Talk:Style of the British sovereign

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Commonwealth realms, an attempt to better organise and expand information in articles related to the Commonwealth realms. For more information, visit the project page or check the talk page for on going discussions.

Contents 1 Request for outside input: Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act, 1927 2 British Monarch 3 A question 4 Welsh 5 2 questions 6 Defender of... 7 Incomplete 8 Fair use rationale for Image:76-834.jpg 9 Merger proposal

[edit] Request for outside input: Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act, 1927

There's currently a discussion at Talk:Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act about the constitutional significance of the Act and its impact on the relationship between the UK, the Crown and the dominions. The problem is that the article as it stands makes some very sweeping but questionable claims about the impact of the Act on the status of the monarch vis-a-vis the dominions. Input from anyone with any knowledge of or interest in this area would be greatly appreciated. This notice may be put up on a couple of other talkpages. Iota 00:05, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] British Monarch

I have a question after I read the following passage in the Wiki-article "Peerage":

All British honours, including peerage dignities, spring from the Sovereign, who is considered the fount of honour. The Sovereign him or herself cannot belong to the Peerage as "the fountain and source of all dignities cannot hold a dignity from himself" (opinion of the House of Lords in the Buckhurst Peerage Case).

It seems to me that the above passage is not correct, because British monarch could hold ohter aristocratic titles besides the title King, for example:

Lord of Man, Prince of Orange(William III), Elector of Hannover(George I), Duke of Normandy(Henry II) etc.

Could anyone please explain to me ?

--Siyac 14:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

• The British monarch can hold [i]foreign[/i] titles and honours since as they're not [i]British[/i] honours flowing from the Sovereign. Lord of Man is a feudal title that was George III got when he bought the island from the family that owned it. (Alphaboi867)

[edit] A question

Does anyone know an example of a member of British royal family who is a commoner ?

--Siyac 12:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Define commoner. Under the strictest defination anyone who is neither the soveriegn or a peer is a commoner; according to this Princes William and Harry are both commoners. Of course most people don't consider Prince/sses and other titles persons commoners. The highest ranking members of the royal family to lack titles of any kind Princess Anne's kids, Peter and Zara Phillips. Their father was a commoner who declined to Queen's offer of an earldom. (Alphaboi867 23:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Welsh

Can somebody please add an explanation as to why the Welsh translation is included? I suppose it's the one language other than English regularly used in British government, but why should it be used in this article if it's effectively a translation?

Yes, why is it also in Welsh? GoodDay 23:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Presumably because it is the only other language in which the style is officially defined. Even a translation will have nuances, so is worth including. I think that if this were an article about the style of the sovereign a non-English-speaking country, we would include it in all the languages in which it was officially defined, as well as in English. TSP 23:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

See United Kingdom fo similiar arguement on the UK's official language. If Welsh is added, Scottish & Irish should be too. GoodDay 00:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you're making the question too broad. The issue is not what the UK's official language(s) is/are, but simply in what languages the Style of the British Sovereign has been officially defined. Sources are provided for the two existing languages. If you can find sources which state what the style of the British sovereign has been officially defined to be in either Irish or Scots Gaelic, then absolutely they should be included; but we should not be saying what languages these things should be defined in, merely reporting what languages they are defined in. TSP 11:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just 'surprised' that there's no 'Scottish' or 'Irish' transilations. GoodDay 21:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

There are different issues here. Welsh has always been a living language in active use in Wales; the lowest its use has dropped to is 21%, and it is now rising from that. Scots Gaelic was rescued from near extinction during the latter half of last century, and only a few percent of the population speak it as a primary language. Irish, while spoken widely in some parts of the Republic of Ireland, is rarer in Northern Ireland (with a predictable political divide), and has no official status (though there are proposals to give it one). In a lot of areas of UK government, the two languages that material must be made available in are English and Welsh. TSP 22:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2 questions

Why does the list only begin in 1066? And why aren't places like Australia and Canada listed for the current monarch (after all, Scotland is listed and that was only a personal union, same with Normandy, etc.)? TharkunColl 23:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, the list should go back to 'at least' Egbert of Wessex, and Secondly, that's a UK, first among equals VS All are equal Commonwealth question. GoodDay 23:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No, and please stop characterising my arguments thus - they are nothing of the sort. This list includes both England and Scotland when they were in personal union. So why should it not list Australia, Canada, etc.? As for Egbert, he was never king of England. TharkunColl 23:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

List should go back to Alfred the Great of England & Kenneth I of Scotland. Sorry 'bout characterization. GoodDay 23:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

PS- Where's the Scottish monarchs from Kenneth I to Mary I (Mary, Queen of Scots)? GoodDay 23:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

"Should" seems an odd question to ask. This is about what titles were used, isn't it? We can't go adding to the titles of historical monarchs because we feel they should have used a different one.

