Talk:Monarchies in the Americas/Archive 1

Archive 1

A welcomed article

Congratulations on the birth of a great article, Camer. GoodDay (talk) 21:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I also like the article, but wouldn't it be more unambiguous to call it Monarchies in the Americas? Americas, in its plural form, is after all the established Wikipedia term to describe this part of the world. Lampman (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I won't stop you from moving it. Feel free to be bold, though I personally dislike the term. ;) Thanks for the comments! :) Best, --Cameron* 16:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I've thus moved the article to its present title. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting article. Well done. --Lawe (talk) 07:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

From you, I'll definitely take that as a compliment! Thanks Lawe! ;) Best, --Cameron* 11:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm taking you up on your invite, Cameron! --Miesianiacal (talk) 22:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Great, your expertise will come in handy...just before the GA review! ;) --Cameron* 22:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Aruba

Aruba is not part of the Netherlands Antilles, but a separate part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands alongside the Netherlands and the Netherlands Antilles; plus, the NA will be split up into two islands, while the other three will become part of the Netherlands proper, on 2010-01-01. —Nightstallion 23:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, how did this get over-looked? As for the split, it could be updated as soon as it happens. There should also be a small mention under the heading Succession laws in relation to the Dutch crown too. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 21:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Native/Foreign monarchies

This terminology makes not sense whatsoever, whey are the commonwealth states listed as native monarchies.--Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 18:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Canada is a realm in its own right, the Dominion of Canada. Canada is ruled by the Queen of Canada. Greendland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark (a foreign) monarchy. Thus, Greenland is ruled under a foreign monarchy by a foreign head of state. It is pure coincidence that all the Commonwealth realms are native. Best, --Cameron* 13:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Saw that too. I think the prob is that the word native may imply Native Americans. --Lawe (talk) 06:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Canadians have been there long enough now to call themselves native. If you have a better wording, feel free to change it! ;) --Cameron* 13:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Aren't Natives? Canadians too? GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I quite understand the question. Best, --Cameron* 19:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Lawe says the word native would make people think it's Native American. GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I can see the confusion some may have, so was thinking that another more suitable word would suffice. There were 3 that I thought might work:

1. The Commonwealth monarchies
2. Local monarchies
3. Shared monarchies (I'm leaning to this one as it implies a commonality)

I'm sure a consensus could be reached on any of those OR some other more descriptive word could be used. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 13:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

That's sort of changing the meaning, though. As long as you don't suggest "Personal union", you'll be fine. Personal unions do not exist on Wikipedia! ;) --Cameron* 17:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

All three suggestions are clear enough. --Lawe (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

G'day chaps and chapesses! No offence, Cameron, ol' chum, but 'native monarchy' does sound a bit funny, as if we're talkin about Native Americans. How about 'American monarchies'? Greenland and the Netherlands Antilles aren't really American monarchies are they? Rather they're parts of European monarchies. They're sort of like the overseas territories of the UK, which you wouldn't call monarchies. Interesting article.--Gazzster (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Great idea! That way we keep the current meaning! ;) Best, --Cameron* 17:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I can agree with anyone who keeps the meaning that the Commonwealth Realms monarchies ARE "native" (not foreign) monarchies, 'American monarchies' sounds good to me, just keep the correct meaning. :) --Kushan I.A.K.J 14:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I have been bold and changed it accordingly. ;) --Cameron* 17:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Err, Commonweath realms. GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

We need to clarify in the article what we mean. It's completely unintelligible otherwise. "American monarchy" sounds odd when the monarch is not American, and "non-American monarchy" sounds odd when the country is American. Also, we're missing the Dutch and British dependencies. kwami (talk) 23:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The monarch is Canadian, etc. How can you be Head of State of an independent country when you aren't a national of that country?! That would sound weird. Well, anyway, we aren't talking about the monarch when saying monarchy, we mean the institution. The Monarchy of Canada is Canadian, the Monarchy of Jamaica is Jamaican, etc. The monarchy of Greenland is Danish, etc. Greenland isn't an independent country. So those do sound right. As for anything missing from the article, please, do add it. :) --Knowzilla 09:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Charles

