Monarchies in Europe was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I hadn't realized that Liechtenstein or Norway, let alone Australia, Jamaica, etc., were in the European Union. Have I missed something? -- Hoary 09:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
It seems a little arbitrary to restrict it to "in the European Union". If that is a valid topic, so, obviously, is "Monarchies in Europe", and the latter would would make the former redundant. That already seems to be the way some of the content of this page is heading. While the personal union of Commonwealth Realms (and the status of the federal Kingdom of the Netherlands) is interesting, I'm not sure it is so relevant here as to merit detailed discussion. Noting the status of the British and Dutch monarchs, and briefly mentioning republicanism in their extra-European countries, would probably keep this article focussed. TheGrappler 01:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Nightstallion,
Excellent article!
One problem. The single-character Roman numerals show up as garbage on both my Mac and my Linux machines (using Firefox browser) -- at first I thought it was a weird mistake in the picture caption (which I hastily corrected), until I saw the edit history and noticed the mistake throughout the article.
I don't have a Windows machine running Internet Explorer or whatever I need to see them properly, so I'll have to take your word for it that they look better, when they render. But wouldn't you agree that maximum intelligibility should trump aesthetics in this case? That is, as long as a significant fraction of users (those using the popular browser Firefox and/or non-Windows machines, if my experience is representative) are not going to be able to read the page, we probably should stick to the more conventional I's and V's (and X's).
There's another issue here too, in my opinion -- a philosophical one. The single-character Roman numeral character set is, of course, incomplete; it obviously doesn't provide for every possible ordinal number. When you have to refer to so-and-so the XVIth, you have to use the conventional characters, right? Given that this is so, isn't it best just to use a consistent standard throughout the article? Kiscica 23:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Good article, but a few things:
I'm putting this on hold for 7 days. I think you should be able to fix it up by then. :) Jo e I 03:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the link to "voter registration" regarding the Danish material, since this article deals with a voluntary registration on the initiative of individual citizens.
In Denmark, the procedure is somewhat different and goes like this: The actual voter takes no part in the registration process. Denmark's entire population is registred by computer, since each citizen is awarded a social-security number (in Danish: CPR nummer) shortly after birth (newborns are given a temporary number by the nurse who also reports the birth of the new child). Election campaigns generally take 21 days since § 56 of the Law regarding Elections [1] specifies that it is possible to vote by mail three weeks before the election day (if e.g. the voter will be abroad on the election day.) During this period, a computer at the Ministry of Taxation will print a personal valgkort (lit: "election card") for each citizen aged 18 or above on the election day. These cards are dispatched by mail and received by the voters around 4-7 days before the election takes place. The card informs about the topic of the election as well as the location of the local polling station, including the number printed on the table the person has to report to. When arriving there, the voter will find this table manned by (normally) four people, each representing a different political party. Two of them will verify that the person's valgkort has not yet been marked as used on the official list and will exchange it for a ballot paper. If the topic of the vote is a referendum on a change to the constitution, the proposal not only requires a majority, but also that least 40 % of all potential voters to vote in favour of the change (article § 88 in the Constitution). [2] Before 1953, this number was 45 %. -- Valentinian (talk) 14:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Still don't see why Australia etc are listed here - even if the UK was to become a republic it might not mean Australia will. Australia could become a republic and NSW, QLD etc remain as are! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.36.120.6 ( talk) 03:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC).
Why is a Euro person who lives in a republic so focused on Antipoden monarchies??? While the Australian/NZ Crown are linked to the UK Crown they are not in Euro and possible to ot live. Even if Australia was to become a republic, NSW, QLD etc could still be monarchies in their own right! 203.36.120.6 03:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah your pretty right Brian but it would take referendum in each Australian state to change their own constitution. So in theory, Australia votes to become a republic, Commonwealth Parilement then passes the bill, GG (or Queen) signs the bill into law Commonwealth of Austrlia then becomes a republic, however each state must then have it's own referendum so it might be possible that some states become republics and others not. On the other hand it is also possible that some states might chose to become a republic and others not, while Austrlia remains a monarchy. Given the Austrlian constitution it is also possible that the Commonwealth Government might let new states join the Commonwealth who are already republic - say East Timor - or the Northern Territory (if its people select a republican form of government on becoming a state - if ever) so then it is possible that the Commonwealth of Australia could be a monarchy with a mix of republic and monarchy states. What many people overseas (and in Australia) often don't realise is that Australia is a Commonwealth/Federation of independent states - the states chose to belong and can break away at any time they so wish. To a large extent the states have as much power as an independent nation, own leagl system, laws, government and can largely do what they like with only the power the Commonwealth Government has being limited to sectionn 51 of the constitution. To a large extent it is lucky Australia states were all British colonies - if they had been a mixture of French/British/German (like PNG was before WWI) then we might already have an Austrlian Federation with a mix of both monarchies and republics.
