File talk:World Monarchies.png

Bhutan (and the meaning of 'semi-constitutional')

What you are calling 'semi-constitutional' monarchies are monarchies that are not absolute but close to that meaning. Just 'constitutional' means a monarch that exersizes minimal or no power. If you go to the page Morocco in wikipedia it says 'constitutional monarchy' although it is the dominating government same with Bhutan. So, what I am getting at is, Bhutan should be labeled the same as Morocco and UAE; whatever you want to call that form of monarchy is up to you, but the main point is that the monarchy is the dominating government along side a weak parlement.

Contraversy over the UK monarchy in the Commonwealth

As the map is now, the light green are Commonwealth dominions, whereas the key is labeled Commonwealth realms. The latter would include the UK. There seems to be some dispute over whether the UK should be light or dark green; dark, because they have their own monarch, or light, because they're a Commonwealth realm. Kwamikagami (talk) 09:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The person changing the map (and getting other things caught up in the revert) appears to be leaving. Still, it's a valid point. Maybe we could make the UK striped light & dark green? Kwamikagami (talk) 09:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

There's some discussion over at wiki-en, which I invited over here. I find the light green/dark green distinction useful, but perhaps it should be extended: what about dark green for countries with their own monarchs (Japan, UK, Denmark), and light green for countries which share another's monarch in a en:personal union (Canada, Greenland). Kwamikagami (talk) 19:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting, you gave a link to the en.wikipedia article personal union, but you didn't read it, did you? Well, go ahead read it, what does it say? There no longer exists any personal unions. --Knowzilla (talk) 07:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You might want to read it yourself. Kwamikagami (talk)

Have a look at en:Monarchy of the United Kingdom, en:Commonwealth realm. Oh yes, lets not forget about the other projects which use this image. Click the check usage tab on the image page and see what the pages across the Wikimedia sites which use this image say. A lot of about this was already discussed on the en.wiki image talk page, see en:File talk:World Monarchies.png. --Knowzilla (talk) 07:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Resident/non-resident, if you prefer. Also, we need to discuss Western Sahara. Orange? Non-resident? Or pretend it's not a monarchy? Kwamikagami (talk) 07:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's try and agree here. I say we should colour all the Commonwealth realms dark green please. They are all constitutional monarchies, there's dozens of references for that. As for Western Sahara let's have orange and gray, as it's disputed. Resident/non-resident is not of importance here, we're talking about the type of government, the Commonwealth realms are all constitutional monarchies, colour them dark green and change the description accordingly please.--Knowzilla (talk) 07:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good for Western Sahara.

There is clear consensus that the Commonwealth isn't just another monarchy, and so should be distinguished. The debate is whether the UK is just another Commonwealth realm, or something more—legally it may be nothing more, though that strikes me as a bit of fiction. I think we need some other opinions here, not just me agreeing with you after reading some articles. Kwamikagami (talk) 07:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, now we're getting somewhere. :) Oh, a note, it isn't the Commonwealth which is a monarchy, it is the Commonwealth realms which are monarchies. Well, let's see if anyone else can give their opinion. I quite sure that the Commonwealth realms should be coloured dark green as they are Constitutional monarchies. :) --Knowzilla (talk) 07:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, okay lets have light green for Commonwealth realms (not for states like Andorra, etc). Take your time, think about it, I am very sure the UK is a Commonwealth realm, no doubt. --Knowzilla (talk) 08:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict] BTW, following your suggested reading list, "The realms originally were Dominions - a term which has never been officially revoked." So they are dominions after all. Or at least arguably so.

"Terms such as personal union, a form of personal union, and shared monarchy, amongst others, have all been advanced as definitions since the beginning of the Commonwealth itself, though there has been no agreement on which term is most accurate." So it is incorrect to say that 'There no longer exists any personal unions', even ignoring Andorra; if the term is not the most accurate, we can discuss which is.

I can certainly see how it may be more correct to say that QE is a supranational monarch, and that the UK is not 'first among equals', but again, better that that be discussed by more than two people.

(on the last second-last comment) Yes, of course they're constitutional monarchies. The purpose of the lighter shade of green is to indicate that they're a notable variety of constitutional monarchy, not that they're something else entirely.

(on the last last comment) Commons is much slower than wiki-en, but hopefully we'll get input from other projects.

