Talk:Scotland/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk archives for Scotland (current talk page)
<< 1          Archive 1 Archive 2 > 19 >>
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Caledonia

The article's first paragraph reference to Roman usage of Caledonia seems a bit anachronistic. That Roman period predates the emergence of the state, nation or country now called Scotland. Caledonia may be considered now to be a name for Scotland, but it was not so during the period of Roman rule in Britain, because Scotland had then no more real existence than did England. Also, the Roman Caledonia did not include territory south of the Forth-Clyde line. Laurel Bush 12:31, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC).

I agree, and I note that Caledonia is already listed in see also, although the corresponding entry does not have as much detail as your paragraph above. Perhaps that entry could be expanded, and the mention here removed? Berek 16:38, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have just done a little edit on Caledonia. I hesitate over Scotland. Laurel Bush 17:24, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC).

"four nations" of the UK

From LaurelBush 12:06, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC):

Is Northern Ireland a nation? Does this part of the UK have any real history as an independent country or nation?
The UK has four constituent parts. Three of these parts, England, Wales and Scotland, are often considered countries or nations in their own right. The border between the fourth part, Northern Ireland, and the Republic of Ireland is the current limit of UK sovereignty in the island of Ireland.
From AlMac 6 July 2005 08:56 (UTC)
Once upon a time, Ireland was one people, like that of the other four constituent parts of the United Kingdom. Class Conflict developed between the land owners, mainly in England leading to Troubles then to a Plebiscite where the people of Ireland voted whether to remain part of the UK or to get their independence, similar to a vote periodically held by the people of Puerto Rico whether they are to become a state of the USA, get full Independence from the USA, or to continue the way they now are.
The Northern Counties had been generally ruled by land owners in Scotland who treated the Irish better than they were treated by the land onwers in England, so the Northern Counties voted to remain part of Great Britain, while the rest voted for independence.
The Republic of Ireland is an independent nation from the United Kingdom. To say that it is part of UK sovereignty in the island of Ireland, is like saying that New York is part of the sovereignty of Canada in the continent of North America. Such a statement would have been true for a very short time during The War of 1812.
Once upon a time in history, these places were independent nations, but to call them nations today, is like calling Texas a nation. It is an inaccuracy, common to Americans who live in the USA. I was born in Scotland, and on my way over to the USA, I fell into a conversation with a Canadian whom I told I was on my way to America. He asked me what part of America ... South America, Central America.

(Just to correct you here, Scotland is a nation, by accordance to most modern definitions of a nation, here is one such example "Nations are essentially cohesive cultural communities with a strong self-identity. Many states contain several nations and, consequently, many nations do not have their own state." Scotland, having had it's own armed forces, sovereign, Parliament, international treaties before union with England is very different from ex-colonies coming together to form a nation in the Americas. Scotland herself, tried to establish her own colonies. The UK is a Union of nations ... I could harp on however I imagine you get the point - quote from http://polisci.nelson.com/nations.html)

Around the time I left, the Scottish Rebels were busy blowing up mail boxes to protest them being labeled with the current Queen (what Roman numberal to use). I found out about this when I asked my father why, in April, all postal facilities had banners exhorting us to "Mail early for Christmas." On occasion my father pulled my leg, ans it was not always obvious to me when his answers were serious.
People who live in the USA often call themselves Americans, forgetting that Canadians Mexicans and people throughout Central and South America, those islands like Cuba, are also Americans. Likewise many people around the world labele the Island as if the whole place is England. This is as insulting to a Scot, as someone who says, to an Ohioan that ohio is part of Kentucky, but such is life, there are a lot of people in our world who are not knowledgeable about the geography of our world. AlMac 6 July 2005 08:49 (UTC)

Ceilidh dancing

I agree that there may well be dancing at a ceilidh (although there doesn't have to be) but there's nothing special about it, as far as I'm concerned. Can you give an example of "ceilidh dancing" which is not Disco, Old Tyme or Scottish Country Dance? -- Derek Ross

