Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject British Royalty/Archive 2

5471:

expressed a preference for "Monarchy of X". Furthermore, obviously "not all the same" features a number of possible ways to do things within itself. There is clearly no consensus for any general, uniform policy. In general, it is unwise to have sequential polls in which first one decision is made, and then another one. In a case like this, it is best to offer a number of different options, each of them already complete, and use approval voting to find out which one is acceptable to the largest number of people. As it is, all we know is that five people prefer "no exceptions" to "exception for the UK", but this isn't really sufficient to give a full idea of what is the solution that would have the most support overall. I think starting over with a much clearer and more transparent voting system would be the way to go.

743:

because its totally wrong, and also its not exclusive usage, she is often known as Queen of Britiain, or Queen of UK etc. The British Royal Family are never referred to as anything except "British Royal Family" (I'm talking about the Family, not the Queen). To make references to "the Royal Family of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth realms" is an invented title made by you to suit your POV. Queen Victoria was Empress of India, should we therefore say that her children were members of the Indian Imperial Family? The British Royal Family should always be referred to as that, anything else is invented, illogical and POV.--

5817:

are not, at present, consistent with one another (some use "Monarchy of X" and some use "X monarchy"), but there are various reasons why we might want to make an exception for the UK. Beyond that, of course, is the fact that several people have already expressed a preference for an exception for the UK. Nobody has expressed a preference for an exception for anyone else. If you want to propose other possibilities, go ahead, but I think there should be one vote, where all options can be explored, rather than multiple votes.

1966:

common usage is beyond me it really is. When common usage is as widespread as this, and with good reason to, it must be followed. We cannot simply invent what they are called. They are called the British Royal Family, it really is as simple as that. In cases where the commonwealth is relevant fine, but in article about the individual or graveyards it is not relevant in opening line. Common usage prevails. And please remember the link to British Royal Family immediatley explains is a shared Monarchy. --

2224:

that including "and the Commonwealth realms" pushes the length of its title into the territory of unwieldly-ness. And as for the insinuation that myself, or any of the other contributors, are biassed against the inclusion of the Commonwealth's status and joint Sovereignship, and especially that that would be on account of simply being British – that, dear sir, makes you guilty of the very "crime" of which you would accuse others. Please, do not assume bad faith.

140:

confuse people, and support your normal pro-Canadian POV. While of course it is important to mention the monarch's role as Queen of 16 countries, this does not apply to her family. As I've been recently informed, only Canada have formally a Royal Family, making this insistance even stanger. They are known the world over as British, live there, work there, are British and a suggestion to change this, makes Knowledge (XXG) look pathetic and highly-biased. --

5400:

as). To do that, you actually need to carefully consider the strength and quality of the arguments themselves (including any additional concerns that may have been raised along the way), the basis of objection of those who disagree, and in more complex situations, existing documentation in the project namespace should also be checked. If you are volunteering to carry out an action on the basis of rough consensus, only this thorough approach is acceptable.

3039:

by doing this, and, in truth, most of the "Monarchy of " articles only started with that title because they followed suit from "Monarchy in Canada." I can't see there having been any discussion as to why "Monarchy in Canada" was titled as it was. In the end, they should all be the same: either "Monarchy of " (which includes making "British monarchy" into "Monarchy in the United Kingdom") or " monarchy." There's no reason for them to be different. --

2990:

these pages have been moved too many times. I'm seriously considering requesting that these pages be move-protected to prevent another rash of barely-discussed moves. I'm pretty sure someone out there is going to object to "Jamaican Monarchy", if for no other reason than that fact the the Monarch doesn't even live there, and ditto for the other pages. We have redirects for a reason, so please, let's try discussing and choosing ONE title format, and

2460:

argument your opponent actually has to debate against your points, not debate against imaginary points they created in their own minds" and "there have been no logical arguments against it put forward, just ceaseless foot stomping". All these are what you are doing. We have presented many points, you just ignore them. Common usage demands British Royal Family. We seem to have a majority, so I suggest we end the disussion with that as a guideline. --

31: 5787:

almost everyone would agree that all the former colonies should have the same format, since their monarchies are virtually identical. I think the issue of whether the UK should also be consistent with the others is more controversial, and should be dealt with separately. If, in the approval voting, a small number of options seem to be getting most of the votes, we can get rid of the others and vote on the top two, or something, later.

5404:

a course of action should be chosen that is likely to satisfy the most persons (rather than merely the majority). Running roughshod over the (then) minority is the best way to get yourself into almost unlimited amounts of trouble. Besides, next time someone from that minority might be the final closer, and you might be one of the people in a minority, so it's a good idea to be a gentleperson at all times and set a good example.

2185:

that then turned to unfounded attacks on our motives. Thus, there isn't really an argument to lose; in an argument your opponent actually has to debate against your points, not debate against imaginary points they created in their own minds. This is exactly why you can't understand their opposition to the propsed wording: there have been no logical arguments against it put forward, just ceaseless foot stomping. --

2890:

and the consensus then was that "monarchy in X" was the preferred pattern for the titles. Moves involving a range of articles ought to have the consensus of more than 2 or 3 editors, and each article sould have had a notice that the moves were being discussed before hand. Thanks for your patience, and willingness to allow other editors to participate before proceeding with further moves. -

1631:

embodiment of the Crown, and the holder all that authority, and so she is Queen of all her countries equally, all the time. Because she has more personal contact with her British ministers than with her other ones doesn't preclude either this fact or the fact that when she exercises any authority or duty on behalf of a particular state she does so 100% as monarch of

5403:

Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and discussion should continue in an effort to try to negotiate the most favorable compromise that is still practical. In situations with a deadline, a perfect compromise may not have been reached by all participants at the deadline. Nevertheless,

5200:

And isn't that just typical of your attitude - use any method you can to suppress dissent. Well, I've voted now, so to describe your proposal as having a "consensus" is to be plainly absurd. You are trying to impose a mindless uniformity on an article where none is necessary or desirable. If you want

3028:

The best way to "settle" it is to have a unified (across the various articles) consensus, which doesn't exist as yet. If you don't do that, when the issue comes up again, you'll have no consesnus to rest on, and we'll have to go through this all over again. This move does not have my support, but I'm

2889:

If this has been discussed elsewhere, it would be a could idea to have included liks to that discussion in the initial move. At this point, please provide a link to the discussions here before attempting another move. The current title was the result of discussions in the AFD process for these pages,

2048:

Why, why; why oh why is there such a kerfuffle? This project is not a place for this conflict – it is entirely irrelevant to its work. It matters not what we call the project, nor who "owns" the monarchy (which, by the way, is a ridiculous concept). This discussion will go nowhere because no party is

1108:

heed that important point. Only in certain contexts would it be appropriate and/or necessary; just as it would, at points, be appropriate and/or necessary to mention all of Gordon Brown's offices, or, at least, say "Gordon Brown holds the premiership of the United Kingdom as well as a number of other

1074:

This is indeed a fine proposal, except for its inability to deal with those articles where the context isn't as specific, such as articles on the members of the Royal Family, or commonly shared institutions, or burial plots. In those examples the description that combines both clarity and accuracy is

797:

I cannot believe the above, I really can't. How you can say "So what" when you admit the British Royal Family are always called that. When, outside Knowledge (XXG), do you hear mention to the "Canadian Royal Family"? No often, if at all. It really is time you accept that the Royal Family is primarily

203:

You know, I was just thinking about that. But, besides wondering about whether the scope of articles is big enough to warrant such a creation, this wouldn't solve problems that arise at articles where the context goes beyond one particular country. What might be valid is your earlier suggestion of a

5801:

Well, why not add: All at "Monarchy of X", except the UK and Canada, which stay at "X monarchy"? Or any variation thereof? It seems here that singling out the UK alone has already been accepted as a valid option; yet, why? That's why I agree with your point: in terms of consistency, there are indeed

5509:

John, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "more transparent"; as though this one was somehow covert. Regardless, I did see early on that the survey was somewhat unfocused; that's why we narrowed it down to first deciding whether all should be the same or not all the same, and that much still seems

2989:

title in six months for this page, and I think some of the other pages have had more than 3 renames. Also, while some discussion has taken place on one or two pages before the moves, the other pages are generally being moved without discussion. How often do we need to move thse pages? In my opinion,

2303:

And I couldn't help noticing that those who wish to diminish the status of the British monarchy are from former British colonies. Far be it from me to suggest that they may have that collective chip on their shoulder that is so common amongst colonials, and which seeks to belittle the mother country

2213:

That's bolloks; common usage and international recognition were never challenged. All that was put forward was a proposal to acknowledge, in appropriate contexts, the wider scope of a certain institution. No valid reason was put forward to say why that should not be done. As I said, we haven't lost

1965:

If the suggestion to say on, for instance, Prince Andrew's article, "is a member of the Royal Family of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth realms" - then I totally disagree. G2bambino admits above they are always known as the British Royal Family, never as anything else. How you can ignore this

1630:

What are you talking about, Thark? As I said earlier, "monarchy" is a loosely defined term. The monarchy, as an institution - let's call that the Crown - acts all the time, in every realm; it's the perpetual source of all governmental authority in each of its jurisdictions. The Queen is the personal

6086:

Let's be realistic. Speaking as somebody who grew up in the US (along with 2/3 of all native English speakers), I was completely unaware that Canada and New Zealand were kingdoms until very recently, but I was taught at a very young age that the UK is and has been for 1000 years. The commonwealth

3048:

Three times?? How many more "benign consensuses" are you going to have? It's not a consensus once someone objects. You can't have fiat decisions on one or two pages, and then claim consensus when someone objects on another page. As to there not having been discussions before for the previous moves,

3038:

Can't one have a benign consensus? After all, as I said, the issue was raised at three of the most popular articles and not a single person commented, either way. They've since been moved, and still nobody has commented. I don't recall there ever being a guideline set up that we're somehow opposing

1845:

You haven't made an argument; at least not one that pertains to this discussion. What Charles personally thinks is neither knowable by us, nor influential in any dispute against the proposed wording that's the subject of this discussion. Ditto for the Queen. I suspect you're beleaguering this "the

630:

Late to the party, but I just wanted to add, in case this idea is resuscitated, that "Commonwealth royalty" would also include the Sultan of Brunei, the King of Lesotho, the various monarchs of Malaysia, and the kings of Swaziland and Tonga. That would clearly be a different project from this one.

598:

Are there not sixteen different monarchies? Each country "owns" its own monarchy, who just happens to be the monarch of 15 other countries. As for the name of this WikiProject and the articles it encompasses, from past royals up until now, the only thing they all have in common is that they all are

176:

I agree that "Commonwealth royalty" is misworded; there is more than one royal house in the Commonwealth. "Commownealth realms royalty" might be more appropriate as it limits the scope to only the 16 countries that share the crown, monarch, and royal family. "British and other Commonwealth realms

5816:

Because the UK is different from the others. Treating the others as a group makes sense. Treating the UK alongside them may or may not make sense. I think, for instance, that there is an interest in making the UK relatively consistent with the pages for other European monarchies. Those articles

5439:

No, it's actually not an either-or situation. It's a proposal to create a new convention. If there's no consensus to create such a convention, then there's no convention. That's how it works. The burden is on those wanting to change things to demonstrate a consensus in favor of change. In the

5399:

In practice, a lot of people look in on an issue and check to see if a (mere) majority exists in favor of their position. While this quick and dirty rule helps you to figure out what to spend your time on, it is obviously *not* the same thing as finding the actual consensus (or what it will end up

2489:

Where appropriate – i.e. in any case where the monarchy, or an aspect thereof, is/was shared between Britain and any other state independent therefrom – it will be necessary to make specific mention of the Commonwealth realms, at first specifically, but more generally thereafter. The main state on

2459:

G2bambino, you comment on myself and TharkunColl being from the UK is a pointless one. You and GoodDay are both from Canada so I could say the same back. You seem to be unable to accept argument, constantly saying things like "baseless assertions" and "there isn't really an argument to lose; in an

2223:

Whoa, whoa, thricely whoa. Hang on there – not everyone has rejected all of your proposal out of hand – I personally am absolutely fine with appropriate mentions of the official status of the Commonwealth realms in the appropriate articles. And, as for the name of the WikiProject, it's unfortunate

2184:

GoodDay: That's what I suspect he's saying, but I can't fully grasp it; it just doesn't compute. From my stance, I see that nobody is able to prove "...of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms" as being wrong, or even misleading. All that's been presented is a lot of baseless assertions

2084:

Well I agree in theory. But it is G2ambino, and to a lesser extent GoodDay, who started and caused this disgrement. No one else is hell-bent on insisting mentioning the Commonwealth realms at every opportunity. And I am not prepared to let them get their way when it is so blantantly POV, incorrect

732:

How anything came about is the essence of why it exists, but in this case: so what? The present situation is one of a shared monarchy; the UK does not have full control over that institution at this time. Hence, it is the UK's monarchy, but it is also, equally, every other Commonwealth realm's as

129:

Isn't that taking a purely historical, as opposed to current, point of view? The British monarchy's roots lie deeper in the UK than anywhere else, for certain; however, in contemporary reality that one monarchy is no longer purely British. In certain contexts, calling either the institution or the

2582:

Yes, I too would say Philip, Charles, and William and Harry as they are in direct line to the throne. However, I would include the Queen's other children and a couple of her cousins; essentially only those who undertake duties at the behest of the Queen's non UK governments. If that's acceptable

1979:

Putting words in my mouth is very poor form and undermines your credibility. I did not say they are "always" known as the British Royal Family; I said they are predominantly referred to as such. You also demonstrate that you aren't interested in hearing anything other than that which you want to;

1638:

Similarly, the members of the Royal Family may act more often on the direction of the British government, but that doesn't mean they don't "belong," per say, as much to any of the Queen's other countries. As subjects of the Queen of, say, Canada, members of the Royal Family are called upon by the

1088:

For articles that are about the whole Commonwealth, I have no particular objection to "United Kingdom and fifteen other Commonwealth realms". But in articles about Britain, and its monarchy, there is simply no need to mention the other realms. We don't say, "Gordon Brown, Prime Minster of the UK,

742:

It is not a case of "So what?" at all. The Royal Family live and work in Britain, and are themselves British. The common usage is overwhelminghly British Royal Family. Of course with that you've argued the normal "Queen of England". Thats totally different. Common usage doesn't apply in that case

5470:

Well, obviously if you put it that way, there are two options. That being said, we have identified at least three ways these articles can be called (X Monarchy, Monarchy in X, and Monarchy of X), with no clear sense that there's a strong consensus for one over the other - Barryob has just again

2558:

That depends – I'd say in the cases of Charles and William, since they're in the direct line to the CR crown, and possibly Philip, because he accompanies the Queen on her CR tours – but the other royals have even less to do with the other realms, so I probably wouldn't make mention in the text –

2366:

No, this is your typical debating tactic - you deliberately interpret words and phrases according to your own POV. When I say British monarchy, I mean precisely that - namely, the monarchy that reigns over the UK and 15 of its former dominions. If you counter with the suggestion that the British

2245:

confused! In terms of this project name: I could support a change, but really have little passion about the issue, and hence asked you, with genuine desire, where this debate might better take place. As far as I knew, the contest here, for some time now, has indeed been about the mention of the

6137:

Yeah. Know what you mean. I'm an Australian. I do take the point that the Australian monarchy is distinct from the UK one. Elizabeth is called Queen of Australia here. But I'd never call Australia a kingdom and I don't think anyone does except here in Knowledge (XXG). We've always been called a

5786:

Yes, "No Change" would seem appropriate, as well. In terms of format, I think that in a situation like this, approval voting for a wide range of options is much more likely to come to a mutually acceptable result. In terms of consistency, there are obviously a couple of perspectives. I think

1679:

Just as a thought experiment, what do you think would happen if Prince Charles constantly bombarded the Canadian PM and members of his cabinet with an endless stream of notes and suggestions about environmental policy, architecture, housing, this, that, and the other? And more to the point, why

980:

This depends; "monarchy" is a broadly defined term. The Crown is shared equally. The monarch is shared equally, though is most directly involved in the UK's affairs. The Royal Family is shared equally, though they most often act officially on behalf of the UK. So, yet again, nobody's disputing

139:

No it is taking a sensible and reasonable view. Although the Royal Family is shared, is remains mainly British. For a start, the members live there, are British themselves and is how they are known the world over. Start banding about created phrases like "Commonwealth Royalty", and it will only

5771:

I would say one glaring omission is the option in which none are the same. I wonder, though, if there are too many options there to start with. Wouldn't it be more systematic to ask first if they should all be the same or not be the same, and then decide on which of the three formats should be

1749:

Let's widen it out then. Do you know of any example of the Queen, or a member of her family, attempting to influence the Canadian government? In the UK we have the famous example from her Silver Jubilee in 1977 when she gave a speech with a thinly veiled criticism of the government's plans for

4824:

Well then, here's the slightly confusing part where we have to make a choice: there is one shared monarchy but it is "divided" into sixteen. By my reading, "Monarchy in " says the shared monarchy in that country, and "Monarchy of " says the branch of monarchy operating solely in that country.

4346:

article to be somehow set aside as a special case, others disagree with that; I am of the latter group. Whether "Monarchy in " or "ian/ish monarchy" isn't of great importance to me (though I prefer the latter), but I believe whichever is used it should apply to each page; no exceptions. ----

3555:, one of the Monarch's representatives, uses the phrase when he says "Of course in speaking for the nation or the province, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governors do so from outside the realm of politics. We, the representatives of the Monarchy in Canada ..." but does not refer to 2254:

be more than coincidence, and was perhaps worthy of consideration in tandem with the irrational responses coming from others (not you). I am trying to assume good faith, but piecing together some of what I see come out in discussion is what makes me smell bias so strongly, from one editor in

1187:

The main problem is the insertion of POV into articles that have nothing to do with the Commonwealth at all. If we had an article about a member of the royal family opening some supermarket somewhere in the UK, would we have to say "and the other Commonwealth realms"? No, such a notion is

1089:

First Lord of the Treasury, Minister for the Civil Service, MP for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath" every time we mention the British Prime Minister - we only mention his other titles if they have a direct bearing on the article in question. In other words, we should not give those other titles

2027:." You see, Knowledge (XXG) isn't a collection of quotations. But, if you'd like to play that game then you'll have to accept "the Britsh Royal Family and Canadian Royal Family," which is accurate, and cited, but still ignores the evident role of the royals in the Queen's other realms. -- 2899:

I don't see where the AFD discussion concluded that "Monarchy in X" was preferred for titles beyond this article; and, even then, only because it's what the other non-UK realm monarchy articles used. The others have changed, so it only seems logical that this one follow suit, as it did

5341:. The discussion and poll obviously shows that the majority of people who chose to involve themselves felt that all the articles should be titled the same way. That in no way changes any naming policy, and, in fact, pulls all the titles more in line with the only applicable guideline: 3176:

have always been, and continue to be uncommonly titled, having either a "Monarchy in " or "ish/ian/etc. monarchy" format. This discussion regards deciding on a common format that all present and future realm monarchy articles should adhere to, and then making the appropriate changes.