I also thought this comment interesting, from 'Commonwealth realm':

The External Affairs Minister at the time, Mitchell Sharp, stated on the situation: "We couldn't ask Her Majesty to perform the function she was performing for Britain on that Latin American trip because the Queen is never recognized as Queen of Canada, except when she is in Canada."

However, she is Queen of the UK even when she is not in the UK, is she not? Doesn't this indicate an asymmetry, where she's a normal monarch to the UK, but a supranational monarch for the other realms? Kwamikagami (talk) 08:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to put in some common sense comments here concerning Greenland and the Commonwealth and the colors on the map. Greenland is an integral part of Denmark and was only recently granted a level of autonomy. Its situation is more like Scotland and its color, like Scotland's, should be dark green because its head of state and its foreign policy is centered in Copenhagen. This is an entirely different situation than that for Canada, Australia, etc. Coloring Canada and Australia dark green implies that QEII is more than just a figurehead. No one really thinks of Canada and Australia as "constitutional monarchies". They are Republics in the mind of nearly everyone. They have independent foreign policies that do not rely on the Queen. The UK, however, has a more intimate relationship with the Queen than do the other members of the Commonwealth. Ask any man on the street who is the head of the UK and he'll say "the Queen". Ask the same guy who the head of either Canada or Australia and he'll say "the Prime Minister". The different coloring on the map for the extra-UK Commonwealth is quite appropriate and proper since their head of state, as was stated above, is not "The Queen of Canada", but "The Queen of the United Kingdom". In her list of titles is probably something like "Queen of the Commonwealth". This is a special situation and is not mirrored anywhere else on the planet. This unique relationship between QEII and the members of the Commonwealth should be reflected in a different color for the Commonwealth members on the map (but a different color for the UK, whose relationship to the Queen is mirrored in many places on the globe--a resident monarch). Light green for the members of the Commonweath who treat the monarch of another country as their head of state and dark green for the UK whose monarch is their own. (Taivo55 (talk) 08:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC))

[edit-conflicted] Yes the minister said that, but then can you deny the fact that on Her Majesty's visit to the United States as a small detour from one of her Canadian visits, that she visited as the Queen of Canada? The visit to the US was paid for by the Canadian government, she was accompanied by the Canadian PM and ministers. She hosted a dinner for the president of the United States at the Canadian Embassy, the trip was organised Canada's Embassy in the US, the British Embassy had nothing to do with the trip, nor did the British government. Well? --Knowzilla (talk) 08:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not a discussion about which Commonwealth realms take prevalence over which others. Fact is, we already have our own map for Commonwealth realms...so all Commonwealth realms should be dark green. OR...all Commonwealth realms (including UK) should be striped light green and dark green to show they are both constitutional and Commonwealth realms. BUT... in my opinion Commonwealth realms aren't really relevant to monarchy articles...en:User:Cameron

I completely agree that Commonwealth countries are not relevant to monarchy articles. (Taivo55 (talk) 16:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC))

I was asked to weigh in here, and in doing so I side with Cameron's take on the matter. What I see in the comments from others is a desire to draw arbitrary distinctions between the UK and the other Commonwealth realms. However, there is actually none, aside from the point that the monarch resides primarily in one of those countries, which doesn't seem particularly relevant to what this image is illustrating. If countries that share a monarch (I would avoid using the term "personal union" because of the political connotations it has taken on at Wikipedia) are to be highlighted, then the United Kingdom should be coloured the same as the others, as it shares its monarch as much as the other realms share theirs. -- en:User:Miesianiacal 17:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there is a difference between Commonwealth members and the U.K. When the Queen is in Italy, she is not the "Queen of Canada" or the "Queen of Australia" or even the "Queen of the Commonwealth". She is the "Queen of the U.K." If Italy wants an official visit from Australia, it doesn't call London, it calls Canberra. That's what makes the other members of the Commonwealth different from the U.K. The U.K. is a "normal" monarchy with its own monarch reigning from its own capital. Canada and Australia are "odd monarchies" in that they have no monarch themselves, but borrow the Queen of England when they absolutely, positively need someone within the borders to play the role. She is never the "Queen of Canada" outside the borders of Canada. (Taivo55 (talk) 06:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC))

