. It is simply to reflect the popular understanding that the Sceptred Isle is dominated by England.--Gazzster (talk) 23:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
But, as we know from other examples, popular perception is not always correct. If Thark has sources to back up his claims, that's one thing; but personal opinions are quite another. --G2bambino (talk) 23:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi G2! I know this conversation never gets anywhere, but I enjoy it. I believe Thark is saying it is more than public perception. It is the reflection of reality. Sure, there's a quaint little doc called the Act of Union that said there was a union of two equal sovereign nations. But in reality, it amounted to a bloodless (well, not so bloodless) conquest of Scotland by England?--Gazzster (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Gazz. Thark may well be right (though I personally doubt it), but a verifiable and reliable source would go a long way to settling the matter, in one form or another. --G2bambino (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure, we can agree on that.--Gazzster (talk) 00:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The Act of Union of 1707 is a primary source, and as such cannot be used as a source for Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia policy is to use secondary sources, i.e. commentaries by historians. A good analogy here I suppose would be the Soviet constitution which spoke of democracy and rights etc., but in practice worked rather differently. Just to give one example off the top of my head, the Act of Union stated that Scotland would never be taxed differently to England. Yet in the 1980s Mrs. Thatcher introduced the poll tax to Scotland before she did so in England. This breach of the Act was widely commented on at the time. And if the Act created an "equal" union, how come the English crown jewells became the British ones, but the Scottish ones are now museum pieces? How come the English parliament didn't even bother holding a new general election when 25 Scottish MPs turned up to take their seats? Why did the English triennial act (which limited parliaments to 3 years) kick in 3 years after the previous English general election? Why did English officers of state become the British ones? The truth of the matter is that the Act of Union was a face-saving measure for the Scots, and no one was under any illusion as to what was going on. For what they perceived as reasons of national security the English could no longer tollerate a quasi-independent Scotland, and so decided to bully and bribe it into submission. TharkunColl (talk) 08:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) That's only one, rather extreme, interpretation. Another is that the Scottish nobles used the excuse of the succession crisis to browbeat England into a union. Many English didn't want a Union either, because access to Scottish markets was minimally beneficial to English merchants, whereas access to English markets was hugely beneficial to the Scots. DrKiernan (talk) 08:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The reasons for the union were those of national security. The econmic question was the stick and carrot the English used to secure it. TharkunColl (talk) 08:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The article should cover all relevant opinions not just one of them. DrKiernan (talk) 08:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)+
True, but I doubt that many scholars would regard it as an equal union.--Gazzster (talk) 08:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. They tend to highlight how the English bullied and bribed the Scots into accepting, how most people in Scotland didn't want it, and how the English then went on to treat the Scots rather badly (Highland clearences, etc.). Now, bear in mind that I'm making no value judgement here - though personally I don't blame the Scots for wanting independence. But the fact is that the union was, and is, dominated by England. TharkunColl (talk) 12:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The article should be phrased neutrally, rather like this: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/vli/history/treatyofunion/index.htm not use inflammatory and nationalistic language. DrKiernan (talk) 12:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, okay, but that is a government publication. Historians are the proper sources to go to, and I guarantee that not one of them will describe the union as equal. It was more like a corporate merger, with a large and rapidly expanding multi-national taking over a small bankrupt family firm. TharkunColl (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced that the UK is actually an enlarged England in disguise. GoodDay (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That's probably because, even with all the politicking before the union, it's not. --G2bambino (talk) 13:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not a question of being an enlarged "England", but rather an enlargement of the English state (let us be sure to separate the state - an organisation of people and institutions - and the country, a geographical area). English institutions of state because the British ones. It's no accident that around the world people erroneously often call the UK "England". They never, ever call it "Scotland", and this surely tells us something. TharkunColl (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I can't deny that England is the oft used term in place of United Kingdom (and people doing just that drives me nuts), but I imagine that's the case more because a) the UK parliament is located in London, England; b) the population of England is vastly greater than that of Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland; and c) the American media, which dominates the globe, is notoriously bad at the subtleties of foreign history and geography. When the kingdoms united in 1707 there was, no doubt, a problem with duplicate offices and institutions. However the merging of them took place - which was probably a detailed process, more complex than we're aware of - it did not mean Scotland ceased to be after absorbtion into England. Despite where the roots of the offices and institutions lay, England and Scotland both became sub-nations under an overreaching Crown and parliament - a United Kingdom Crown and parliament, not an English one. --G2bambino (talk) 14:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've never disputed that. Yes, the UK is often erroneously called England (never Scotland). I've often heard Elizabeth II, called the Queen of England (yet never Queen of Scotland). Oddly enough, we don't here the British Parliament or the British Prime Minister called the the English Parliament & the English Prime Minister, as often. GoodDay (talk) 14:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it happens. --G2bambino (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
So there must be a reason for this perception, wrong though it is. Basically it's because as far as the rest of the world was concerned, there was no practical difference between England before 1707 and GB/UK after. English foreign policy and imperialism became the British. Any independent foreign policy the Scots were persuing simply vanished. TharkunColl (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Wait a sec Tharky; what exactly are you proposing for this article & related articles. GoodDay (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Break 2