Ceilí dancing (as it is spelt in Ireland) is a specific form of dancing, in which various styles of dancing (I'm can't remember the correct terms. I haven't done Irish dancing since I was 9 years old!) are performed. It is most definitely distinctive, in the form, rhythm, movement and structure used. And it has a unique origins that bare little relationship to disco, old tyme or Scottish County Dance, though the latter may have evolved from it in its Scottish form. If there isn't a formal page on it on Wiki, there should be. Unfortunately I don't know enough (or remember enough) about the steps, music, etc to write a page. (It is a long way from my specialities, history & politics. JTD 01:56 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)

Fair enough JTD. The Irish experience may be different. However at the many Scottish ceilidhs that I've attended, the above types predominate, particularly Old Tyme and SCD. The only other kind of dancing that I've ever seen at a ceilidh was Step dancing and I've only seen that on one occasion. That may be the type of dance that you're thinking of. Of course, most people are familiar with that through Riverdance, etc. rather than ceilidhs. -- Derek Ross 02:46 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)

Step dancing is I think a descendant of it, but there are many form of ceilí dancing, just indeed as there are many variations on ceilí music. In the twentieth century in particular, all forms of Irish dancing became overly rigid and formulised. The Riverdance phenomenon (which it is said made Irish dancing, or a form of it, sexy) led to an increasing liberalisation in form, and that has been reflected in modern day ceilí dancing, but it still is a distinct form that is different from anything else I've seen. JTD 02:52 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)

Interesting. It would be good to have an article on that. Even if you just do a small stub, it might grow. You know how it goes. -- Derek Ross 02:57 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)

Analogy with American Indians

Anyone know why the analogy with American Indians is drawn with Highland Clans? I can't see that this analogy is good, certainly my (probably ill informed) view says some of the differences are: The clans were non-nomadic, had a loose hierarchical system of tribute, tithe and alegiance culminating with the Chieftain, through a series of sub-Chieftains. Shared a common religion (atleast upto the reformation), and a common language and written and oral culture. They owned land, and would carry out long distance commercial trading (highland droves to London). The Clan system seems a pretty direct descendant of the european Celtic culture as described by the Romans. -- Anonymous reader

I've never seen why the analogy with the Americans was made. The only resemblance that I could see was the importance laid on honour and honourable behaviour in both social systems. -- Derek Ross

Queen elizabeth 2 is a descendant of the Hanoverian royal dynasty which was a small german principality. They were the enemies of the Stuarts. It was largely Hanoverian troops from Germany that defeated and slaughtered the clans at Culloden. -- Anonymous reader

Right. That's all been said on the Jacobite page. Now tell us something we don't know. -- Derek Ross

Number of Gaelic speakers

I changed the "very few in the western isles still speak Gaelic" to approximately fifty five thousand; Fifty five thousand isn't very few, and only 40% of Gaels live in the areas people would like to cede as Gaelic; the Gaidhealtachd is much larger than the Isles and the current conception of the Highlands, Glasgow and even Edinburgh (which have about 20% of Scots Gaelic speakers together) could be considered in the Gaidhealtachd since they've had a continuous Gaelic population since they were founded.

Would perhaps be better as "very few still speak Gaelic outside the Western Isles". Gaelic speakers now make up 1-2% of the Scottish population when it may have been as much as 50% 500 years ago and still 20% 200 years ago.

Whether Scots is an official language

Hi, we are having a little dispute in the German Wikipedia whether Scots is really an official language (Amtssprache in German) in Scotland, i.e. the language that by law administrative documents can be written in. Can someone clarify 1. what exactly is meant by official language in this context and 2. confirm that Scots is one in Scotland? Or is it just an acknowledged minority language? Thanks in advance! --131.111.99.102 13:40, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

P.S.: My "opponent" says that in the more strict sense there are only two official languages, English and Scottish Gaelic. --131.111.99.102 13:44, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

In Scotland, like the rest of the UK, there is no official language in the strict legal sense. However you will be expected to use English when dealing with the courts or the Government, so to that extent, it is the de facto official language. Gaelic receives some support from the Government, both financial and in the form of broadcasting time on all Scottish television channels but it cannot be used in the courts or for filling in Government forms, etc. (whereas I believe that Hindi, Punjabi and Cantonese can in some cases) so although it is recognised by the Government, it is not official either.

