Talk:Monarchism

British or English?

In this it states about the British glorious revolution of 1688, yet the designation British does not come in until the act of union 1707. Am I mistaken or should it be English instead of British? sorry if I'm wrong.

(RICHY) British usually refers to the island off Europe or historically to the peoples of the island (i.e. British or Brits). English is and relatively more recent and more political construct) (Richy)95.151.146.164 (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

versus Royalist

User:Stijn Calle has changed both Royalist and Monarchism to record his opinion that the two concepts are different. I do not think these are minor edits. --RichardVeryard 19:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

They are different... a monarchist is a person who supports the concept of monarchy in general, a royalist is a person who wants a specific person to the monarch ahead of others.

International Monarchist League and Australia

The International Monarchist League ("IML") and its recent child-organization The Australian Monarchist League ("AML") have not had a very high profile in Australia. Using the Trove website, I find one mention of the IML, it advertised once for members in 1970 in the Canberra Times. A google search does not lead to much reporting or other links for the IML. The AML has a slightly higher profile in Google, but nothing that indicates any support for the statement "The International Monarchist League, founded in 1943, which has been very influential in Canada and Australia". Even the Wikipedia page for IML fails to cite anything other than that a branch existed in Australia. In fact, it incorrectly states that the AML existed from 1943, it only became a separate entity around 1993. The wikipedia page for AML indicates that it was a bit player in a "No" vote coalition during the 1999 Republic referendum, otherwise no significant activity is indicated. The AML is a very small organisation, much smaller than the higher-profile and more active Australians For Constitutional Monarchy. There is no reference given for the statement of a "very influential" role of these Leagues in Australia. Therefore I am deleting the mention of Australia Brunswicknic (talk) 11:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Restoration movements

Might it be an idea to include a section about republics where there is popular support for restoring a monarchy? For example, according to a 2013 poll, more Serbs supported monarchism than opposed it, and Montenegro has passed a law giving an official non-political role to the former Montenegrin royal house. 62.171.197.110 (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

If there is sufficient RS material to justify a section on restorationist movements then go for it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

In the section on monarchists from various countries, German politician Karl Josef Strauss is listed, but his biography does not associate him with monarchism, just conservatism. German monarchism seems largely tied to the house of Hohenzollern (Wilhelm I & II), so as a Bavarian, Strauss, for all his conservatism, might be understood as luke-warm about restoration of monarchism. At any rate, the claim of him as a monarchist seems to be unsupported as it stands.2601:5C2:300:2361:B06C:6C51:BCB2:C35C (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Other Advantages

Should these advantages advanced by monarchists be listed as well?

Stability: monarchism prevents drastic changes in domestic and foreign policy whereas in a republic the path of a country can change drastically every election, meaning that some long term beneficial plans may not be implemented.

Competency of rulers: by knowing who in advance will rule a future monarch can be trained and educated on how to be good heads of state.

Avoids the corruption of an election: in some society's elections are seen as shams or can have allegations of fraud.

Emperor001 (talk) 23:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The impartiality of a monarch is ensured from its unelected charge so that he or she will act for the whole country and not just for his or her electors. Monarchy avoids a sizeable amount of corruption since presidents steal because they know that after some years they would be back home. Monarchy reduced extremist ideologies. Monarchy prevents executive dictatorships because the armed forces swear loyalty to the king and not to an eventual dictator as prime minister. Monarchies cost much less and significantly boost tourism. Public vote counts more in monarchies . Monarchies are more capable to ensure long-term projects than republics because presidents act in the nearest immediate need. There are a lot more but I don’t want to have a complete list until I know that what I said has been considered. Egon20 (talk) 22:24, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Basic aspects

"A monarchist is an individual who supports this form of government, independent of any specific monarch; one who espouses a particular monarch is a royalist."

Also, monarchists resist democracy, there is a strong correlation between monarchy and anti-democracy. -Inowen (nlfte) 04:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Like people who support the US constitution and the electoral college, I suppose in your view they must also hate democracy? Alssa1 (talk) 00:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Most of monarchists want parliamentary monarchy. Do you know that public vote is more important in monarchies? Egon20 (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Support for the restoration of monarchy

The table in this section is flawed to say the least. The wording is misleading, suggesting that the "Supporters" column may be a number of declared supporters with the "% of country population" column based on the number from the "Supporters" column, when the opposite is actually the case. And hopefully it goes without saying that taking polling data and extrapolating it across the whole population to determine a theoretical number of supporters is not sound methodology. I also find issues with a number of sources:

• The source for the Romanian claim does not actually state there is 37% support for monarchy; it states there is 21% support for restoring the monarchy and 61% support for a republic, with the remainder unspecified.
• The source for the Albanian claim is the 1997 Albanian monarchy referendum - reliable, though outdated, but I take serious issue with extrapolating the result to the total current population of Albania when the actual number who voted in favour of monarchy was just over 450,000.
• The wording in the source for the Russian claim is ambiguous to say the least - "21% are not against the return of the monarchy" - with no number provided for those actually in favour of the restoration of the monarchy.
• The source for the Austrian claim does not provide any actual poll numbers, but generalises "several polls over the past few years" without providing its own sources.
• The source for the Italian claim states that 15% of people would vote for a "monarchical party", rather than for the restoration of the monarchy (which was not asked). Responses to both questions might track closely, but the questions do not mean the same thing. The number given (12,000,000) is also taken from a quote in the source from one of the potential claimants of the throne in which he extrapolates the figure of 15% to the whole population.
• A very minor point - the source for the Greek claim states 11.6% support for monarchy rather than the 14% given in the table.
• Similar to Greece, the source for the Brazilian claim states 10.7% support for the restoration of the Empire rather than the 13% given in the table.
• The source for the Mexican claim is about the prospective registration of a monarchist political party, and does not seem to include anything about the popularity of the restoration of the monarchy at all.

In my view this section would be better off with the table removed and the numbers and specifics for each country listed in detail, with false information corrected where possible and removed where not. Erinthecute (talk) 10:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

What's worst is that there are people using an even more "poll" obscure claiming 30% of the population of Brazil supports monarchism. Is there a way to stop this? Lucasmoorim (talk) 22:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Royal central says 12 million Italians want the return of monarchy. We are 60 million Italians and if you calculate then 12 millions is the 20% of the population, not the 15%. Egon20 (talk) 13:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

You need to actually provide a source that explicitly states 20%, not calculate it on your own (Wikipedia is ultimately a reflection of other reliable sources, not original research). Also, as noted by Erinthecute, the "almost 12 million" is taken from a quote from a member of the Five Star League (see here for the source in question), and is not a figure cited by the polling firm itself. And in saying that, every source that cites the istitutopiepoli poll itself states it is 15%.

Also reading Erinthecute's comment, they raise a fair point that the questioned asked in the survey was if people would support a monarchical party, not necessarily support for restoration in itself. Leventio (talk) 04:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

we have three people who claim to be the hypothetical heir to the throne in case Italy would ever return a monarchy. Most monarchists prefer Prince Aimone. Also, if the 12 million supporters were a true fact, and considering Italy’s population is 60 millions, then 12 million is the 20% of 60 million. Egon20 (talk) 07:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

The question isn't about pretenders to the throne, its about polling on restoration. And in saying that, doing your own calculations is against Wikipedia's policies on excluding original reserach (see WP:OR for details). Wikipedia is ultimately a reflection of what is stated in reliable sources, not what the user rationalizes on their own, which is why I said a source needs to explicitly state its at 20%.

And in saying that, as multiple users have noted, the "almost 12 million" is a quote from an individual who is drawing upon a hypothetical (provided in the source above), and is not a figure presented by any polling agency (namely the Piepoli institute). Leventio (talk) 21:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I disagree, math is not an opinion, if we assume that it’s 12 millions then it is 20%, requiring a source is against common sense. Egon20 (talk) 12:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be ignoring the point that Wikipedia is supposed to be a reflection of what is written in reliable sources, not based on assumptions or what the user himself rationalizes. You can disagree with that policy all you want, but that is how Wikipedia functions when a conflict has arisen (being a reflection of reliable sources).

And a big reason why we do this is because users can misconstrue or misinterpret statements, like you are doing right now with "almost 12 million". You seem to be ignoring the point of where the "almost 12 million" figure came from. Multiple users have already explained that the "almost 12 million" is derived from a quote from an individual who is extrapolating from the actual polling result (as provided in source here), and is not at all the figure that is actually provided by the polling agency (which multiple sources) state is 15%`. Leventio (talk) 15:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Support for restoration old list

Can you please restore the the old list but change a column from “% of the population” to “estimated % of the population”? The old list was far superior and much more accurate, only 30% for Georgia for instance is far too low, the sources provided out it at well over 50%. 2A02:C7F:1425:8B00:9089:2F8A:5109:42E4 (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Presentation of opinion polls generally don't provide a "(estimated) % of the pop." because a country's population includes a a non-voting segment (i.e. minors, etc.). The majority of the polls have this into account and most (if not all) only sample those above the relevant country's voting age (and as a result, the percentages are not actually a true representation of a countries population, but rather its voting population). It'd also probably be improper to state an est. population figure when you take into account for the polls margin of error (which unfortunately, the majority of these sources do not provide). This is why you do not see "% of the population" in any opinion polling articles (see Nationwide opinion polling for the 2020 United States presidential election, Opinion polling for the 2019 Indian general election, Opinion polling for the 2019 Spanish local elections).