The best comparrison I can think of is the EU. States join the EU and pass certain powers to it but remain independent States in their own right. 123.3.0.93 21:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
"although there is a significant minority of republicans in all of them" - oh dear! This phrase is already marked as "citation needed", and quite right too! I have searched really hard today to find *any* evidence at all of a republican movement in the Vatican, or in Liechtenstein, or in Andorra - I have failed! Even if the statement is false for just these three tiny nations, surely the sentence should be removed or re-written. A one-word alteration (to "although there is a significant minority of republicans in 'some' of them") would greatly improve accuracy, would it not? Timothy Titus 18:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
This section seems like it is needed. The section should include the history of monarchies in Europe and how the monarchies interbred. Casey14 20:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
If in Luxembourg only men can become Grandduke, how come Luxembourg had two female monarchs already? Ivo von Rosenqvist ( talk) 22:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The Queen of Canada, Australia etc. are not relevant to this article. We only share a monarch, the monarchies, however are distinct. Thus, Australia, Canada etc. are neither geographically or politically relevant to this article. I can see this has been argued before under the subheading "Australia". -- Cameron * 16:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) May we please delete the Commonwealth realms (except the UK) from this article? GoodDay ( talk) 18:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd agree that the Canadian monarchy has its roots it Britain and that the countries are (to some extent) linked until this day but I'd like to see a source stating that the Canadian monarchy is physically and culturally located in Europe.... -- Cameron * 16:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
[outdent] Are you not confusing the monarch and royal family with the more governmental institution of monarchy? The former of the Commonwealth realms no doubt exist physically in Europe, but the latter does not, except for that of the UK, of course. Besides, none of this debate is relevant to the question of: why do we need a duplicate list here to that which exists at Commonwealth realm? -- Miesianiacal ( talk) 15:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
[outdent] Lawe stated: "the reason to include the list is that it shows the non-European countries which have their monarch residing Europe. This is not the same as the list of Commonwealth Realms" Could you elaborate on what makes the list here so unique as to warrant its near duplication of what can be found already at Commonwealth realm? Especially in light of WP:SS seeming to say that we should only provide a "moderate amount of info on the topic's more important points" as a summary in one article of another article's content. -- Miesianiacal ( talk) 22:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I really don't see what harm is done by having a little info on the Commonwealth realms in this article in the appropriate context... — Nightstallion 17:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
May I suggest something? I'm going to flip-flop a bit, having seen the list again. It is striking, when you compare the burst of colour and text with the rest of the article, that the list seems to have a significance far out of proportion to its worth. The list is supposed to be an incidental note. I mean, see how much space the list occupies and how much glitz it has.-- Gazzster ( talk) 10:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Advantages
Gazzster, I admire your patience. We have written 4,000 words about 40 words!!! And I still cannot even guess what their problem is, because 95% the republican stuff was taken out. I answer question after question after question. How can Miesienical be so concerned that someone should read the Queen lives in England? Surely, it is well accepted that this is one of the most ridiculous and one-sided debates of all time. -- Lawe ( talk) 12:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Looking forward to your approval for their removal. -- Lawe ( talk) 05:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
The following paragraph was put forward as an alternative to explain the "non-UK-realms'-monarch-lives-in-Europe" scenario without using a list that essentially duplicates the one found at Commonwealth realm:
Perhaps we need to find out why, if at all, the above paragraph, or some tweaked variation of it, is insufficient, and instead the following, plus a list, is somehow superior:
What is included in the list... | Is this info already included in the list at Commonwealth realms? |
---|---|
Flag icons | Yes |
Links to the country articles (eg. Canada) | Yes |
Links monarchy articles (eg. Monarchy of Canada) | Yes |
[outdent]Are we to take it then that we all agree the list is redundant? -- Miesianiacal ( talk) 14:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I think this article is too focused on the modern. Monarchies of Europe should be written historically, describing tribal kings, middle age feudalism, the great empires and then the transition to either republic or constitutional monarchy. Monarchy across Europe has long been interconnected. The focus on the modern seems out of place. -- Lawe ( talk) 11:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the "independent regulations" in the realms, this is not the case. There has been no change in succession law during the modern Commonwealth. To do this will require co-operation between the members of the Commonwealth at CHOGM via a declaration. The likely scenario would be that the UK would enact legislation and the other realms would consent by passing an Adoption Act. However, this could unfold in other ways. We will only know after it has happened. -- Lawe ( talk) 09:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I do not wish to repeat the 16,000 words of discussion, but I just want to state that I don't see how one can even *debate* about whether the Commonwealth realms (sixteen states who have the same person as their head of state) do not meet the definition of "personal union" (a number of at least two states who have the same person as their head of state). — Nightstallion 23:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Leaving that aside, I can think of grounds for not regarding the realms of Elizabeth II as states in perfect personal union.