3251:

is just fine since it is both descriptive and neutral. Questions about the status of the monarchy are dealt with in the article but the title should be as NPOV and as non-contentious as possible. In answer to the question above; yes I should prefer the others to have this form. The

4109:

Then we'd best start discussing why there should be some bizzarre exception for the British monarchy article; as the poll stated, the decided format was to apply to all articles; it was only some participants who added on the extra special case for the British monarchy page. ----

5308:

A naming convention requires a consensus, not a mere majority. 5-3 is not a consensus, and, as such, nothing has been agreed to, and we continue the current (non-)policy of having no general rules on this subject, until such time as a consensus can be had. If you want to move

5678:

In the spirit of getting this done right, I suggest we start from scratch. I will place a boilerplate at the head of each article - not the talk, but the article - directing people here for discussion. Before I do so, I want to see if the boilerplate is acceptable. I propose:

766:

The British Royal Family is never referred to as anything except "British Royal Family." So what? Of course the British Royal Family would be called the British Royal Family. The point is, though, that the same group of people are called the Canadian Royal Family in different

3124:

took place at their related talk pages, and the proposal was met with no opposition; so the move of those pages was valid. However, I see no problem with discussing making these articles into a set, of sorts, and deciding on a common, across the board, title format.

3323:- I have moved it back since the move, in the middle of a discussion, is both procedurally wrong and caused confusion with the templates. I have protected the page from non-admin moves to stop this move warring. The closing admin will determine the ultimate name. 707:

How it came about is the very essence of why it exists. It is no accident that 15 countries around the world choose to recognise the British monarch as their own. But the statistics prove that it is merely a transitional phase from colony to independent republic.

2194:

A related addition: the point that all those opposed to the inclusion of mention of the Commonwealth realms in appropriate situations are all of a UK extraction might be more than coincidental, and may explain the emotional, illogical reaction to the proposal.

3335:- Hold up! This discussion, I thought, was first and foremost about deciding on a common title format for all the articles. So, perhaps we should vote first on which format to use. I'll open a poll; I probably should have done this at the beginning. Sorry. -- 1253:

In such an article, it would also need to be stated that the "Australian" royal family is also the British one. Otherwise we would simply be confusing and misleading our readers - i.e. giving them the impression that Australia has its own monarchy. We must

4074:

Not really, the point of this poll was to decide if all the articles should be of the same title. The decision seems to be: no. If there's to be no consistency, then each can be decided individually, as has already been done at those three articles. ----

4845:

claims sole ownership of the President of France. My issue with leaving the British monarchy possessive while making the other ones "in X" seems to harkin back to the time before the Statute of Westminster when the monarch was merely the British monarch

3180:

I support the making of all article titles into a "ish/ian/etc. monarchy" format; it more consisely expresses that the article is about the monarchical insitution of that particular country, as opposed to a foreign body, which "Monarchy in " implies.

1639:

Canadian government to represent the Queen of Canada at certain Canadian events, either locally or abroad. As they act for Canada in exactly the same manner as they do for the UK they're easily defined as the Canadian Royal Family, and have been.

2613:

I've always mentioned the link, which as you say explains all. This is why I don't see it is necessary to mention Commonwealth in these circumstances. For Charles the current opening is as it should be. But with all others it should just read

2249:

I was tentative about expressing my observations of the national characteristic common to all those so far opposed, or seemingly opposed, to the mention of the other Commonwealth realms in certain frameworks. Hence, I was careful and said it

2133:

to every related page then those who wish to. Basically G2, you and I are loosing this argument. Our hopes of gaining a consensus (even on my proposed compromise) isn't catching on. It's best to accept what's being more commonly used -

3586:

I don't believe a search that turns up hundreds of mirror sites of Knowledge (XXG)'s own article counts in this discussion. How about we start with the Government of Canada's own series of webpages dedicated to the monarchy, entitled

5733:

This is fine. I suggest we work out what the options in such a discussion should be. I would suggest the following choices, with decision to be made by approval voting (i.e., everyone can vote for as many options as they want):

1642:

Mentioning the Commonwealth realms in certain appropriate instances does not confuse or undermine the primacy of the UK in the everyday lives of the Royal Family members; so, again, concerns about the UK's primacy are irrelevant.

1267:

Only if it's stated in other articles that the "British" Royal Family is also the Australian one. Otherwise we would simply be confusing and misleading readers - i.e. giving them the impression that Britain had its own monarchy.

5229:

5 to 3 is still a majority. It may not be desirable to you, but more people feel you are wrong in that opinion than think you are right. If you wish to have the page moved again, you'll have to start another move request, per

2518:

One question first. Does the above mean articles on members of Royal Family (except monarch) should read "British Royal Family" at opening line not "Royal Family of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth realms", as should

778:

Referring to this group of people as anything other than British Royal Family is invented POV. Completely wrong. Sources support that this same group is also called the Canadian Royal Family; from the Queen's own mouth, not

877:

is largely absent. If they lived in Britain they would realise just how ubiquitous the monarchy really is, and then they would be in no doubt that the monarchy is primarily British - in almost everything it says and does.

149:

Your points make no sense. Elizabeth II is known the world over as the Queen of England. Should we change her article and all references to her to reflect this? That would, after all, be sensible and reasonable from your

1989:

There is no presented evidence that they are known around the world as "the Royal Family of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth realms". There is lots of evidence and sources that they are known as the British Royal

5342: 432:

Ownership of the monarchy is indeed precisely the point. It was the English parliament that asserted ownership of the monarchy with the Glorious Revolution of 1688, and sealed it with the Act of Settlement of 1701.