Scots is very much the poor relation, despite the fact that it is spoken by far more of the population than Gaelic. It is not used for legal nor for government documents and it receives neither funding nor compulsory broadcasting support. Although dramas in Scots have been broadcast, the last that I can remember was about 10 years ago. Scots on the television is definitely rare (to put it mildly). Radio is slightly more supportive. Robbie Shepherd generally uses a good deal of Scots on his traditional music programmes. However this is more down to his personal style than to official policy on Radio Scotland which is, by and large, an English language radio station.

The last time Scots can be said to have been an official language (in a de facto sense) would be 1706 when it was still in use as the language of the Scottish Government. For some years thereafter it remained in use in the courts but as time went by English came more and more to the fore. Nowadays it is rarely if ever used by lawyers or judges. Perhaps the new Scots Parliament will or has decided to change this but I am not aware of any moves on its part to do so.

Sadly there is not even a Scots language Wikipedia although there are now two devoted to English. -- Derek Ross 06:31, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Update -- there now is a Scots Wikipedia. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the info! --131.111.99.66 14:30, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

As it stands today, the article is at odds with itself. The info box says scots is, the languages section says it isn't. They can't both be right. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 14:19, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In which case one of them should be changed. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

- I don't think it IS an official language. But it certainly WAS. The reason I think is that it still exists in certain areas of Scotland but has been watered down and so is practically English, so it is often just classed as Scottish slang.

Scottish banknotes and legal tender

The article says that Scottish notes aren't legal tender in England. That's true, but it's misleading as Scottish notes aren't legal tender in Scotland either: Scotland doesn't have any concept of legal tender. I wrote to the Bank of England some years ago about this. Dduck 17:43, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Sorry for being a moron. I realise now that I misread the text. I've taken the bold step of rewriting that section, for those brain-impaired like myself. Dduck 18:06, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This may be true today, but when I was a child growing up in Scotland until the mid 1950's, Scottish notes were printed by each of the Banks of Scotland, with distinctive colors identifying which banks, and could be used any place in Scotland. English notes were printed by one official agency in England and were all one color. A person trying to "pass" a Scottish note in England would be asked what country we are from, and totally disbelieved if we said Scotland, unless perhaps we wearing a Kilt at the time of this conversation.
The Bank of England would be the wrong place to ask anyway, about the legality of Scottish notes in Scotland, you should have asked a place that issues Scottish notes. AlMac 6 July 2005 09:02 (UTC)
"Scotland doesn't have any concept of legal tender" Actually, this is incorrect. One and Two pound coins are legal tender in Scotland. Other forms such as notes and small change (either English or Scottish) are considered 'legal currency'. User:Rincewind42 31 August 2005 09:02 (UTC)
I've expanded this for consistency with other articles. FWIW, Stair says that small change is legal tender within limits - the same as in England - as is monetised gold, not that anyone would ever use it. However, just to confuse matters, there is a concept of legal tender for banknotes - but only Bank of England notes below £5, of which there aren't any. (A bit pointless, but there you go). See Talk:Pound sterling for some quotes. (To muddy the waters even more, from 1939 to 1946 Scottish banknotes and Bank of England ones were all legal tender throughout the UK, under war emergency powers, but that's another story) Shimgray | talk | 16:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Economy of Scotland

Country articles tend to have some information about the economy, could somebody add that information for Scotland?

I was listening to the radio, BBC Scotland, on the way to work, they said Scotch was the 2nd biggest export, I thought I'd check wikipedia to see which is the biggest, but the information is not here.

I've added a brief paragraph on the diversity of the Scottish economy, but it still needs fleshing out, and doesn't yet answer the above question or anything approaching the detail suggested there. Berek 20:47, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Is it true that the oil wells in the North Sea are part of Scotland? AlMac 6 July 2005 09:18 (UTC)

Researching Economy of Scotland

started by AlMac 6 July 2005 09:28 (UTC)

CIA on UK etc.

An external link with useful info, but Scotland is part of the UK. The data is not split into what each part of the UK contributes.