I suppose you could say they are like a personal union. But in truth their relationship is truly sui generis. The earth has seen nothing like it before.-- Gazzster ( talk) 23:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I would add two more things:
If Miesanical could say which items should be changed in the list with the tag... -- Lawe ( talk) 09:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I see no reason why a full list of the other commonwealth realms would be needed on this article, aslong as it makes clear Queen Elizabeth II is monarch of other commonwealth realms that are not in europe.
I would however suggest the text description be changed..
"The monarch of the United Kingdom is also the monarch of the fifteen other Commonwealth realms. Some realms have varying levels of support for republicanism[13]. None of these countries are in Europe, however their monarch resides in Europe and is shared with the United Kingdom."
"Some realms have varying levels of support for republicanism." Is the bit i have a problem with. First of all as those countries dont need to be listed and are outside Europe the status of republican movements in those countries is not relevant. Also the link goes to Commonwealth Republics which has nothing to do with republicanism in commonwealth realms, its an article on members of the Commonwealth of Nations which are Republics unlike Commonwealth realms On that article i only see one mention of a commonwealth realm that might be turning into a republic, and thats about a referendum which has been scrapped.
I think the mention of the other realms in the notes of the table is a lot better than the full list in the disputed section above it. BritishWatcher ( talk) 02:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the both list and comment about republicanism seem somewhat superfluous here. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 23:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
This debate has gone on for two months. Previous comments from other users which are relevant here:
- The realms are sovereign, and as such, should be identified in own lists of heads of state as per all other sovereign states.
- We avoid confusing the distinction between monarchies.
- Commonweath realms all have their Monarchy in XXX article.
- Removing the list would create the contradictory implication of UK foreign office arrangements of over sovereign countries.
- Context makes the list necessary.
- There is a unique relationship between the monarchy and the country concerned
- The article doesn't say the realms are European. It states, in an incidental manner, that the Monarch of the United Kingdom is also monarch of other nations outside of Europe. What are those nations, the reader would rightly ask.
- It is interesting that monarchies outside Europe have a European monarch.
Note that these advantages lists is a shorter version in consideration of Gazzster's comments. I also point out that a previous consensus occurred in late November 2008. -- Lawe ( talk) 03:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
In order to have a quick reference for how each person feels, I'll make an informal tally below. I'm not sure, though, where Nightstallion stands on this issue, but, as he made the list, I'll assume he supports its inclusion. If I'm wrong about anyone's position, please feel free to correct me. -- Miesianiacal ( talk) 06:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Can we take a vote on this somewhat tedious issue? Never mind consensus. A simple majority would do, so we can move onto something more interesting. Nay
If you go back to what I said right at the beginning (on 08:59, 25 November 2008), we should come a compromise quickly, efficiently and co-operatively. Of course it is tedious to push this for weeks. I have been asked to provide reasons for the inclusion of the list (your idea, which I support), and you know that I/we have done so and done so repeatedly. In response to the specific points, a monarchy with a monarch in another country is itself incongruous and that is why it so appears. -- Lawe ( talk) 09:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Miesianical has created this tally at this time, because of the excellent material and presentation which I put forward a few hours ago. Not days, but hours. Timing is everything because for a few days this RfC was disconnected from the section were the debate was taking place. I have asked Martin Hogbin to review the arguments for retention, which he has not had a chance to read.