Basically that the apparent Wikipedia obsession with separating states out as if they had nothing to do with each other is misguided and gives a seriously flawed impression. The essential thing about the English/British state is its continuity, the survival and gragual transformation of medieval institutions. This is so very different from most other states and is a unique characteristic of the English/British mentality (for good or ill). TharkunColl (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Er, there's a difference between the continuity of an institution and the continutity of a state. Further, because an institution has certain roots does not mean it is still today exactly what it was in the past. --G2bambino (talk) 14:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, the fact that medieval institutions survive is precisely because they have adapted - slowly and gradually. As for states, it is simply misleading to apply this concept to periods before the concept itself was invented. We come up with all sorts of ludicrous results doing it that way. TharkunColl (talk) 14:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, but you are, I believe, trying to argue that the English state is continuous, whereas the Scottish state is not, because English institutions continue where Scottish ones do not. From what I see as being commonly accepted, the present British institutions may have English beginnings, but in 1707 they ceased to be English and became British; hence it is called the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and not the Parliament of England. --G2bambino (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's absolutely right. The English institutions became the British ones, whereas the Scottish ones didn't. The state, whatever it chose to call itself, is continuous. TharkunColl (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, then, that's where we part ways. Because an insitution has roots back into an older state does not mean that older state is continuous through the institution. States are formed, and states are dissolved, though there may be a continuous monarchical lineage threading through them. Scotland and England obviously weren't dissolved, but both did become sub-nations within a new state called the United Kingdom, under one crown with one monarch as opposed to two crowns with one monarch. The fact that the office of the Treasurer of Scotland ceased in 1707 is of little importance, the office of Treasurer of England also ended in 1707; both merged to become the office of the Lord High Treasurer of the United Kingdom. --G2bambino (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Who just happened to be the English incumbent. In his same offices in London. And there were dozens of other English offices that didn't have a Scottish equivalent that became the British ones. The continuity of statehood is to be found in such institutions, because that is precisely what a state consists of. TharkunColl (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I still don't see the relevance. You admitted earlier that there is a difference between the continuity of an institution and the continuity of a state. Institutions are established to serve the state, therefore they do not define the state, and therefore, again, their continuity does not equal the continuity of a particular state; a continuous institution may only serve different successive states. Thus, England does not live on as a state through previously English institutions; the sovereign state of England ceased to exist in 1707 and all its institutions became those in service of the state known as the United Kingdom. --G2bambino (talk) 16:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
But what is a state other than its institutions? It does not exist separate to them and indeed wholly comprises them. There is no Platonic ideal of a "state" that somehow exists independently of its component parts. No new institutions were created in 1707 to which the English ones were subordinated. It was the English institutions themselves that fulfilled this role, and to which the Scottish ones were subordinated. TharkunColl (talk) 16:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, there are varying takes on what ultimately makes a state; in general, I think, it has to do with sovereignty, and so in republics it is the constitution that is the state, and in monarchies it is the sovereign. In this case the monarchical lineage of both Scotland and England continued through into the new United Kingdom, meaning the queen ceased to be the embodiment of two separate states and became that of one that overreached both the previous states. So what if some governmental institutions continued after the union? They couldn't serve a state that didn't exist because the Queen of England no longer existed. --G2bambino (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, Anne was very much alive after 1707! She didn't even change her title, as, like all the Stuarts since 1604, she was monarch of Great Britain (and needless to say a new coronation was not thought necessary, which you think it would have been if she was suddenly in charge of a completely new entity). Her role in England was affected not one jot by the events of 1707. TharkunColl (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course Anne existed; I said the Queen of England did not. Neither a coronation, nor a title, are necessary to make a monarch; whether or not she was coronated or titled as such, Anne, in 1707, ceased to be Queen of England and became Queen of the United Kingdom. --G2bambino (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