  • Here is what the US Central Intelligence Agency has to say about the UK [1]

AlMac 6 July 2005 09:13 (UTC)

Did anyone ever dispute that Scotland is officially a part of the UK? Confused?

Whether Scottish law can be said to be "the best of both worlds"

A few minor edits. I thought "the best of both worlds argument" about scottish law could be argued to infringe upon the NPOV principles, and if you're going to refer to other parties by their proper names then you should refer to the Conservatives like this as well rather than using diminutives. Chrism 19:06, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

"The best of both worlds argument" only really infringes on the NPOV if people seriously disagree with it. Just because something could be argued doesn't mean that anyone does argue it. NPOV allows you to state that "Sleep is wonderful." provided that everybody agrees with that statement. The fact that it could be argued that "Sleep is awful." is neither here nor there unless there exists a Group B which does argue that. In that case only would the statement need to be change to "Group A believes that sleep is wonderful but Group B does not." to retain the NPOV.

As far as I'm aware, the major comparative studies of Scots, Common and Civil law have come to the conclusion that Scots law does gain "the best of both worlds", so the bald statement is NPOV in this case.

As for the diminutive point, I suppose that you are talking about Tory. This is not a diminutive: it is the original name for the Party and has been in use for much longer than the modern name, Conservative. It is a name with a proud heritage and I am sorry to see that you have removed it from the article. -- Derek Ross

Derek, I think that your point about the "Tories" is an interesting one, but these days it's (perhaps, incorrectly) regarded as a nickname more than anything else. So, I think it's better, these days, to refer to the Conservatives. Dduck 12:35, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I suppose you're right, Iain, but even so I think that it's only marginally better. It's just that the original change seemed a bit pointless in the first place, so even though I didn't bother changing it back (which would have been just as pointless) I couldn't let it go without comment. -- Derek Ross

Showing my age, I preferred the distinctive name "The Conservative and Unionist Party", fortunately much diminished of late..dave souza 00:54, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Whether she's Elizabeth I of Scotland, Elizabeth II of Scotland, Elizabeth II of the UK, or what

The first time

"(Note that for Scotland, she is the first monarch to reign with this name, and signs all documents "Elizabeth".)"

This seems to imply that she isn't "Elizabeth II" in Scotland, when she is.

(It is also meaningless. Monarchs don't sign with their numerals no matter how many previous monarchs of the same name there have been.) Proteus 00:12 GMT, 12th January 2004

My understanding (being Scottish) is that she is not Elizabeth II in Scotland. Bovlb 14:00, 2004 Mar 16 (UTC)
Well she is. Scotland ceased to have its own numbering system in 1707 when it ceased to be an independent kingdom. The Queen 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" throughout the UK. See Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom for information on the Scottish numbering issue. Proteus 14:12, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Interesting. It's a pity that no reference is given for the Queen's announcement, as that might disambiguate the meaning of "in future" with respect to herself. I attest that this issue remains controversial in Scotland. On a historical note, in addition to blowing up one postbox, I believe that many had porridge poured into them. Bovlb 17:22, 2004 Mar 16 (UTC)
You might be interested in reading up on the 1953 case of MacCormick v. the Lord Advocate (there's certainly an article in there), the result of which was to rule that Brenda could call herself whatever she liked and that no pleb had any "title or interest to challenge the legality of the royal numeral". It was in the aftermath of that that HMQ, as a concession, made the "highest regnal number of either line" promise. Either that, or she wasn't very happy with having her pillar boxes dynamited or oatmealed. –Hajor 18:13, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I've now written a rather basic attempt at MacCormick v. the Lord Advocate. I'd appreciate it if someone could look over it. BTW, while looking for articles linking to it, I found that Fundamental Laws of England is using the case to argue that the separate legal systems of the two countries have been abolished! Maybe someone more knowledgable than I am could have a look at that, too... Marnanel 00:46, May 20, 2004 (UTC)
I think that the Police forces of the two countries would be glad to hear that the separate legal systems had been abolished since a police force from the one country currently has to treat the other country as if it was a separate sovereign foreign state when following criminals who cross the border -- that means a lot of paperwork. On the civil side I believe that there is more of a merger since the ultimate civil court of appeal in both cases is the House of Lords. -- Derek Ross 06:20, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
Point of interest from The States ... each of the states of the United States of America are part of the same nation, but the Police Forces of each local geography have less authority in another geography of the same nation, than
Bounty Hunters which are a kind of Strong Arm legalized Mafia, used by Bail Bondsmen to go round up individuals who have forfeited their bonds while outside of the Criminal Court System, and
there's a kind of Bill Collector that can seize property that has not been fully paid for on time. AlMac 6 July 2005 09:37 (UTC)
It's also worth noting that she is Elizabeth II of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. despite these countries never having had any previous queen called Elizabeth, so Scotland's situation is not unusual nor out of line with other Commonwealth monarchies. -- Derek Ross 15:41, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