Furthermore there are errors. Cameron had since accepted that it is not a duplicate list. It was Gazzster's idea to create the list, not Nightstallion. Nightstallion agreed to the format, but it has a (?). A contribution from months ago (eg Goodday) should not be included as decisive in this sort of tally. The problem with Miesianicals approach is that there is no substance, just persisting and cross-examination. He has not even bothered to refute any point others have made. So I don't accept the tally and it is not even a consensus. -- Lawe ( talk) 07:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I have had a read through the various arguments regarding inclusion of the list of Commonwealth Realms and can see no compelling reason to include it. There is a link to the article which provides full information on the subject, I see no need to duplicate it here. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 18:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I think there was agreement that there should be a paragraph that briefly describes the Commonwealth realms in personal union with the UK; the present wording seems clumsy and insufficient to me. I earlier proposed the following:
Some have said that the republicanism is not relevant to this article, others have said the opposite. I tend to lean to the former group, but am not adamant either way, as long as the coverage is balanced and not given undue prominence. Is the above acceptable? Changes? Suggestions? Gushing praise for my linguistic mastery? Offer them here. -- Miesianiacal ( talk) 13:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Is SMOM a monarchy? (elected, like in the Holy See) 213.240.214.139 ( talk) 07:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Could someone please update this map? There is nobody pretending to the "Irish Throne". Regards, ( Jack1755 ( talk) 18:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC))
"As the daughter of the last King of Ireland, Queen Elizabeth II is the pretender to the Throne of Ireland, whether she claims it or not". Margrethe II of Denmark, as the granddaughter of the last King of Iceland, Christian X of Denmark, is by your definition pretending to the throne of Icleand. The same goes for Nicholas Romanov, Prince of Russia, as Head of the House of Romanov, he is *pretending* to the Grand Duchy of Finland and the Kingdom of Poland (should they be added to the map?). Or, is Otto von Habsburg, as the last crown prince of Austria-Hungary, pretending to the Czech Republic as King of Bohemia? (should that be added too?). Long story short, we could higlight every country in Europe as having a *pretender* if we go by your definition of *pretendership*, Regards, Jack1755 ( talk) 02:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Since we are all in consensus then, I shall remove the map, and replace it with the other version. Regards, -- Jack1755 ( talk) 00:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I will do the GA Reassessment on this article as part of the GA Sweeps project. H1nkles ( talk) 17:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure why there is a separate heading for Commonwealth realms in the Current monarchies section. It is a one-sentence paragraph (also to be discouraged) and really could be added to the previous paragraph.
There are no references in the European microstates section. This should be addressed.
The article is well-written, images are good, the table adds to the article in my opinion. There is an issue with dead links the references section. Refs [10], [11], [16], and [17] are all dead and will need to be repaired.
I was left wondering if there are any concerns with succession of any of the current monarchs? For example in Japan the royal couple have had girls but no boys and they are a male primogeniture culture, which has left the status of the monarchy in crisis (my information is a bit dated so the crisis may have passed but you get the idea). It would an interesting tidbit if there were crowns in succession jeopardy. I won't hold the article from GA over it, just a suggestion.
At this point my primary issue is referencing, the European microstates section needs in-line citations and there are some dead links that need to be fixed. I will hold the article for a week and notify interested projects and editors. Please contact me at my talk page if you have any questions. H1nkles ( talk) 18:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Is this article ready to finalize the review? I haven't looked at it in quite a while and I don't want to proceed unless I have gotten confirmation that either the work is finished or there is no one who will pick up the work to complete it. Please advise. Thanks. H1nkles ( talk) 16:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey, a note: H1nkles has been inactive for about a month, so in the interest of closing out these GARs, I'm taking them on. It'll take me a while to read through the discussion and comment, but I hope to get back to you soon. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 19:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
-- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 18:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'm from Spain and reading the article I've noticed an error. In the table of the monarchies of Europe shows that the heir to the Spanish crown had no brothers (only tson), but this is not correct, since it has two older sisters. Since I do not speak English too well, I have not dared to change it, but I think they should do it. You can read the article about the Monarchy of Spain as a reference to verify that what I say is true.-- 85.53.180.173 ( talk) 18:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Aren't the British Crown Dependencies not part of the UK, although linked more closely to the UK than the Commonwealth Realms are? They have a different title of head of state to the UK: Lord of Mann for the Isle of Man and Duke of Normandy for Guernsey and Jersey. Probably makes them deserving of a mention alongside the microstates. For that matter, Gibraltar's probably deserving of separate mention too. 149.241.56.169 ( talk) 09:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Monarchies in Europe. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
There are twelve extant monarchies, but only twelve pictures of the present incumbents - 'only' twelve, because Andorra has two 'co-princes', both of whom are pictured here, so there should be thirteen. The missing picture is of the Pope. 188.230.248.85 ( talk) 11:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Monarchies in Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.wort.lu/wort/web/en/luxembourg/articles/2011/06/153564/index.phpWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
De Blois & Van der Spek (2004) is in the reflist, but I couldn't find the actual book in the sources. Perhaps it's not quite GA-level after all? —Biscuit-in-Chief :-) ( Talk – Contribs) 20:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 02:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA from 2006. There is significant uncited material in the article with entire sections unsourced. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 15:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
I simply changed the image of King Charles III in the Table of monarchies in Europe section. RicLightning ( talk) 23:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Monarchies in Europe was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I hadn't realized that Liechtenstein or Norway, let alone Australia, Jamaica, etc., were in the European Union. Have I missed something? -- Hoary 09:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
It seems a little arbitrary to restrict it to "in the European Union". If that is a valid topic, so, obviously, is "Monarchies in Europe", and the latter would would make the former redundant. That already seems to be the way some of the content of this page is heading. While the personal union of Commonwealth Realms (and the status of the federal Kingdom of the Netherlands) is interesting, I'm not sure it is so relevant here as to merit detailed discussion. Noting the status of the British and Dutch monarchs, and briefly mentioning republicanism in their extra-European countries, would probably keep this article focussed. TheGrappler 01:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Nightstallion,
Excellent article!