That's only because the state itself had adopted a new name. In practice nothing had changed - well not in England, anyway (Scotland had a rather different experience). From the English point of view 1707 was a virtual non-event. Just a few extra MPs at Westminster. From the English point of view, 1603 was a much more important milestone. In other words, the English experience was fundamentally different from the Scottish. TharkunColl (talk) 17:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Whether or not that's true, it does nothing to support your argument that the UK is just an expanded England. --G2bambino (talk) 17:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
But that's not really what I said though. I said that the English institutions of government, i.e. the state, expanded to cover Scotland in 1707. Obviously Scotland is not part of "England", but it was nevertheless absorbed by what was previously the English state (and which adopted a new name for itself). TharkunColl (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
If you believe the institutions of England to be England, and that the institutions of England expanded to take Scotland into their jurisdiction, then you are indeed arguing that Scotland was absorbed into England. But that, of course, was not the case. The institutions of the United Kingdom were created to cover Scotland, and England, and Wales, though some of them had roots in England before the union. --G2bambino (talk) 18:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
All of them had roots in England, and none in Scotland. No institutions were created in 1707 because they just used the English ones. That's basically what I'm saying. But your other point - no, I don't believe that England is its institutions, though it has been shaped by them and has itself shaped them. TharkunColl (talk) 12:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
You said earlier: The continuity of statehood is to be found in such institutions, because that is precisely what a state consists of; and But what is a state other than its institutions? Those words, to me, say you believe the state to be its institutions, and vice versa. It is that apparent belief that this argument revolves around; if England was its institutions, then the United Kingdom is indeed just a larger England in disguise. If England's institutions were servants of the state, and the state was defined by its sovereignty and sovereign, then England ceased to exist as a state in 1707, and a new state, the United Kingdom, was created. From my understanding, the latter view is the more prevalent. But, again, if you have sources to support your view, well, let's have a look at them. --G2bambino (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
You asked if I believed the institutions of state to be England, and I answered no. England is not the state - England is a nation, a country. It has institutions, but those institutions, the state in other words, are not England. TharkunColl (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
But there was such a thing as the English state; that's what we're discussing here. Was the English state defined by its institutions, or by its sovereignty and sovereign whom the institutions served? --G2bambino (talk) 15:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
If the institutions of state continue to exist, then how come the "state" doesn't? A state is merely its institutions. The sovereign, of course, being one of those institutions. TharkunColl (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Then, if sovereignty is embodied in the sovereign, and the offices of state are there to serve the sovereign, then perhaps the crown is the only institution that actually is the state. If that's the case, then you'd still have to prove that the English crown continued when the Scottish one did not. --G2bambino (talk) 15:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The state is a large organisation of people and institutions doing lots of different jobs. The crown is the apex of this organisation, but as such is an institution nevertheless like the others. The state can even function without it, as was proved 1649-1660. TharkunColl (talk) 15:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Is it? Is McDonald's then a state? A state doesn't need a crown to function, but it becomes embodied in something else; the people, the constitution, wherever sovereignty is said to lie. To my mind, the governmental institutions that serve the state/sovereign/people have little to do with it. --G2bambino (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Break 3