Incorrect. She has been "Queen of Canada" in the US several times. Accompanied by Canadian ministers not UK ministers. --Cameron

Do you have a reference for that or are you just hoping it's true? And how about in Italy or Russia? Has she ever represented Australia in the U.S.? (Taivo55 (talk) 07:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC))

There are plenty of references for that. Please read the article en:Monarchy of Canada, and the section "Royal presence and duties" in particular. en:User:Miesianiacal

(outdent) Of all the legalistic verbage in that article, I find the following comment the most appropriate for this discussion: "Many Canadians, though, continue to be unaware that the Queen serves as their head of state; a 2002 EKOS poll found that only five percent of the population could correctly identify Elizabeth II as their head of state (the majority believing it to be the Prime Minister)." That says it all. The Commonwealth countries are not like the U.K. where the monarch is clearly the monarch. Canadians don't even know they have a monarch. That alone should be a strong argument for not coloring Commonwealth realms the same color as the U.K. They are quite different. (Taivo55 (talk) 06:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC))

Polls on whether or not people in the Commonwealth realms know who their head of state is makes no difference. It has no relevance to this image. The Queen is the head of state of Canada, and that is officially recognised by the current Prime Minister, the Canadian Government and all parties in Parliament of Canada. The position of the monarch is written on the Constitution of Canada itself. If so, Canada is a constitutional monarchy and must be coloured accordingly on the map. --Knowzilla (talk) 10:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It is colored accordingly on the map. Light green is used for constitutional monarchies. Kwamikagami (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, the QEII is titled Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. The UK clearly is first among equals when it comes to the monarchy. Sophistry aside, the UK is a monarchy like any other, Canada and Australia are special cases. Kwamikagami (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you please provide some sources to support your otherwise personally held opinions? --99.232.5.142 03:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. I am starting to think that you really don't care about the facts, Kwamikagami, just your opinion. The way the countries are coloured on the map, it looks like their sovereignty and independence is being undermined. As for the Queen's articles on certain wikis being titled so, it is because title's of articles of monarchs are required to have the country over which they reign in the title. In this case the monarch reigns over several and so the most publicly used title is the name of the page, [Queen] Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth realms isn't a realm title and can't be used, nor is it practical to include all of the nations over which the Queen reigns in the page name, so the oldest realm's name is used. --Knowzilla (talk) 14:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

How about The official website of The British Monarchy? There is asks you to "Choose your Commonwealth Realm". Although it says that "there are 15 Commonwealth Realms in addition to the UK", the UK is not an option when choosing a realm for the site. This demonstrates that the family is essentially the British royal family, and only, say, the Canadian royal family by extension. Also, Canadians call them "the British royal family", not "the Canadian royal family". Certainly the British never call them the Canadian royal family or even the Commonwealth royal family! Legalism aside, this is not a symmetrical relationship. Kwamikagami (talk) 19:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

First off, royal.gov.uk is paid for by the United Kingdom, obviously then the UK would get special treatment on the site. The UK a Commonwealth realm and that's that. The family is not essentially the British royal family, they are equally the Canadian royal family. In fact, Canadians do call them the Canadian royal family and not the British royal family. Furthermore even the Queen herself, when opening the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut, Canada's latest territory, Her Majesty said that she proud to be the first member of the Canadian royal family to be welcomed there. This is a indeed a symmetrical relationship. --Knowzilla (talk) 09:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I've never met a Canadian in my life who speaks of the "Canadian" Royal Family. It's always been the "British" Royal Family. I've asked my friends about it, and they've said that that's the case--usually after thinking, 'yeah, you're right, that's weird, we'd never say the "Canadian" Royal Family.' The Queen might use that wording on rare occasions, but it does not appear to be shared with her subjects. How many English do you think have ever used the phrase "the Canadian Royal Family"? How many ppm (people per million)? How many British papers have ever carried a story about the "Canadian Royal Family"? Now compare this to the number of Canadian articles that regularly speak of the British Royal Family. The symmetry is purely legalistic.