By my understanding, until their various independences, Australia, Canada and the like were simply British colonies. Some monarchs chose to recognise some or all of the colonies in their titles ("the British Dominions beyond the Seas" and the like), but ultimately they were monarchs of the colonies because they were monarchs of Britain.

At independence, the monarchies split, and the Queen's position as "Queen of Canada" is theoretically separate from her position as "Queen of the United Kingdom". I'm not aware that a compound title is ever used.

But, yes, it is entirely valid to ask why this page traces the English line back and not the Scottish. I would have thought that it would be best to trace back to James I and VI, and have separate pages (or at least sections) for the styles of English and Scottish monarchs. Arguably it should only go back to Anne, but if the monarchs in question actually did use a compound style it seems simpler to keep them as one list rather than have two separate ones. TSP 23:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It should only go back to Anne, then. She's is the 'first' British monarch. GoodDay 00:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

From 1603 to 1707 the crowns of England and Scotland were legally separate, yet both are listed here. So why don't we list the Commonwealth realms under Elizabeth II? TharkunColl 10:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Possibly I'm misunderstanding your point. Both are listed here because the monarchs in question used a single style including both. The Commonwealth realms are not listed because Elizabeth II, in her role as British monarch, does not use a style including them. As I say, I'm not sure that should comes into it - this page is reporting what styles were/are used, not saying what styles should be used. TSP 11:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have WP:BOLD been bold and divided the 'Styles' section into English, Scottish (currently blank), English and Scottish and British. There seems no neutral reason to trace the history back along the English line but not along the Scottish. TSP 11:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

With regard to your previous point, the list is incorrect anyway. James I adopted the title "King of Great Britain" in 1604, despite the fact that the two kingdoms of England and Scotland remained separate. So the list as it stands most definitely does not reflect what the monarchs actually called themselves, and seems instead to simply describe what countries they were monarchs of. In which case, there is no legitimate reason to exclude the Commonwealth realms under Elizabeth II. For example, the list currently includes such places as Normandy and Anjou, which were never part of the English monarchy - they just shared a monarch. TharkunColl 14:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, that's a problem - it's true that this page is a bit low on sources. This page purports to be a list of the styles actually used by British monarchs - I think it's clear that all the "By the Grace of God" bits wouldn't be included if the intention was to "simply describe what countries they were monarchs of". If it isn't accurate, we need to fix that; but that isn't a reason to say that we might as well throw accuracy to the wind and just list what we think the titles should have been.

I seem to remember that in the case of places like Normandy and Anjou, and certainly France, for a lot of the time they appeared in the monarch's title, the monarch didn't even rule those places; they were included in the style of the British monarch purely as claims that the British monarch was also entitled to rule those places. In the case of Australia and Canada, as I understand it, the monarchies are very explicitly separate, and different styles are maintained (the Canadian one of which mentions the UK; but the Australian one doesn't) and used in the various territories. TSP 19:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the English/British monarchs from 1328-1801. Styled themselves as King/Queen of France. As for the Commonwealth monarchies? Head of the Commonwealth is acceptable. GoodDay 20:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Defender of...

"...Defender of the Earth." Shouldn't that be faith?68.175.19.252 20:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incomplete

This article is incomplete concerning its Scottish section. The Scottish monarchs go back before 1603 (like the English monarchs). Would somebody please correct this. GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

And the English ones go back to before 1066 as well. The whole thing is just incomplete. But please don't let them add the Pictish ones as well! TharkunColl (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The Picts can't be added, unless the Wessex are added. Actually, this article shouldn't even have the English and Scottish monarchs. This article's earliest date should be 1707. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:76-834.jpg

Image:76-834.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merger proposal

I have suggested merging Most Excellent Majesty, Most Gracious Majesty and Britannic Majesty to this article simply because those articles are little more than stubs and will always be subsets of content on this page. I suggest creating a section with the forms of Majesty used by the British sovereign and the context under which they are used rather than having three little articles on the very closely related subjects. Charles 22:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems perfectly reasonable to me. They are all variants of Majesty.--Gazzster (talk) 13:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps also add the information to Majesty? ^† DBD 13:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Howabout giving these articles a chance to expand? GoodDay (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

How could they expand, buddy?--Gazzster (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, DBD. A template at the section on British variants of Majesty can notify the reader to also see Style of the British Sovereign. GoodDay, some article will never expand... We don't always have to be so inclusionist with individual articles for absolutely everything. Charles 16:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Ya mean there's nothing more to put in them? GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I admit I dont know much about them, but how big could they get? Beyond stating what the style is, a bit of history and the circumstances in which they are used, what else?--Gazzster (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It appears merge is the preferred option. Best I go with the majority. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The information is now at Majesty#The United Kingdom (also, if anyone thinks they can clean it up a little, please do :) ). I can work on adding it to this page as well but I have a lunch meeting to go to shortly. Cheers! Charles 16:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Good job.--Gazzster (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)