A state is a large organisation of people, but not all large organisations of people are states, obviously. If McDonald's ran a country anywhere they too would be a state. I think the trouble is you're thinking in abstract terms, where I am refering to practical realities. TharkunColl (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, a state is an abstraction, which I think is why we tend to try and solidify them into something tangible. You are indeed right that not all large organisations are states, so the organisation/institution of government itself is not, then, what necessarily defines the state, which thus rules out the idea that because English institutions continued after 1707 there was a continuity of the English state. Perhaps you're confusing the more legal concept of the state with culture? --G2bambino (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
A state is a large organisation of people that run a country. This large organisation is typically organised into different institutions doing different things, from the top - the crown - to the bottom - oh I don't know council waste collectors or something. There is nothing abstract about it at all. It may, of course, set out a legal theory to justify its existence, but that's a rather different matter. TharkunColl (talk) 16:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
But to justify your argument that the English state is continuous whereas the Scottish one is not, what the state is has to be defined, made into something concrete. You turn the abstraction of the state into "a large organisation of people that run a country"; but I'd say that still rather vague: does that mean only government employees are the state, while those in private enterprise are something else? The definition I've found of state is: a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially : one that is sovereign.[7] That comes close to your description, but, still, what does "politically organised body of people" mean? A political party? The government, including the civil service, bridge inspectors, and council waste collectors? The government, including only the Cabinet? The entire populace? Only citizens? What exactly made the state of Scotland and the state of England? I think that qualifier at the end of my dictionary definition - "especially: one that is sovereign" - is the key, and hence I take the stance that the sovereign is the embodiment of sovereignty, and thus is the state. Either that or the people are sovereign, and thus are the state. But, the sovereign of England did not take over Scotland, nor did the English people. So, we're still left looking for evidence of the continuation of the English state. --G2bambino (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
A state, especially in modern times, can have a very large number of people working for it. In the UK, for example, 40% of all employees work either directly for the state or for one of its agencies. Private firms, however, are just that - private. The institutions of the English state in 1707 expanded their area of competence to include Scotland. Just one example of this - the Westminster Parliament. Or another, the Treasury. Numerous others could be cited. None of the Scottish institutions had this happen to them. And you're right to say the sovereign of England didn't take over Scotland in 1707. She already was Queen of Scotland. TharkunColl (talk) 16:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, of course. But it is one thing to say the institutions of England continued on into the United Kingdom, and quite another to say the state of England continued on as the United Kingdom. To argue the latter your are defining the English state as its institutions, but I am trying to demonstrate that the English state was not its institutions, and thus is not continuous as the United Kingdom. --G2bambino (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
My position is that a state - any state - is nothing more or less than its institutions, and does not exist independently of them. TharkunColl (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, you'd have to prove that before saying the English state continues as the UK, whereas the state of Scotland just, simply, vanished. --G2bambino (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The Scottish state didn't wholly vanish. A few parts of it survived as a regional authority within Scotland - especially those parts connected with the judiciary. This, of course, highlights another point. How come English common law was exported to the colonies, but Scottish law wasn't? If there had been a true equality, this would make no sense. TharkunColl (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
If parts of the Scottish state survived, then, by your definition of a state, the Scottish state is still continuous as the United Kingdom, the same as the English state, only, in a reduced form. It would then follow that the state of the UK is an amagamation of both the English and Scottish states, and not a reincarnation of England alone. --G2bambino (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
No there's a crucial difference. Only parts of the Scottish state survived and moreover those that did were, and still are, confined to Scotland. All of the English state survived, and its institutions expanded to incorporate Scotland - and to which the surviving portions of the Scottish state were made subservient. To argue as you have we would have to say that a state can never expand its territory and allow existing institutions in that territory to continue to exist - without somehow becoming a different state. Incidentally "reincarnation" is not an appropriate word because there was no gap. The English state seamlessly became the British one. TharkunColl (talk) 17:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
So, then, we're back to the argument that Scotland was swallowed up by England and the UK is just an expanded England in disguise. Yet, there's still no evidence of that actually happening. --G2bambino (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