4643:

Well... Yes. But, I think there's ample notice of this discussion. I was just wondering if we'd let enough time pass to allow for people to weigh in. I might leave this until a week has passed: November 20. ----

2483:

In return for never having to read this ridiculous clash of POVs again, I will personally edit the Project's front page to include guidelines on the mention of CR etc in appropriate articles, and add a guideline

798:

British, though history, current situation and everything. I really have had enough of your POV. And "the Royal Family of the United Kingdom of the Commonwealth realms" is an invented title, you created it. --

5143:

Specifically, five people expressed a preference for no exceptions, and two for exceptions. In addition to those two, Tharkun has now expressed opposition, and I would join in that. That's not a consensus.

3573:. However, that is not central to the debate since the title is simply intended to be descriptive and neutral; I have explained the reasons above. I also suggested that editors might take a different view on 672:

In my opinon, it's the whole Commonwealth's monarchy (or monarchies). How this came about isn't important, what's important is that it exists. Elizabeth II is equally Queen of the UK, Canada, Australia etc.

159:

The Royal Family of that monarch performs official duties on behalf of not only the United Kingdom government, but, separately, for the governments of the 15 other countries of which the monarch is monarch.

2246:

other Commonwealth realms, not in this project title, but in appropriate articles; yet, above, you seemed to support UpDown's assertion that to do just that would be "POV, incorrect and anti-common usage."

237:

There would be almost nothing to put in such projects - and literally nothing at all if one wished to exclude information already included in this one. A point you "forgot" to mention above is that the

4148:

Cetainly I wouldn't want the United Kingdom to be somehow seen as special. It should be treated the same as everywhere else. And 'British' is a much looser term than just 'from the United Kingdom'. --

296:

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Articles relating to the British monarchy will cover a period of 1500 years or more, only a tiny proportion of which will cover the period since 1931. It's those

3208:

As has been pointed out before, the "Demonym monarchy" form does overlook the objective observation that, all technicalities aside, the vast majority of the shared monarchy is British in nature

5754:

Are there any other options that have shown any support? If so, they could be added. A procedure like this would be the most likely to generate a result which has general consensus, I think.

1999:

No, there isn't evidence of them being called "the royal family of the United Kingdom and the other Commownealth realms"; I've said as much elsewhere. Then again, there's no cited evidence of

2549:

Sorry to be picky, but this is important to me. On, for instance, articles on the children/grandchildren of The Queen and for her cousins, what would you put? Would you add Commonwealth? --

5178:

It doesn't matter. Ther requisite 5 days are up. Even if Thark was against - though he didn't register his vote in the poll above - it would still stand at 5 to 3 in favour of the move. --

5524:

It'd have been better to have full options, rather than deciding one thing, and then another. I wasn't meaning to suggest anything covert, just that this was done in an awkward fashion.

6018:

I honestly do not not see why we should change. I'm not being difficult: I genuinely cannot see what is the difference between, say, 'Australian Monarchy' and 'Monarchy in Australia'?--

1557:

And how often is that? I'm not referring to people acting on behalf of the monarch, but acts of the monarch and her family in person. If you added up the duration of such instances for

5510:

clear. I think it would be a waste of time to start that part of this project all over again, but could see the merit in extending debate about what format the titles should follow. --

2858:

I have moved the page back to Monarchy in Jamaica for consistency with all other similar articles. If this is not acceptable then all pages should be considered for a move together.

3029:

not stopping anyone from going ahead and moving the page either. I just don't believe this issue is "settled" in any way that would preclude another round of non-consensual moves. -

81: 76: 71: 59: 2073:

Sorry, DBD, I neglected to address you: where would you suggest this be resolved? Perhaps GoodDay is correct to seek out the establishment of a Commownealth realms WikiProject. --

599:

or were members of the British Royal Family. George IV wasn't a member of the Canadian or Australian or New Zealand royal family. Leave it where a common name can apply to it all.

5802:

a couple of perspectives: consistent or not consistent. We should decide on which of those first, and then, if they're not to be consistent, which should be different and why. --

3112:

Well, in truth, they're not a set; there's nothing that states they all must be titled the same, and, in fact, they never have all been titled the same. Discussion about moving

1980:

otherwise you wouldn't say completely inaccurate things like "they are called the British Royal Family, it really is as simple as that." Presented evidence proves you wrong. --

5425:

In this case, though, the question was an either-or situation; either they are all the same or they are not all the same. There can't really be an in-between scenario there. --

5317:

a consensus here, you would, as Tharkun says, still have to do a move request on the individual page, as Wikiprojects have absolutely no authority to determine naming rules.

3397:

provides a flavour of one situation where the status of the monarchy, and the powers that could be exercised by the governor-general on the monarch's behalf, was contentious.

6047:

I keep my fingers crossed that it's more for consistency than equality; though equality amongst the realms is tangentially related to this. Let's see how the vote unfolds. --

2693:; if anybody wants to complete the changes (of all 16 articles) go ahead. If anybody chooses to revert, go ahead. Just be sure they're all consistant. PS- I've been a little 775:

References to "the Royal Family of the United Kingdom of the Commonwealth realms" is an invented title. Completely wrong. It is a description appropriate to certain contexts.

2919:. Afer some months there was no opposition to his proposal, so, with my prompting, he went ahead and made the moves. This, so far, hasn't proved contentious in the least. -- 309:

Then I'm not sure what you mean; it was you who said a Commonwealth realms WikiProject would contain nothing not already covered in this one. That, to me, shows overlap. --

3534:

the same or they're not and the title of each is decided individually. I can tell you now that "Canadian monarchy" can be directly sourced, "Monarchy in Canada" cannot. --

1112:

In areas where the scope is more broad is where the other realms would be mentioned; for instance, in the opening of a Royal Family member's page: " is a member of the

530:

Nope, I assure you that succession to the throne is still governed by the Act of Settlement - a fact of some controversy in our age of religious and sexual equality.

1711:

It is indeed pertinent. Prince Charles, by his actions, obviously feels that the British government is more "his" to influence than governments in the other realms.