However with Scotland being an older an originally independant soveriegn nation, with her own linegae of Royal dynasties, Scotland is very different from other Commenwealth nations, with repsect to Canada, Australia and New Zealand. As the "offspring" of the UK they were always to follow whatever numerical lineage the UK (England) followed. When push comes to shove, Scotland is not considered an equal in the Treaty of Union, where a Scottish sovereign has had the higher number, he's always been known by his English title, within the UK. Technically she should be Elizabeth the First of the UK, ideally she should be removed

She may be Elizabeth II IN Scotland, but she is never Elizabeth II OF Scotland.
Good point! –Hajor

The second time

Removed There is a little ambiguity when speaking of Queen Elizabeth II: Scotland has never had a monarch called Elizabeth before her, and many think that she should adopt the style "Queen Elizabeth II of England and I of Scotland".

This is getting a little silly. There is no "ambiguity" in her title - England and Scotland no longer exist as kingdoms and so can't have separate numbering systems for their monarchs because they don't have separate thrones. The United Kingdom has one monarch ruling over one kingdom, and she is "Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom". She isn't "Queen Elizabeth II of England and Scotland" or "Queen Elizabeth II of England and II of Scotland", which would indeed create ambiguity. What "many think" is a result of ignorance, not any ambiguity in her title. Scotland indeed hasn't had a monarch called Elizabeth before, but she isn't monarch of Scotland, she's monarch of the United Kingdom (which, incidentally, also hasn't had a monarch called Elizabeth before), and even if she were monarch of Scotland she'd still be Elizabeth II as she is in all her realms, like Canada and Australia, none of which have had a Queen Elizabeth before. This whole confusion seems to stem from the belief that the Queen is separately Queen of England and Scotland, which simply isn't the case, and hasn't been the case for any monarch since 1707. Proteus 10:15, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In that case, who was Elizabeth I of the United Kingdom?

If Scotland and England no longer exist as kingdoms and can't have separate numbering systems then surely she is Queen Elizabeth I of both. But no, she has been called Queen Elizabeth II. Since that applies to England, I maintain that she is Queen Elizabeth I of Scotland and II of England. --AileanMacRaith 21:07, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
For God's sake, this is ridiculous. The Queen isn't anything "of England" or "of Scotland", because those kingdoms don't exist anymore. (I really don't see how that is too hard to understand...) She is the monarch "of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", and her numeral for that kingdom is "II", as is shown in numerous official and legal documents, including her own Accession Proclamation. You can "maintain" that she's "Elizabeth I of Scotland" or "Elizabeth, Queen of Scots" all you like but it won't make it so. That's not just my opinion, it's a legal fact, and is completely incontestable. Proteus 22:31, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The suggestions made by Ailean MacRaith are rather absurd. The Queen is not Elizabeth I of Scotland. Rather, she is Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Perhaps it will be good to read the Proclamation of the Accession Council, as advised by Mr Tilman (emphasis added below):

Whereas it has pleased Almighty God to call to his mercy our late Sovereign Lord King George VI, of blessed and glorious memory, by whose Decease the Crown is solely and rightfully come to the High and Mighty Princess Elizabeth Alexandra Mary:

We, therefore, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of the Realm, being assisted with these His late Majesty's Privy Council, with representatives of other Members of the Commonwealth, with other Principal Gentlemen of Quality, with the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of London, do now hereby with one Voice and Consent of Tongue and Heart publish and proclaim, That the High and Mighty Princess Elizabeth Alexandra Mary is now, by the death of our late Sovereign of happy memory, become Queen Elizabeth II by the Grace of God, Queen of the Realm, and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, to whom Her Lieges do acknowledge all Faith, and constant Obedience with hearty and humble Affection, beseeching God by whom Kings and Queens do reign, to bless the Royal Princess, Elizabeth II, with long and happy Years to reign over us.