In merging the list and chart together, I removed the numeral from the link to Charles, Prince of Wales. The article used as a cite seems to state that Charles will, in fact, not use the regnal title Charles III, but George VII instead. I thought it was best that we not speculate. I hope this is acceptable to others. --Miesianiacal (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth II as pretender

Having added the pretenders to American thrones to the article, I'm now wondering if Elizabeth II would be considered a pretender to the thrones of those countries of which she used to be monarch in right of, i.e. Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago. It would seem to me she is, but, as such, what would she be called since she no longer holds a title for those countries; Princess Elizabeth of Windsor (following the example of Prince Pedro Carlos of Orléans-Braganza)? --Miesianiacal (talk) 08:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Pretender? 'Pretender' assumes some sort of claim. As far as I know, Betty doesn't claim any sort of dominion over the former territories which are now republics.She has quite happily let it slip into the pages of history. As you say, she no longer holds titles in those countries. So she's not not entitled to be named 'Princess Elizabeth of Trinidad' or anything else. And even if she did have a pretended title, wouldn't it be 'Queen'?--Gazzster (talk) 09:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, perhaps I just don't understand the concept of "pretender" well enough. But, it would seem that a lack of title doesn't mean anything, as few, if not none, of the present pretenders legally hold titles in the countries to the thrones of which they lay claim. Doesn't one have to make a renunciation on behalf of one's self and descendants in order to cease being the inheritor of a defunct throne? If so, did EIIR make such a renunciation? --Miesianiacal (talk) 09:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

You put your finger on it. 'none..of the present pretenders lrgally hold title...to the thrones of which they lay claim. That's what makes a pretender:a claim. She doesn't maintain a claim to her former territories. The independence of those republics was agreed to, by the Parliament of the UK. She gave her Assent. Why should she formally renounce her throne for herself and her successors?--Gazzster (talk) 09:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd see your point if the republics were created upon independence from the UK; but, they weren't. Was the legislation passed by those states' parliaments equivalent to a renunciation by EIIR of her claim to their thrones? The example of Greece would suggest that the answer is: not necessarily. --Miesianiacal (talk) 10:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

They were sovereign states upon being granted independence. And presumably the Statute of Westminster was applied to them. So they had legislative autonomy, and were exempt from any claim the UK Parliament might make on behalf of the Windsors after they became republics. I suppose, for a reason I could not imagine, Elizabeth may continue to claim to be Queen in right of those former monarchies. I doubt it thoughh, because if she did, she would continue to use her titles with respect to those territories, and refuse to recognise those governments. As far as I know, the Windsors have no problem recognising the governments of those republics. But if you reference a claim, edit. But, like I say, why wouldn't she recognise those republics? I mean, she's not like those old royal families which cling onto traditions just to keep their names going. She's a reigning monarch of 16 beautiful nations.--Gazzster (talk) 10:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The Trinidad and Tobago Republic Act 1976 is listed as an Act of Elizabeth II. [1]--Gazzster (talk) 11:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

If The Queen herself signed the respective Republic Acts, then she can't be considered a pretender to that throne. However, she doesn't have to maintain a claim on a throne to be listed as a pretender (see the prominent...and rather laughable, Michael Abney-Hastings, 14th Earl of Loudoun theory). PS: Very poetic Gazzster, not thinking of coming over to the dark side are you? ;) --Cameron* 11:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh you! LOL. Heh. Notice I said 'beautiful nations', not 'beautiful monarchies'. But I don't mind saying the old girl hasn't done a bad job o' things.But I won't say that too many times.--Gazzster (talk) 11:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Serieusement though folks, Pretender comes from pretendre, 'to claim'. No claim, no pretension.--Gazzster (talk) 11:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, fair enough. I just wondered. --Miesianiacal (talk) 04:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hawaii

I started a thread at Talk:List of the last monarchs who ruled the Americas asking about whether or not Hawaii would be included as part of North America or not. Perhaps those with more knowledge on the matter than I could weigh in there? --Miesianiacal (talk) 09:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The number in the lead