You're also saying that the Royal Family is corrupt, and cheaply corrupt at that—that their website "obviously" favours the UK just because the UK pays the few pounds annually for their website. Sorry, but that's silly. I find it hard to believe it's that easy to corrupt the royals, and that in any case it would not be in Britain's interest because it would be extremely bad diplomacy. If some Canadian paid the annual $15 fee, do you really think the site would become The official website of The Canadian Monarchy, with "United Kingdom" as an alternate option at the bottom of the pull-down list? Can you imagine the outrage in Britain? Come on. The official website of the Royal Family (not the official website of the British govt) says that it is the British Royal Family; it is built around Britain being the default, and the other nations being secondary. If they thought of this "symmetry" as real, it would be the website of the Commonwealth monarchy, and the UK would be just another Commonwealth realm, down at the very bottom of the alphabetized list. Kwamikagami (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

1.) There are many Canadians who call it the Canadian Royal Family, even sometimes non Canadians. British papers would not carry a story about the Canadian Royal Family, becuase that family is also theirs, as the British Royal Family. 2.) I did not say that, don't make assumptions. The Royal Family does NOT personally mantain that website. It's called the British Monarchy for various reasons, and one of them is because it's mantained by the British government royal.gov.uk. The other countries are not secondary. There is no such thing as "Commonwealth Monarchy", you can't name it that. --Knowzilla (talk) 06:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] Kwamikagami is still only giving us POV at worst, OR at best, and is certainly hampered by a good dose of denial. On the British monarchy website itself, it is said that "there are 15 Commonwealth realms in addition to the UK: Australia, New Zealand, Canada..." [emphasis mine]. This jives with the concept that initiated the personal union in the first place: The Statute of Westminster states clearly that the delegates at the "Imperial Conferences holden at Westminster in the years of our Lord nineteen hundred and twenty-six and nineteen hundred and thirty did concur in making the declarations and resolutions set forth in the Reports of the said Conferences."[1] From the 1926 conference that the statute refers to came the Balfour Declaration, which said that "Great Britain and the Dominions... are autonomous Communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations."[2] This all adequately puts to rest any claims that the UK holds some unique power over the monarchy and that the rest of the realms are somehow not "monarchy enough" to warrant full representation in this map. --Miesianiacal (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the image to suit. --Miesianiacal (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we can colour all the Commonwealth realms dark green, theres no need for the difference in colour as they are all constitutional monarchies. --Knowzilla (talk) 05:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't object to that, really; but, I thought that it was monarchies in personal union that were being highlighted, rather than specifically Commonwealth realms (it being only coincidence that the realms are in a personal union). If that was the case, though, I suppose Andorra should be coloured light green, as it's in a personal union with France. --Miesianiacal (talk) 05:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Well the main issue here was actually the Commonwealth realms. Kwamikagami said that "the UK has their own monarch" and the rest of the Commonwealth realms "don't have their own monarch and 'borrow' the UK's monarch". I'm fine with the current colouring, it seems to fit in, but another option would be to change all countries in light green to dark green as they are all constitutional monarchies and this map is mainly about forms of monarchies, not really about whether or not they are in a personal union or share a monarch, etc. Either colouring is fine. I'll leave that to you to decide, Miesianiacal. --Knowzilla (talk) 06:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I just managed to make things more convoluted! :D I realise what Kwamikagami was trying to (mistakenly) say; what I meant, however, was that the UK's status vis-a-vis the other Commonwealth realms is a separate matter to the question of whether or not to differentiate personal unions in this map. We seem to have resolved the former, so I thought we were now discussing the latter. --Miesianiacal (talk) 15:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

As an added note: It seems Andorra has already been coloured the light green of personal unions. (One wonders why Kwamikagami would consider, from his point of view, Andorra to be on the same sub-monarchical plane where he lumps the non-UK realms...) --Miesianiacal (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh, heh. Well, anyhow, I think that the countries in light green should be coloured dark green as well, becuase to readers with no or only basic knowledge of the subject, it may look like theres a difference between the light green countries and the dark green ones, when there really isn't any. --Knowzilla (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The Commonwealth is exceptional in sharing a monarch. Since, though you admit that the British Monarchy website indicates that realms other than the UK are secondary, you prefer to go by the letter of the law, we could at least make the UK light green. Kwamikagami (talk) 21:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I have never admitted that the website indicates that the realms other than the UK are secondary. Well, I'm fine with anything which shows that the UK and the other realms are equal to each other and equal to the other constitutional monarchies. --Knowzilla (talk) 06:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)