With regards to your second point on Georgia, your really gonna have to expand on why you think the previous one source used for Georgia is "superior" in your mind. Cause for me (for the moment anyways), I would think a figure that came from a more recent poll (2013 vs 2015), and one that was conducted by an actual research centre (that would probably follow basic sampling rules) would be the more reliable source, than a poll conducted during an two hour television talk show. Leventio (talk) 03:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion: Add "Criticism" section

This article only mentions arguments supporting monarchism. Anti-monarchist voices should have a section in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.152.125.89 (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

This is the support for monarchy, a page called criticism of the monarchy already exists Egon20 (talk) 23:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

No, this is not a support for monarchism page. It is a page that discusses monarchism and it should therefore be balanced. It doesn't have to include every detail, but it should have at least a short discussion of both sides. The criticism of monarchy section could be a few sentences as an overview with a link to the main article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Removal of Justifications for monarchism section

No other ideology has a section dedicated to arguments in favour of it to my knowledge. There is already a page called "criticism of monarchy" so why shouldn't there be a "justifications of monarchy" page if people desire it. In my opinion all this section shows is bias and removal of this section would be for the best. Fale29 (talk) 18:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted your good faith edit. I don't think you can have a complete discussion of political philosophies w/o including the arguments for and against. If there are concerns over the balance of the article that is best remedied by ensuring that all sides get a fair presentation, per WP:NPOV and subject to the constraints of WP:CITE and WP:DUE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Having reviewed the article I think it is unbalanced and needs a short section giving the republican side of the argument, possibly with a link to the main article. I have tagged the article accordingly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, I was going off the fact that there is already a "criticism of monarchy" page which was used as a basis to disagree with the creation of a criticism section previously on this talk page. I think it would be for the best to change the section heading to "Criticism and support" as seen on liberalism and move the notable works in favour of monarchism subsection into a section which would include more general notable works both in favour and against monarchism. Is this suitable? Fale29 (talk) 19:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it's probably better to keep the two sections separated. And since there is an entire article dedicated to criticism of monarchy, I am thinking it would be better to incorporate an overview with a link at the top of the section to the main article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I've boldly added a section on Antimonarchism with a link to the main article. I mostly just copied the lead from that article which I think is a good summary. I've also added a link to Republicanism to the see also section. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to split the section into its own article leaving a small summary Fale29 (talk) 06:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

---

I propose that section Notable Monarchists be split into a separate page called List of monarchists. This section is particularly long compared to the other section and would fit in line with other lists of people who support different ideologies such as list of social democrats

@Ad Orientem: Fale29 (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support Maybe keep the section with just a handful of the really notable figures and then a main article link to the separate list page. This is a common practice in articles with long lists of people associated with the topic i.e. notable people interred in large and famous cemeteries are usually forked to their own page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support It doesn't really support this article but would work well as its own. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 12:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support Long enough to be its own article. Dimadick (talk) 14:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Ceremonial monarchy/monarchies

@Aggressively Monarchist Australian: re unlinking of "ceremonial monarchy", I notice that we have two redirects:

• The singular Ceremonial monarchy - redirects to Crowned republic, which says "system of monarchy where the monarch's role may be seen as almost entirely ceremonial"
• The plural Ceremonial monarchies (which you unlinked) - redirects to Constitutional monarchy

I'm not knowledgable on the subject, but it seems to me that:

• The singular and plural terms should almost certainly redirect to the same target (regardless of which target that is)
• "Crowned republic" might be an appropriate link target from Monarchism § Current monarchies.

Mitch Ames (talk) 03:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Mitch Ames

That is an extremely interesting catch. you are entirely right that they should link to the same place, I haven't any idea why they currently don't, I'll tey to figure out how to fix that.

Again, you are correct in saying that "crowned republic" is certainly a much more appropriate link in this context and, honestly, they should both link to there as it is considerably closer, almost perfect in fact.

Cheers for that, I'll re add that link and make it go to the crowned republic page as soon as I have a spare minute.

Aggressively Monarchist Australian (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Support for Monarchy

Could this be used for South Korea and Romania? https://n.news.naver.com/mnews/article/003/0003121759?sid=102 https://www.stiripesurse.ro/sondaj-romanii-spun-pas-monarhiei-surpriza-in-topul-personalita-ilor-apreciate-din-casa-regala_1246180.html S302921 (talk) 06:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)