It seems potentially confusing to me, especially now information has been added. Perhaps it would be better to say there are X American monarchies and X oversee monarchies? Or does anyone have a better proposal? Best, ;) --Cameron* 11:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

How so, Cameron? The lead paragraph already says Currently ten of these monarchies are independent states, and equally share Elizabeth II as their respective head of state, making them part of a global grouping known as the Commonwealth realms, while the remaining three are dependencies of European monarchies... Does that need added clarification, do you think? --Miesianiacal (talk) 04:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I hadn't read that bit! Perhaps it would be better to discount the oversee monarchies? Other pages don't list them...and their number is debatable...--Cameron* 14:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean when you say their number is debatable, Cam. --Miesianiacal (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

Any comments/complaints r.e. my latest edits to the article? I know you want to achieve GA status, Cameron, so I hope I'm not botching anything up. --Miesianiacal (talk) 23:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Only compliments! I am extremely greatful for all your help. All your edits will help towards GA status, whenever that will be. ;) Thanks! --Cameron* 12:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Phew! Okay, that's good, and thanks. I think the former monarchies section needs some filling out; I'll try and do that next. --Miesianiacal (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It is rather skimpy...I would have expanded it but my American monarchy skills are rather limited, they only stretch to the Commonwealth realm monarchies! ;) And I'm now rather busy at Monarchy of Denmark! Best, --Cameron* 20:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It's getting plumper now, but I have a sneaking suspicion that if this page is going to get GA, we'll be told to get more refs, for a few sections in the article. --Miesianiacal (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I've just added some refs for some of the CW realm sections. I think you're right though, we'll probably be asked to get more. ...And the Haiti and Mexico sections probably need expanding too. Best, --Cameron* 13:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep; Haiti and Mexico are next on my list. --Miesianiacal (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] Er, someone's going to have to fill in information on how the Swedish, Baltic Courland, Holy Roman, and Prussian monarchies fit in here; I have no idea where these crowns had influence in the Americas. --Miesianiacal (talk) 15:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful. ;) I could have done Mexico but I would have struggled with Haiti... --Cameron* 15:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

So sorry for adding more things for you to write about. I just thought I should point out all the crowns that held territory in the Americas. P.S. I saw the Russia section, good but you should include Fort Ross, California with Nicholas I of Russia as its last monarch.Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

PPS I not sure if the Duchy of Courland is Baltic or German, but if its German then a section could probably be titled German with section on the Holy Roman, Prussian, and probably Courlandish

As I said above, I'm afraid I just don't have the expertise to cover those crowns; I don't know where their American holdings were. Could you make a start of it here, or give us a bit of a bump in the right direction? --Miesianiacal (talk) 13:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I've added Courland. You may wish to trim it a bit. :) --84.163.203.156 (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Saint Barthélemy and New Sweden were the only territory of the Swedish Crown with Saint Barthélemy being the last. Don't know if their should be a Norse section before it became part of Denmark. Germans under Holy Roman Emperor Charles V tried settling Venezuela. But Charles V was also King of Spain so it can be disputed that the settlement was Spanish territory. Prussian held Saint Thomas in the Carribeans. Other former German colonies included Crab Island, Guyana, Nicaragua and Tertholen which I not sure of. See Swedish colonization of the Americas and German colonization of the Americas for more.

I created a List of monarchs in the Americas that looks similar to the List of monarchs in the British Isles. I included states that did not directly control land in the Americas but indirectly did so; ie. the Hanoverian monarchs were ruler of the British colonies in the America. Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Miscellany