One problem. The single-character Roman numerals show up as garbage on both my Mac and my Linux machines (using Firefox browser) -- at first I thought it was a weird mistake in the picture caption (which I hastily corrected), until I saw the edit history and noticed the mistake throughout the article.
I don't have a Windows machine running Internet Explorer or whatever I need to see them properly, so I'll have to take your word for it that they look better, when they render. But wouldn't you agree that maximum intelligibility should trump aesthetics in this case? That is, as long as a significant fraction of users (those using the popular browser Firefox and/or non-Windows machines, if my experience is representative) are not going to be able to read the page, we probably should stick to the more conventional I's and V's (and X's).
There's another issue here too, in my opinion -- a philosophical one. The single-character Roman numeral character set is, of course, incomplete; it obviously doesn't provide for every possible ordinal number. When you have to refer to so-and-so the XVIth, you have to use the conventional characters, right? Given that this is so, isn't it best just to use a consistent standard throughout the article? Kiscica 23:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Good article, but a few things:
I'm putting this on hold for 7 days. I think you should be able to fix it up by then. :) Jo e I 03:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the link to "voter registration" regarding the Danish material, since this article deals with a voluntary registration on the initiative of individual citizens.
In Denmark, the procedure is somewhat different and goes like this: The actual voter takes no part in the registration process. Denmark's entire population is registred by computer, since each citizen is awarded a social-security number (in Danish: CPR nummer) shortly after birth (newborns are given a temporary number by the nurse who also reports the birth of the new child). Election campaigns generally take 21 days since § 56 of the Law regarding Elections [1] specifies that it is possible to vote by mail three weeks before the election day (if e.g. the voter will be abroad on the election day.) During this period, a computer at the Ministry of Taxation will print a personal valgkort (lit: "election card") for each citizen aged 18 or above on the election day. These cards are dispatched by mail and received by the voters around 4-7 days before the election takes place. The card informs about the topic of the election as well as the location of the local polling station, including the number printed on the table the person has to report to. When arriving there, the voter will find this table manned by (normally) four people, each representing a different political party. Two of them will verify that the person's valgkort has not yet been marked as used on the official list and will exchange it for a ballot paper. If the topic of the vote is a referendum on a change to the constitution, the proposal not only requires a majority, but also that least 40 % of all potential voters to vote in favour of the change (article § 88 in the Constitution). [2] Before 1953, this number was 45 %. -- Valentinian (talk) 14:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Still don't see why Australia etc are listed here - even if the UK was to become a republic it might not mean Australia will. Australia could become a republic and NSW, QLD etc remain as are! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.36.120.6 ( talk) 03:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC).
Why is a Euro person who lives in a republic so focused on Antipoden monarchies??? While the Australian/NZ Crown are linked to the UK Crown they are not in Euro and possible to ot live. Even if Australia was to become a republic, NSW, QLD etc could still be monarchies in their own right! 203.36.120.6 03:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah your pretty right Brian but it would take referendum in each Australian state to change their own constitution. So in theory, Australia votes to become a republic, Commonwealth Parilement then passes the bill, GG (or Queen) signs the bill into law Commonwealth of Austrlia then becomes a republic, however each state must then have it's own referendum so it might be possible that some states become republics and others not. On the other hand it is also possible that some states might chose to become a republic and others not, while Austrlia remains a monarchy. Given the Austrlian constitution it is also possible that the Commonwealth Government might let new states join the Commonwealth who are already republic - say East Timor - or the Northern Territory (if its people select a republican form of government on becoming a state - if ever) so then it is possible that the Commonwealth of Australia could be a monarchy with a mix of republic and monarchy states. What many people overseas (and in Australia) often don't realise is that Australia is a Commonwealth/Federation of independent states - the states chose to belong and can break away at any time they so wish. To a large extent the states have as much power as an independent nation, own leagl system, laws, government and can largely do what they like with only the power the Commonwealth Government has being limited to sectionn 51 of the constitution. To a large extent it is lucky Australia states were all British colonies - if they had been a mixture of French/British/German (like PNG was before WWI) then we might already have an Austrlian Federation with a mix of both monarchies and republics.