6119:

Just that one of them has been around for a millennium, actually houses the Monarchy of the Commonwealth, and is much more well known to actually be a kingdom. --

4342:

Let's then decide first of all whether all the articles should be the same or not be the same in terms of their title format; some have expressed a desire for the

2642: 2313:

One wonders who you're talking about; nobody here has "diminished" the British monarchy. You do seem to spend a significant chunk of your time fighting ghosts. --

2876:, and this was Jamaican monarchy. Neither GoodDay nor myself had got around to doing the others. So, I suggest this be put back to "Jamaican monarchy again." -- 2532:

Where appropriate, yes, but please recognise that there may be cases where "Commonwealth realms" should be there. So that's an "enough yes for you to agree" :D

990:

I still don't understand the reason for resisting 'Commonwealth realms' being mentioned on these royalty articles. Particularily when we're accepting usage of

47: 17: 6063:

Consistency is a worthwhile goal - although it's worth noting the complete lack of consistency in our other articles about monarchies. For instance, we have

5313:

in this context, go over there and do a requested move, as there is not any consensus for a change in general naming policy. I would add that, even if there

3943:

Sorry I did not realise there was a discussion on the name of the page the only reason I moved it was to match the other articles but I do prefer Monarchy in

869:

As I've said before, one of the problems here is a failure to understand the difference between a legal construct ("the Crown" of any given country), and the

5913:, because this more honestly reflects that fact that they don't have their own independent monarchy, and instead continue to recognise the British monarchy. 4296:

Excuse me? What part of "all" are you not understanding? I set up the poll, so I apologize that it wasn't clear enough in its intent, but the point was that

5010:

Yes; the required five day period is up today, though to be safe I'd leave it 'till the end of the day (Eastern Standard Time??). Though, I think "Monarchy

3877:

Sorry, I shouldv'e fixed that; I posted the above before reading BillCJ's post. From his findings it seems "ian/ish monarchy" is acceptible by WP standards.

3792: 3880:

What I glean from all of this is that people don't feel all sixteen articles should be titled the same way. That opens up a whole other can of worms. --

3311:, it is poor form to move a page during a discussion, but I'm not going to move it back myself until the discussion is over, and a final name chosen. - 4046:

Um, no, they're not under dispute. The decision to move those individually was made after sought opinion was expressed and without controversy. ----

2424:

Then you do the same; however my "POV" is backed by sources, yours is not. No edit I have done, or propose to do, diminishes the British monarchy. --

1750:

devolution for Scotland and Wales (though why she didn't do it this time round is another question - perhaps she liked Blair better than Callaghan).

1120:

then explains the shared nature. In other, more specific contexts, however, "British Royal Family" or "Canadian Royal Family" will be acceptable. --

3552: 3078: 1804:

If you don't agree with my argument, then you should try and refute it. Continually dismissing it as irrelevant is doing your case no good at all.

5837:; I think the three options I've listed give ample choice without being too specific. I won't place it anywhere 'till we agree it's acceptable. -- 2736:

Bahamas monarchy, Barbados monarchy, Grenadian monarchy, Papua New Guinean monarchy, Saint Kitts and the Grenadines monarchy, Sait Lucian monarchy

958:

primarily British. It's actually very simple and obvious. Please attempt to refute this without just saying it is a "non-argument", or whatever.

3375:

There is no contention as to its status so the arguments for a move are less weighty than for the other realms where the status is contentious.

1565:

is why the monarchy is still primarily, overwhelmingly, British, and will doubtless remain so. It has nothing to do with constitutional theory.

4006:

Chill :-), he's just expressing a view, the titles will be decided by the closing admin in due course, taking account of the balance of views.

6033:

If you're baffled? you've come to the right discussion. Seriously though, it's an article consistancy and Commonwealth realm equality thing.

3394: 923:

Tharky, nobodies arguing that E2 & family are living in the UK, performing most of their duties in the UK and are identified mainly as

807:

The Royal Family is primarily involved with the UK; no one has ever disputed that. It seems then you're fighting a non-existent battle. --

4318:

Until this squabble is settled, my fingers are tied. I'm not gonna change articles, only to have them reverted -- make up your minds. --

4272:

articles relating to the monarchies of the Commonwealth realms. Please state which of the following two styles you prefer for the titles.

2469:

This is precisely why I called for cease fire. This is no longer a debate, discussion or proper argument – it has become a spat. Stop it

2304:

at every possible opportunity - like a rebellious teenager biting the parental hand that gave it life and existence in the first place.

4825:

Technically, either is correct. However, as someone has noted below, "Monarchy of " is the predominant format for monarchy articles. --

358:

Yes, but out of the two, this one would also contain a massive amount more. Only a small proportion would deal with events since 1931.

204:

brand new WikiProject relating to the Commownealth realms as a whole, to which this BRoy one would be subordinate. Is that feasible? --

5692: 4370: 4153: 2479:

Now, I strongly suggest you all agree (in as few words as possible) to the following amenable compromise, before I call in mediation:

4278:

until after the results of the poll. So please, stop being disruptive, and allow the pages to be moved in line with the others. - --

882: 666: 5067:

I see no evidence of a consensus that "British monarchy" should be moved, except repeated statements by GoodDay that there is one.

3976:, they are included in this move poll, with Canada being specifically in the examples given. THe only possible exception stated was 2928:

There was no discussion here and there should have been. When a batch move is proposed then it is better practice to raise a formal

1075:"...of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms"; a composite of the "British-first" and "Commonwealth-shared" facts. -- 2204:

It's over my friend, we've lost. Frustrating as it is, common usage and international recognition wins out. I know when I'm beat.

1698:

An interesting thought experiment (and I don't know how much he does do that), but it's really not pertinent to the discussion. --

3570: 2103:

Actually, he's got my jist – although he could have put a finer, subtler point on it, he is not entirely wrong on the last part.

246:

she is the British monarch, and Britain is the former colonial power. I oppose any name change or subordination of this project.

1159: 6128: 6096: 2941:

Ah, well, okay. It just didn't seem that moving this article would cause much issue as, fankly, few people actively edit it. --

4089:

Sorry, but no. The emerging consensus is that all the realms should be titled consistently with the possible exception of the

112:, the Commonwealth has had royalty for a tiny fraction of that... But that's just my opposition – I wonder what others think. 4171: 757:

The Royal Family live and work in Britain. So what? Where they live isn't really relevant; they work outside Britain as well.