But you would accept that English institutions became the British ones? TharkunColl (talk) 19:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I would accept that some, even most, English institutions carried on as part of the United Kingdom. --G2bambino (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Then the only real debate is about the definition of "state". I contend that a state is nothing more than a set of institutions, and that any abstract legal definitions are themselves a product of this, and not the other way round. Now, in the case of Canada say, a pre-existing entity created the state and gave it its legal authority. But this did not happen in England, nor indeed many other European states, which are essentially bootstrap entities coming into existence purely by their own volition. In such cases, legal theories must come about only after the state itself, because there was no body with the power to grant them beforehand. Therefore, the state itself exists before any legal justification for it. TharkunColl (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The debate does indeed revolve around the definition of state; that's what I said earlier. But, a state being its institutions is only your contention, not necessarily fact. In the case of England, I would say that the state did not come about because of institutions, but because of ownership; land was amassed under one ruler, the institutions were only set up later to assist him in governing his territories. So, as I said, in a monarchy the monarch is the state, as the state is only what is under his/her ownership, and he/she holds sovereignty over it. So, then, Scotland was not taken into the sovereignty of a foreign, English ruler; two countries under the same monarch merely merged to become two parts of one state, despite the fact that many of the English monarch's institutions of government continued where the Scottish ones did not. --G2bambino (talk) 23:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
In the early Anglo-Saxon period the land of the kingdom was indeed owned by the king. He would grant land to his followers as reward for service, and these became lords. But these kingdoms were very small of course, and only later coalesced into the seven major kingdoms of the heptarchy (one of which, Wessex, later still evolved into the Kingdom of England). But it was not just a question of ownership. The Anglo-Saxons are also notable for having elected their kings in meetings of freemen, and the primary function of the king in such circumstances was as a war leader, not a civil administrator. So the function of the king, once elected, was to defeat neighbouring kings and take their land and/or treasure as booty, which he then distributed to his followers (a poetic term for a king in early sources is "ring-giver", i.e. giver of gold rings as treasure to his followers). Originally evolving from the constant need for warfare, the king only later acquired, say, judicial functions, as the people would begin to petition him to adjudicate any petty local disputes that arose. Since he was (by definition) the only person with an army, he was the only one who could settle such disputes - though we must assume that in most cases the mere threat of force was enough. It was from such power, I suggest, that the concept of land ownership evolved in the first place. Ownership, in a practical sense, simply means control. TharkunColl (talk) 08:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct. However, the institutions of government - the parliament, the cabinet, the Lord High treasurer, the police, the council waste collection agency - are all just bodies established to help facilitate control within the lands owned by, well, whomever exercises sovereignty over them. The Lord High Constable, or the Department for Culture, Media and Sport don't exercise sovereignty over the UK, only the sovereign does - though, with the UK being a constitutional monarchy, that sovereignty may be held by HM at the consent of the people. The institutions of government are ultimately under, and therefore serve, the people/monarch, which means the institutions cannot themselves be the state, otherwise the people/monarch would be above the state. So, certainly elements of the English government carried over into the United Kingdom as parts of its government, but Scotland was not absorbed to become a subordinate entity within the English state. --G2bambino (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I would not regard the crown as being above the state, but as an institution within it - the leading institution certainly, and the one from which the others derive their authority, but an institution nonetheless, and definitely part of the state, just like all the other institutions. As your dictionary definition confirmed, a state is an organisation of people who run a country, not an abstract concept. TharkunColl (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
No, the definition was: a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially: one that is sovereign; there's nothing to specify that a state is the people who run a country. If a state is an entity of people and territory combined - vague as that still is - then you still have to prove that the English people expanded their territory to take over Scotland in order to affirm that the United Kingdom is an enlarged English state. --G2bambino (talk) 15:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Well lets see. The English parliament extended its authority to Scotland (the addition of a handful of Scottish MPs not upsetting the existing political balance one iota). All the English officers of state had their departments expand their authority into Scotland... All of these were English people. TharkunColl (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Notwithstanding how many English institutions did or did not carry over as British ones, those bodies originally only derived their authority from the English state. Once that ceased to exist, where else could those institutions that carried on find their legitimacy but from the new British state? I'm not going to try and argue that the union was in any way balanced equally; of course legally, bureaucratically, politically, more from England carried on than did from Scotland. But, dominance from one side is irrelevant to the fact that two separate states merged to become one, not one swallowing up the other. --G2bambino (talk) 17:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Well as I've said before, I think the best analogy is that of a "merger" between a huge and rapidly expanding multinational company and a small bankrupt firm. TharkunColl (talk) 18:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Excuse moi, for a momment. But, could you guys (again) indent your posting properly? It's difficult to read them, when they're pushed way over into the right-side of the discussion page. GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any problems with indentations... --G2bambino (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I do. G2, you're suppose to use the same indent for all your postings here & Tharky likewise. If not? We end up with Tharky's posting at 8:14 today. It's difficult to read something that's 3 or 4 words in a line & 50+ lines long. GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I thought the standard procedure was to indent each response one point further in. TharkunColl (talk) 18:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I used to think that. But, somebody at the Hockey articles pointed out the contrary. The indent method I speak of, is really helpful when 3 or more editors are involved in a discussion. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Break 3½