The best comparrison I can think of is the EU. States join the EU and pass certain powers to it but remain independent States in their own right. 123.3.0.93 21:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
"although there is a significant minority of republicans in all of them" - oh dear! This phrase is already marked as "citation needed", and quite right too! I have searched really hard today to find *any* evidence at all of a republican movement in the Vatican, or in Liechtenstein, or in Andorra - I have failed! Even if the statement is false for just these three tiny nations, surely the sentence should be removed or re-written. A one-word alteration (to "although there is a significant minority of republicans in 'some' of them") would greatly improve accuracy, would it not? Timothy Titus 18:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
This section seems like it is needed. The section should include the history of monarchies in Europe and how the monarchies interbred. Casey14 20:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
If in Luxembourg only men can become Grandduke, how come Luxembourg had two female monarchs already? Ivo von Rosenqvist ( talk) 22:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The Queen of Canada, Australia etc. are not relevant to this article. We only share a monarch, the monarchies, however are distinct. Thus, Australia, Canada etc. are neither geographically or politically relevant to this article. I can see this has been argued before under the subheading "Australia". -- Cameron * 16:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) May we please delete the Commonwealth realms (except the UK) from this article? GoodDay ( talk) 18:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd agree that the Canadian monarchy has its roots it Britain and that the countries are (to some extent) linked until this day but I'd like to see a source stating that the Canadian monarchy is physically and culturally located in Europe.... -- Cameron * 16:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
[outdent] Are you not confusing the monarch and royal family with the more governmental institution of monarchy? The former of the Commonwealth realms no doubt exist physically in Europe, but the latter does not, except for that of the UK, of course. Besides, none of this debate is relevant to the question of: why do we need a duplicate list here to that which exists at Commonwealth realm? -- Miesianiacal ( talk) 15:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
[outdent] Lawe stated: "the reason to include the list is that it shows the non-European countries which have their monarch residing Europe. This is not the same as the list of Commonwealth Realms" Could you elaborate on what makes the list here so unique as to warrant its near duplication of what can be found already at Commonwealth realm? Especially in light of WP:SS seeming to say that we should only provide a "moderate amount of info on the topic's more important points" as a summary in one article of another article's content. -- Miesianiacal ( talk) 22:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I really don't see what harm is done by having a little info on the Commonwealth realms in this article in the appropriate context... — Nightstallion 17:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
May I suggest something? I'm going to flip-flop a bit, having seen the list again. It is striking, when you compare the burst of colour and text with the rest of the article, that the list seems to have a significance far out of proportion to its worth. The list is supposed to be an incidental note. I mean, see how much space the list occupies and how much glitz it has.-- Gazzster ( talk) 10:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Advantages
Gazzster, I admire your patience. We have written 4,000 words about 40 words!!! And I still cannot even guess what their problem is, because 95% the republican stuff was taken out. I answer question after question after question. How can Miesienical be so concerned that someone should read the Queen lives in England? Surely, it is well accepted that this is one of the most ridiculous and one-sided debates of all time. -- Lawe ( talk) 12:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Looking forward to your approval for their removal. -- Lawe ( talk) 05:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
The following paragraph was put forward as an alternative to explain the "non-UK-realms'-monarch-lives-in-Europe" scenario without using a list that essentially duplicates the one found at Commonwealth realm:
Perhaps we need to find out why, if at all, the above paragraph, or some tweaked variation of it, is insufficient, and instead the following, plus a list, is somehow superior:
What is included in the list... | Is this info already included in the list at Commonwealth realms? |
---|---|
Flag icons | Yes |
Links to the country articles (eg. Canada) | Yes |
Links monarchy articles (eg. Monarchy of Canada) | Yes |
[outdent]Are we to take it then that we all agree the list is redundant? -- Miesianiacal ( talk) 14:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I think this article is too focused on the modern. Monarchies of Europe should be written historically, describing tribal kings, middle age feudalism, the great empires and then the transition to either republic or constitutional monarchy. Monarchy across Europe has long been interconnected. The focus on the modern seems out of place. -- Lawe ( talk) 11:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the "independent regulations" in the realms, this is not the case. There has been no change in succession law during the modern Commonwealth. To do this will require co-operation between the members of the Commonwealth at CHOGM via a declaration. The likely scenario would be that the UK would enact legislation and the other realms would consent by passing an Adoption Act. However, this could unfold in other ways. We will only know after it has happened. -- Lawe ( talk) 09:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I do not wish to repeat the 16,000 words of discussion, but I just want to state that I don't see how one can even *debate* about whether the Commonwealth realms (sixteen states who have the same person as their head of state) do not meet the definition of "personal union" (a number of at least two states who have the same person as their head of state). — Nightstallion 23:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Leaving that aside, I can think of grounds for not regarding the realms of Elizabeth II as states in perfect personal union.