555:

It's apparent this WikiProject won't be renamed, that's acceptable. Is there a better place we can argue monarchy ownership?

168:

The monarch and Royal Family are (probably because of point 4) predominantly perceived by the general public as being British

5700:

Obviously the discussion would take place at that talk and not here; I feel it's more appropriate and an unbiased location.

3563: 788:

pertinent and valid evidence to support your assertions, I'd be careful in accusing others of promoting an invented POV. --

5930: 5866: 5685: 5377: 5114: 4842: 4366: 4149: 3745: 3436: 3011:. Currently thus, this page is the lone exception. PS- I agree completely about the numerious movements, let's settle it. 2796: 2490:

which the article concentrates (Britain unless stated elsewhere) will be used most often throughout the text, but only as

1728:

It's not really pertinent because your first question is a hypothetical, and your following statement is a supposition. --

3857:

I wouldn't recommend that. Not until there's verification that their format somehow violates a Knowledge (XXG) policy. --

3073:

I understand, I'm just too fatigued to change them all back (thus another movement). PS- There's a discussion concerning

3889:

Alright, tommorow (Friday) I'll revert my changes -- It's best to have the articles as they were before the protesting.

5231: 1374:

No, it shares a monarchy with fifteen other countries; within the UK it's British, within Australia it's Australian. --

6068: 4895: 4472:-- The British case is distinct enough that it ought to be dealt with separately from the other commonwealth realms. 721:

Edward VIII's abdication had to be approved by all Commonwealth realm Parliaments (not just the British Parliament).

3654: 6147: 6132: 6114: 6100: 6080: 6056: 6042: 6027: 5999: 5985: 5971: 5952: 5922: 5902: 5878: 5846: 5826: 5811: 5796: 5781: 5763: 5727: 5712: 5649: 5635: 5619: 5605: 5589: 5567: 5549: 5533: 5519: 5502: 5480: 5465: 5449: 5434: 5418: 5387: 5354: 5326: 5303: 5289: 5267: 5251: 5222: 5187: 5171: 5153: 5138: 5124: 5099: 5076: 5045: 5027: 5005: 4983: 4949: 4923: 4909: 4881: 4863: 4834: 4817: 4796: 4781: 4704: 4670: 4653: 4638: 4618: 4592: 4566: 4544: 4525: 4498: 4481: 4464: 4447: 4427: 4410: 4391: 4374: 4356: 4327: 4313: 4287: 4245: 4227: 4185: 4157: 4119: 4102: 4084: 4069: 4055: 4039: 4010: 4001: 3984: 3958: 3925: 3916: 3893: 3884: 3870: 3861: 3852: 3841: 3830: 3811: 3786: 3765: 3748: 3728: 3703: 3691: 3671: 3640: 3611: 3581: 3538: 3525: 3509: 3492: 3483: 3464: 3455: 3410: 3406:

I'm afraid I still don't understand. In what way did that make the status of the Australian Crown "contentious"? --

3401: 3388: 3379: 3370: 3359: 3339: 3327: 3315: 3295: 3268: 3233: 3220: 3203: 3185: 3151: 3142: 3129: 3107: 3094: 3085: 3064: 3053: 3043: 3033: 3015: 2998: 2966: 2945: 2936: 2923: 2894: 2880: 2862: 2821: 2777: 2755: 2742: 2718: 2701: 2683: 2649: 2622: 2604: 2587: 2575: 2553: 2544: 2527: 2511: 2464: 2428: 2371: 2317: 2308: 2262: 2236: 2218: 2208: 2199: 2189: 2159: 2142: 2124: 2115: 2098: 2089: 2077: 2065: 2031: 2024: 1994: 1984: 1970: 1942: 1933: 1924: 1897: 1850: 1816: 1779: 1754: 1732: 1715: 1702: 1692: 1647: 1569: 1496: 1435: 1378: 1325: 1272: 1262: 1218: 1201: 1192: 1166: 1149: 1124: 1097: 1079: 1068: 1007: 998: 985: 975: 962: 931: 918: 909: 892: 855: 842: 811: 802: 792: 747: 737: 725: 716: 694: 677: 640: 616: 603: 581: 572: 559: 546: 534: 498: 437: 379: 362: 313: 304: 259: 250: 208: 198: 181: 144: 134: 124: 102: 38: 5990:

So many choices still looks a bit overwhelming. But, hey, we can't get anywhere unless we try. Let's go for it. --

5129:

Given that several people expressed a desire for an exception for the UK, I don't see how that makes a consensus.

4932:

for all the articles? PS- I still got that guizing feeling in my gezzard, their gonna be an hassle when we 'move'

4266:(De-indent) I'm not where G2B gets the idea the 3 articles were exempt from the poll. the First line in the poll: 4093:. Just because things are not going as you would like is not a reason to splinter a perfectly reasonable poll. -- 2916: 2017: 1090: 3260:

could be argued to be slightly more accurate since the monarchy covers the UK, not just the three countries of

2912: 2788: 1561:

of the other Commonwealth realms, it would still be dwarfed by the amount of time the monarchy acts in the UK.

162:

The Canadian government, and, indeed, the Queen herself, acknowledge the existence of a Canadian Royal Family

3848:

Guess that's a 'yes' (concerning the non-British pages) - I'll start reversing the pages tommorow (Friday).

3121: 1846:

royals are predominantly associated with the UK" point; i.e. you're still fighting a non-existent battle. --

4974:

There's no way I would support such a move. What's the point? Simply a desire for uniformity at all costs?

2049:

willing to give. Everyone, please cease and desist – perhaps concentrate on editing – bring articles up to

6105:

Not sure what you're gettin at. What do you mean by the Commonwealth realms are not equal or consistent?--

5834: 5493:. Naively, I didn't think anybody would mind. But now (thanks to my stupidity), things have fallen apart. 2908: 914:

It's relevant, but not disputed. So, allow me to rephrase myself: why bring up a non-existent argument? --

5393: 4035:

the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Tuvalu.