Looking through the article, I wonder if the miscellaneous detail about levels of republican support and royal visits are worthy of inclusion in the summaries here. WP:SS seems to say that we should only provide a "moderate amount of info on the topic's more important points," which I think some of the content here exceeds. --Miesianiacal (talk) 18:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess probably not, they could be moved to the relevant article on the Monarchy of the said country. I also added some info related to that, but moved it to the relevant article, however I wasn't too sure whether to remove the info from this article or not. If anyone feels it should be deleted from this one, go ahead. --Kushan I.A.K.J 18:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see you have tidied up the information, looks better now. :) --Kushan I.A.K.J 18:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Once again some spelling mistakes were found... try using spellcheck or at least edit before one saves it. Btw, didn't the French crown still continue to control it's American colonies after it's restoration in the 1800's? Doesn't look right saying it ended in 1792 after the revolution. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 09:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Mmm.. true enough. And I'm probably mostly responsible for the spelling errors; they do seem to be my characteristic error. --Miesianiacal (talk) 15:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

We have a spell checker function? Where? --Cameron* 16:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

(non-)American?

I don't understand why Canada is an "American monarchy" while Greenland is not. Both monarchs are European, and both countries are American. What am I missing? kwami (talk) 09:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to read and contribute to the discussion above under the heading Native/Foreign monarchies. --Lawe (talk) 13:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

ISBNs and references

Could whoever added the book references please add the respective ISBN numbers to the reference template. Somebody added a bunch of Spanish language refs. I'd really appreciate those being added since my Spanish doesn't seem good enough...I can't find the ISBNs. Also, some sections need more references or the GA could fail. I'd really appreciate any help. :) --Cameron* 17:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there a time limit on the effort, Cameron? --Miesianiacal (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Usuaally a week but we have been granted a little bit extra... :) --Cameron* 18:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know there was a deadline! Time to get my busy fingers typing. --Miesianiacal (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful Miesianical, thanks! As you can see we only need ISBNs and references now. The "Endemic monarchies" section needs sourcing the most. And the context section doesn't have any sources! --Cameron* 18:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay - I just wanted to finish up the cleanup I was in the midst of at Oath of Allegiance (Canada). I'll have a look at this page again either tonight or tomorrow (though I keep trying to tell myself to not spend so much damn time here!). I see you've made some real improvements to the article, though, Cameron. --Miesianiacal (talk) 01:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Lead/context

In looking at the current lead, I noticed that there's a fair amount of repetition in it. As all Cameron recently did was remove the section header dividing the lead from the old context section, this seems to make it obvious that the repetition was pre-existing. Re-establishing the context section doesn't eliminate the repetition, but is it kosher to use the lead to lay out the context? I'm not really sure how to tackle this. --Miesianiacal (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Map contradiction

The map legend says:

Countries with pretenders, where modern borders align with the historical borders of the respectively claimed thrones

But actually shows a claim to Patagonia, corresponding to parts of two modern states. ðarkuncoll 13:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems fine to me, but what is missing are other places like the Falkland Islands, etc. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 02:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand this map/legend

This map/legend was added in November of 2008 and (apparently) never changed as of August 3, 2010.

I don't understand it:

  male primogeniture, to be changed to equal primogeniture

  male primogeniture

- If this map reflects only American monarchies (i.e. independent Commonwealth Realms): Why is Greenland also painted?

- If, on the other hand, this map reflects both American and settled monarchies: Why are Dutch and British territories not painted? (Aruba etc, and British Virgin Islands etc)

- In either case: Why is Greenland labeled as "male primogeniture, to be changed to equal primogeniture" when Danish monarchy follows equal primogeniture?

Sebasbronzini (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Sweden

Is there any particular reason why Sweden has been left out as a monarchy which at various times did possess territory in the Americas (New Sweden, Guadeloupe & Saint Barthélemy)? RicJac (talk) 13:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It should be added and will be shortly as the reason stated above.That-Vela-Fella (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Commonwealth Realms are Equal Primogeniture

That needs to be updated, and the map fixed.

And the sentence about it being determined by either deference to British law or patriated constitutions is wrong; it's by international treaty (since Balfour), which is why, for instance, courts in Canada consistantly find that the charter of rights and freedoms doesn't apply, so Catholics can't be King. WilyD 07:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The laws to change it within all the realms have not yet been done. Once they all are, then it'll get updated.That-Vela-Fella (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC) *Update* Found some mention last May of this slow process here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm120522/debtext/120522-0001.htm That-Vela-Fella (talk) 20:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)