I suppose you could say they are like a personal union. But in truth their relationship is truly sui generis. The earth has seen nothing like it before.-- Gazzster ( talk) 23:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I would add two more things:
If Miesanical could say which items should be changed in the list with the tag... -- Lawe ( talk) 09:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I see no reason why a full list of the other commonwealth realms would be needed on this article, aslong as it makes clear Queen Elizabeth II is monarch of other commonwealth realms that are not in europe.
I would however suggest the text description be changed..
"The monarch of the United Kingdom is also the monarch of the fifteen other Commonwealth realms. Some realms have varying levels of support for republicanism[13]. None of these countries are in Europe, however their monarch resides in Europe and is shared with the United Kingdom."
"Some realms have varying levels of support for republicanism." Is the bit i have a problem with. First of all as those countries dont need to be listed and are outside Europe the status of republican movements in those countries is not relevant. Also the link goes to Commonwealth Republics which has nothing to do with republicanism in commonwealth realms, its an article on members of the Commonwealth of Nations which are Republics unlike Commonwealth realms On that article i only see one mention of a commonwealth realm that might be turning into a republic, and thats about a referendum which has been scrapped.
I think the mention of the other realms in the notes of the table is a lot better than the full list in the disputed section above it. BritishWatcher ( talk) 02:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the both list and comment about republicanism seem somewhat superfluous here. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 23:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
This debate has gone on for two months. Previous comments from other users which are relevant here:
- The realms are sovereign, and as such, should be identified in own lists of heads of state as per all other sovereign states.
- We avoid confusing the distinction between monarchies.
- Commonweath realms all have their Monarchy in XXX article.
- Removing the list would create the contradictory implication of UK foreign office arrangements of over sovereign countries.
- Context makes the list necessary.
- There is a unique relationship between the monarchy and the country concerned
- The article doesn't say the realms are European. It states, in an incidental manner, that the Monarch of the United Kingdom is also monarch of other nations outside of Europe. What are those nations, the reader would rightly ask.
- It is interesting that monarchies outside Europe have a European monarch.
Note that these advantages lists is a shorter version in consideration of Gazzster's comments. I also point out that a previous consensus occurred in late November 2008. -- Lawe ( talk) 03:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
In order to have a quick reference for how each person feels, I'll make an informal tally below. I'm not sure, though, where Nightstallion stands on this issue, but, as he made the list, I'll assume he supports its inclusion. If I'm wrong about anyone's position, please feel free to correct me. -- Miesianiacal ( talk) 06:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Can we take a vote on this somewhat tedious issue? Never mind consensus. A simple majority would do, so we can move onto something more interesting. Nay
If you go back to what I said right at the beginning (on 08:59, 25 November 2008), we should come a compromise quickly, efficiently and co-operatively. Of course it is tedious to push this for weeks. I have been asked to provide reasons for the inclusion of the list (your idea, which I support), and you know that I/we have done so and done so repeatedly. In response to the specific points, a monarchy with a monarch in another country is itself incongruous and that is why it so appears. -- Lawe ( talk) 09:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Miesianical has created this tally at this time, because of the excellent material and presentation which I put forward a few hours ago. Not days, but hours. Timing is everything because for a few days this RfC was disconnected from the section were the debate was taking place. I have asked Martin Hogbin to review the arguments for retention, which he has not had a chance to read.