Remind me....how many times have we had this discussion? Your arguements sound so very David Starkey-esque TC... --Cameron (t|p|c) 19:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
David Starkey? I'm still angry with that fellow's pro-England documentaries. GoodDay (talk) 19:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I admire his work greatly however you are right, his works are (and always have been) tainted by his English nationalism...--Cameron (t|p|c) 12:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Why? They were only telling it like it is. England did create the UK. TharkunColl (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes. The Irish, Scots, Cornish and Welsh have had an enormous impact on world history, but more through their diasporas--Gazzster (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I wonder why the term "diaspora" is never used of the English? The English have had more impact on world history than almost any other nation - well perhaps since Ancient Greece and Rome. Not blowing my own trumpet or anything here of course... TharkunColl (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Interesting. I think 'diaspora' has come to applied to populations that are (rightly or wrongly) considered disadvantaged or second class in their countries of origin and on the world scene. So true, you'd rarely, if ever, hear of the English Diaspora, the American Diaspora or the French Diaspora.--Gazzster (talk) 21:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not a good term to aspire to then, really. TharkunColl (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Break 4

You've got alot of persuading to do (on Wikipedia) Tharky. GoodDay (talk) 14:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I know. Too many editors are obsessed with the minutae of legal technicalities. That's all very well in practice, they might ask, but how does it work in theory? TharkunColl (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
He has a point, though. Scottish MPs are allowed to sit in the British Houses of Parliament, but British MPs aren't allowed to sit in the Scottish Parliament. Would that feature (very much disputed over in various publications) have originated from the fact that Scottish institutions didn't become British? PeterSymonds | talk 15:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't really make any sense. Besides the point that British MPs very much sit in the present Scottish parliament - every Scot is a Brit - the jurisdictions you're comparing are completely different. The British parliament is a body overreaching the entire United Kingdom; the Scottish parliament is subordinate to it, and only has power in Scotland. --G2bambino (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't thinking straight. I meant that the Scots can vote on issues to do with England, Wales and NI in the HoC, but the House of Commons can't vote on issues concerning Scotland (see West Lothian Question). PeterSymonds | talk 15:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
It can't? I thought that because Scotland was still subject to UK law, Westminster could still vote on issues concerning Scotland. --G2bambino (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Nope, the British Parliament must keep their noses out of Scottish affairs. I wonder why exactly; maybe it has its roots somewhere in the Act of Union. I'm not sure, and wouldn't bet anything on it, but it's a possibility. PeterSymonds | talk 16:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The Scottish parliament is not a sovereign entity and the British parliament limits its role in Scotland through its own decision. Still, in practical terms if it tried to abolish the Scottish parliament now there would no doubt be an uproar. TharkunColl (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, it wasn't not so much the institution that was objected to, but the rights of Scottish MPs over English, Welsh and Northern Irish affairs. While they can vote on issues concerning the rest of the UK (eg, repairs to a bridge on the Thames), and have a decisive impact on the overall vote, non-Scottish MPs can't vote on issues concerning Scotland. This is the main reason for the criticism. PeterSymonds | talk 21:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Because the English comprise 83% of the UK population, it was not felt either desirable or practical for it to have a devolved parliament - such a parliament would merely duplicate the work currently done at Westminster. As an Englishman it really doesn't bother me that a small number of Scottish MPs sit in my representative legislature and can even become prime minister. I think that shows just how tolerant the English are. TharkunColl (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm lost in wonderment that Tharky and G2 have had a long, interesting and civil discussion (wink)! Thark is right. After 1707: same (English) regime, different name. My ancestors were Scottish and I'm all for English Scottish independence, and am not pro-English in this thing. (despite the ancestors betraying Charlie at Culloden). I'd add that it was English troops and institutions that abolished the clan system and other Scottish traditions, which, in an equal union, should have been illegal or at least morally reprehensible. But the problem with the idea is sourcing it.--Gazzster (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Just out of interest, were all your ancestors Scottish? Not that I'm suggesting this is the case with you, but I have spoken to many people over the years living in North America and Australia etc. who are mostly of English ancestry but only tend to mention a drop of Scottish, Irish, or sometimes even Welsh blood that they may have. Is this an indication of English success, or failure? TharkunColl (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
My surname is Campbell. My mother's maiden name is Kirk, though she was born in England, so yes, I can doubly claim Scottish blood. Don't quite see your point.--Gazzster (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
None really I was just asking. TharkunColl (talk) 07:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Och aye, 'tis cool, mon.--Gazzster (talk) 08:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Omissions