Would you also care to explain her official style: 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. Notice that she is not "of England ... Queen;" she is "of the United Kingdom ... Queen." The numbering, though it may seem incorrect to you, is indisputably correct. -- Lord Emsworth

In that case

1. Who WAS Elizabeth I of the United Kingdom (nb the United Kingdom did not exist prior to 1603) 2. If a James ascended the throne would he be James III or VIII?

1. There has never been an Elizabeth I of the United Kingdom. What's your point? 2. Presumably VIII, though I think it's likely he'd be allowed to call himself whatever he wished. Marnanel 15:15, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I mean, for crivens sake, there's a 'Queen Elizabeth II of Papua New Guinea'. Royal numerals don't have to make sense. Morwen - Talk 15:19, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
It's simple.

If Charles renamed himself Zog he would ascend the throne as King Zog I. He couldn't be King Zog II as there has never been a King Zog I. The "legal" position is not what we're discussing here. Parliament could legislate that the Queen is Elibazeth 21st and that would then be legal. What we are talking about is a percieved insensitivity to Scottish feelings at the time of the Queen's ascension. It may be trivial and I suppose most people nowadays don't give it a second thought. But AT THE TIME it caused a lot of angst - hence the exploding post boxes.

Exile

Fine. The "perceived insensitivity" already has its own mention in the article (While some controversy has simmered amongst the Scottish public over her official title since her coronation...); we all agree that there is a difference between the logical position and the legal position (also mentioned in the article); and those who have read the discussion so far already know about the post boxes. So what is the point in this discussion ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:38, 2004 Jul 5 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth is not the first monarch to have this problem. Edward I reigned in the late 13th/early 14th century - so where does this leave Edward (11th century king just before the Norman Conquest)?--Cap 12:30, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

AFAIK the Normans restarted the numbering sequence, as part of their campaign of airbrushing pre-conquest English history.

I think the current state of the section on head of state is OK. I fail to understand why some posters don't see what the "anti-II" protesters were on about though. The clear indication of the "II" is that the United Kingdom crown is a continuation of the English crown, which is emphatically not the case. The Queen has stated that the numbering for future monarchs will be the higher of the English and Scottish sequence. If adhered to, that is a satisfactory resolution. It doesn't mean there wasn't a genuine dispute to be settled.

138.253.102.162 11:43, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Source of statement as to future policy on numbering of monarchs

Can anyone source the statement under 'Head of State' that the queen "... has said that in the future monarchs will follow the international ordinal tradition ... " of using the highest number of any constituent part? I have never heard of such a statement; it sounds like an urban myth; I note it is mentioned in several places in Wikipedia, but they seem to have a common origin. And where do we find a mention of this "tradition"? If this sentence cannot be sourced, it should be deleted. Ariwara 13 November 2005

The NPOV dispute

I note that an NPOV dispute notice has been added to this article. Fine, but we need a description of the POV problem so that we can fix it or at the least discuss it. I will leave the notice until the 29th of March, 2004 and if no discussion of the POV problems has started by that time I intend to remove it. -- Derek Ross 04:43, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've just dropped into this page for the first time in ages, and given the amount of activity on the talk page, was expecting to find it littered with the carcases of dead histrionics. But it seems to me to be in very good shape - and I can't think what it's doing with a "disputed" notice. It's an excellent article - well done all who've been editing it. seglea 07:00, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have removed the NPOV. I'm still not sure I agree, but I see that the majority on this board do. --AileanMacRaith 09:44, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
But perhaps we are wrong or just haven't noticed something that you have. Why do you think that the article is not neutral ? -- Derek Ross 17:25, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)