Furthermore there are errors. Cameron had since accepted that it is not a duplicate list. It was Gazzster's idea to create the list, not Nightstallion. Nightstallion agreed to the format, but it has a (?). A contribution from months ago (eg Goodday) should not be included as decisive in this sort of tally. The problem with Miesianicals approach is that there is no substance, just persisting and cross-examination. He has not even bothered to refute any point others have made. So I don't accept the tally and it is not even a consensus. -- Lawe ( talk) 07:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I have had a read through the various arguments regarding inclusion of the list of Commonwealth Realms and can see no compelling reason to include it. There is a link to the article which provides full information on the subject, I see no need to duplicate it here. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 18:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I think there was agreement that there should be a paragraph that briefly describes the Commonwealth realms in personal union with the UK; the present wording seems clumsy and insufficient to me. I earlier proposed the following:
Some have said that the republicanism is not relevant to this article, others have said the opposite. I tend to lean to the former group, but am not adamant either way, as long as the coverage is balanced and not given undue prominence. Is the above acceptable? Changes? Suggestions? Gushing praise for my linguistic mastery? Offer them here. -- Miesianiacal ( talk) 13:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Is SMOM a monarchy? (elected, like in the Holy See) 213.240.214.139 ( talk) 07:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Could someone please update this map? There is nobody pretending to the "Irish Throne". Regards, ( Jack1755 ( talk) 18:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC))
"As the daughter of the last King of Ireland, Queen Elizabeth II is the pretender to the Throne of Ireland, whether she claims it or not". Margrethe II of Denmark, as the granddaughter of the last King of Iceland, Christian X of Denmark, is by your definition pretending to the throne of Icleand. The same goes for Nicholas Romanov, Prince of Russia, as Head of the House of Romanov, he is *pretending* to the Grand Duchy of Finland and the Kingdom of Poland (should they be added to the map?). Or, is Otto von Habsburg, as the last crown prince of Austria-Hungary, pretending to the Czech Republic as King of Bohemia? (should that be added too?). Long story short, we could higlight every country in Europe as having a *pretender* if we go by your definition of *pretendership*, Regards, Jack1755 ( talk) 02:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Since we are all in consensus then, I shall remove the map, and replace it with the other version. Regards, -- Jack1755 ( talk) 00:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I will do the GA Reassessment on this article as part of the GA Sweeps project. H1nkles ( talk) 17:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure why there is a separate heading for Commonwealth realms in the Current monarchies section. It is a one-sentence paragraph (also to be discouraged) and really could be added to the previous paragraph.
There are no references in the European microstates section. This should be addressed.
The article is well-written, images are good, the table adds to the article in my opinion. There is an issue with dead links the references section. Refs [10], [11], [16], and [17] are all dead and will need to be repaired.
I was left wondering if there are any concerns with succession of any of the current monarchs? For example in Japan the royal couple have had girls but no boys and they are a male primogeniture culture, which has left the status of the monarchy in crisis (my information is a bit dated so the crisis may have passed but you get the idea). It would an interesting tidbit if there were crowns in succession jeopardy. I won't hold the article from GA over it, just a suggestion.
At this point my primary issue is referencing, the European microstates section needs in-line citations and there are some dead links that need to be fixed. I will hold the article for a week and notify interested projects and editors. Please contact me at my talk page if you have any questions. H1nkles ( talk) 18:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Is this article ready to finalize the review? I haven't looked at it in quite a while and I don't want to proceed unless I have gotten confirmation that either the work is finished or there is no one who will pick up the work to complete it. Please advise. Thanks. H1nkles ( talk) 16:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey, a note: H1nkles has been inactive for about a month, so in the interest of closing out these GARs, I'm taking them on. It'll take me a while to read through the discussion and comment, but I hope to get back to you soon. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 19:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
-- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 18:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'm from Spain and reading the article I've noticed an error. In the table of the monarchies of Europe shows that the heir to the Spanish crown had no brothers (only tson), but this is not correct, since it has two older sisters. Since I do not speak English too well, I have not dared to change it, but I think they should do it. You can read the article about the Monarchy of Spain as a reference to verify that what I say is true.-- 85.53.180.173 ( talk) 18:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Aren't the British Crown Dependencies not part of the UK, although linked more closely to the UK than the Commonwealth Realms are? They have a different title of head of state to the UK: Lord of Mann for the Isle of Man and Duke of Normandy for Guernsey and Jersey. Probably makes them deserving of a mention alongside the microstates. For that matter, Gibraltar's probably deserving of separate mention too. 149.241.56.169 ( talk) 09:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Monarchies in Europe. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
There are twelve extant monarchies, but only twelve pictures of the present incumbents - 'only' twelve, because Andorra has two 'co-princes', both of whom are pictured here, so there should be thirteen. The missing picture is of the Pope. 188.230.248.85 ( talk) 11:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Monarchies in Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.wort.lu/wort/web/en/luxembourg/articles/2011/06/153564/index.phpWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
De Blois & Van der Spek (2004) is in the reflist, but I couldn't find the actual book in the sources. Perhaps it's not quite GA-level after all? —Biscuit-in-Chief :-) ( Talk – Contribs) 20:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 02:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA from 2006. There is significant uncited material in the article with entire sections unsourced. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 15:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
I simply changed the image of King Charles III in the Table of monarchies in Europe section. RicLightning ( talk) 23:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)