I think this article lacks good discussion of the following:

  • The status of the monarchy in Wales, and the "Prince of Wales" business.
  • The republican debate in Australia, which has flared up again, with a minister saying a republic is "inevitable", and also discussion of the last Aussie referendum.

--MacRusgail (talk) 12:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that last bit would be better covered in Monarchy of Australia. DrKiernan (talk) 12:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The status of the monarchy in Wales is exactly the same as in England (Wales being part of the Kingdom of England anyway). Regarding the Prince of Wales - the title (and that's all it is) is covered by its own article. David (talk) 13:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
To the directly above...the Kingdom of England existed prior to the union of scotland and england but doesnt any longer...--Cameron (t|p|c) 13:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
But the legal framework of the Kingdom of England still exists, which includes Wales. TharkunColl (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The article also omits citations for major sections. I think it may need a trip to FAR. Mangostar (talk) 14:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

FAR can be avoided. I'll work on it this week after it's off the main page. PeterSymonds | talk 15:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Peter and Dr., if you get this up to snuff, pls be sure to post an update to WT:FAR, so we can juggle the citations list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing, thanks Sandy. I'll list it at the LOCE as well; that'll save time MOS-wise after the article is adequately referenced. PeterSymonds | talk 21:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Came over to see how it's going; the word lately is that LOCE is broken, wait list of a year, no longer works :-( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Ouch. When I've finished referencing and the like I might ask a copyedit volunteer at the PR volunteers list. (Cheating? Yes, I suppose so :)). Thanks for the heads-up, PeterSymonds | talk 07:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citation?

The rather lengthy "English monarchy" and "Scottish monarchy" sections don't have a single source between them! This breaches several fairly obvious and fundamental guidelines of Wikipedia, let alone GA and FA standards. Is there any reason why this is the case here? --Jza84 |  Talk  18:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. It was chosen as a TFA because it's the Queen's birthday, but it has a number of problems (citations being the main one). It was an Emsworth article, promoted in the early days when the criteria for FA was much lower. I'll be working on it over the next couple of weeks to get it up to the current standard. Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 18:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
That's no problem. The information being asserted seems sound, just lacking verification. What I didn't think would be helpful would be adding several million [citation needed] tags on a main page day! --Jza84 |  Talk  18:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. "In 1707, England and Scotland merged under one crown, and became Great Britain", needs a copyedit; England and Scotland merged under one crown in a personal union in 1603, rather than 1707, which is what I understand is being implied. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't incorrect, as they were still under two crowns until 1707, only they were worn by the same person. I added the personal union to that sentence for clarity. -- Jao (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I rewrote the lead about an hour before it went live on the main page -- Copyediting there is probably necessary! It made me laugh that, above, a group of editors were claiming it was biased to the USA, when in fact it was just tired fingers not being clear! Thanks for your help, PeterSymonds | talk 18:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1901 Decline

It's not really accurate to say the Empire declined in 1901. The empire reached its territorial peak after the First World War with its acquisitions from the Ottoman Empire and German colonies, and it had her main European rival, Germany, had been defeated.--202.108.225.213 (talk) 23:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

G2bambino has trimmed the lead down, removing this reference. PeterSymonds | talk 23:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Poss Vandalism

what's that "queen of long live the queen" thing about? Is it vandalism? (I am a noob) -ni-ni-s- (talk) 23:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

please edit this out if i am mistaken -ni-ni-s- (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't it say "United kingdom"? -ni-ni-s- (talk) 23:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes it should, you were right. PeterSymonds | talk 06:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] /Research needed

I've added a new subpage to this talk page to collaborate sentences where the sources aren't easily found. Feel free to add to it if you come across anything, and then we might be able to help each other with the different material we have to hand. Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 22:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)