3147:

Agreed; as long as it's about establishing a common title form and then moving what articles to where. --

848: 6076: 5981: 5918: 5822: 5792: 5772:

applied? Consistency was, after all, the initial point of this exercise, and I think it remains such. --

5759: 5529: 5476: 5445: 5414: 5338: 5322: 5235: 5218: 5149: 5134: 5072: 4979: 4768:

X"? Obviously, there's some kerfuffle about adjectives, so why not retain the possessive with an "of"?--

4666: 4583:

format. However, have we let this discussion go on long enough? I don't know - I'm just wondering. ----

4562: 4494: 4477: 4241: 4098: 4065: 3117: 2367:

monarchy is merely limited to the UK, you will, indeed, be attempting to diminish the British monarchy.

2012: 1162:. I'm not a fan of making deals like this, but it maybe what's needed to break this continous 'logjam'. 636: 3588: 1893:

No it is the British monarchy, other countries have since its inception taken it up. But is British.--

4028: 3973: 3909: 3548: 2676: 2615: 2560: 1117: 1113: 905:

relevant to the issue at hand. Please don't just reply "No it's not!". Try and justify your opinion.

6124: 6092: 6052: 5995: 5967: 5842: 5807: 5777: 5708: 5631: 5601: 5545: 5515: 5461: 5430: 5350: 5299: 5247: 5183: 5023: 4891: 4830: 4792: 4649: 4588: 4423: 4352: 4309: 4115: 4080: 4051: 4024: 3969: 3912:

where you individually asked for input, and nobody objected. No reason to move those back again. --

3905: 3173: 2873: 2813: 2769: 2748: 2690: 2668: 2520: 156:

The person who is monarch of the United Kingdom is also, separately, monarch of 15 other countries.

5372: 5109: 4899: 4400: 4175: 3948: 3515: 3308: 6143: 6110: 6064: 6023: 3113: 5689:

all be titled in a consistent format, which may or may not result in the moving of this article.

2643:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Biography/Royalty#Template:Infobox Monarch issues, new template

760:

The Royal Family are British. So what? They're also defined as subjects of the Canadian monarch.

4236:

except for the British for which a separate discussion is needed. I count it at 5-2 so far. --

888:

Nobody's disputed their primary involvement with the UK. Why keep bringing this argument up? --

6038: 5948: 5938: 5898: 5874: 5723: 5645: 5615: 5585: 5563: 5498: 5382: 5285: 5263: 5167: 5119: 5095: 5041: 5001: 4945: 4919: 4904: 4877: 4700: 4634: 4614: 4540: 4521: 4405: 4387: 4323: 4223: 4180: 4020: 3965: 3953: 3901: 3520: 2869: 2672: 2664: 2646: 600: 4810: 4440: 3994: 3502: 3288: 3256:

page is somewhat different because there is no contention as to its status. Having said that

3213: 2597: 2568: 2537: 2504: 2229: 2152: 2108: 2058: 2050: 117: 6138:

Commonwealth. The whole monarchy in the Commonwealth realms thing is really overdone here.--

6072: 5977: 5976:

I tweaked it...I think it's much better to offer as many options as possible to start with.

5914: 5818: 5788: 5755: 5525: 5472: 5441: 5410: 5368: 5318: 5310: 5273: 5214: 5202: 5145: 5130: 5068: 4975: 4933: 4857: 4775: 4662: 4661:

requires five days which will have elapsed after 20:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC) (approx :-))

4626: 4576: 4558: 4490: 4473: 4460: 4343: 4283: 4237: 4207: 4094: 4061: 4007: 3977: 3823: 3668: 3578: 3480: 3398: 3376: 3356: 3324: 3265: 3226: 3192: 3104: 2933: 2859: 2368: 2305: 1813: 1751: 1712: 1689: 1566: 1432: 1322: 1259: 1189: 1094: 959: 906: 879: 713: 632: 569: 531: 434: 359: 301: 247: 2661:

Monarchy in Canada, Monarchy in Australia, Monarchy in Jamaica and Monarchy in New Zealand

1258:

assume that our readers are ignorant of the facts - this is, after all, an encyclopaedia.

5364: 5334: 5239: 4658: 3135: 3100: 2929: 194:

etc, or is the possibility of 16 related WikiProjects conflicting each other, too great?

763:

The common usage is "British Royal Family." So what? Common usage is not always correct.

6120: 6088: 6048: 5991: 5963: 5838: 5803: 5773: 5704: 5627: 5597: 5541: 5511: 5457: 5426: 5346: 5295: 5243: 5179: 5019: 4826: 4788: 4645: 4584: 4419: 4348: 4305: 4304:

be in one form or another; hence, there's nothing to move the pages in line with. ----

4111: 4076: 4047: 3913: 3881: 3858: 3838: 3700: 3645:

In addition to the arguments above it is simply not a used term. There are a miserable

3608: 3535: 3452: 3407: 3385: 3367: 3336: 3230: 3182: 3148: 3126: 3091: 3061: 3040: 2942: 2920: 2877: 2584: 2425: 2314: 2259: 2215: 2196: 2186: 2121: 2095: 2074: 2028: 1981: 1930: 1847: 1776: 1729: 1699: 1644: 1493: 1375: 1269: 1198: 1121: 1076: 1004: 982: 915: 889: 808: 789: 734: 543: 495: 310: 256: 205: 178: 131: 6087:

realms themselves are not equal or consistent, so why do the articles have to be? --

5440:

lack of such a consensus, things stay how they are until a consensus can be achieved.

6139: 6106: 6019: 4813: 4443: 3997: 3980:, and I'm for moving it to Monarchy in the United Kingdom]] also, for consistency. - 3505: 3291: 3261: 3216: 2600: 2571: 2540: 2507: 2232: 2155: 2111: 2094:

Really, do grow up, and desist with your manipulation of other people's arguments. --

2061: 186:

Would it be alright with this WikiProject, if 15 sister-WikiProjects were created? -

120: 6034: 5944: 5934: 5894: 5870: 5719: 5641: 5611: 5581: 5559: 5494: 5337:

dictates, with all the appropriate notices set in the correct places, including at

5281: 5259: 5163: 5091: 5037: 4997: 4941: 4915: 4873: 4696: 4630: 4610: 4536: 4517: 4383: 4319: 4219: 4036: 3922: 3890: 3867: 3849: 3827: 3762: 3688: 3637: 3461: 3200: 3139: 3103:

proposal. I am going out for a few hours and I am happy to raise one on my return.

3082: 3012: 2963: 2904: 2752: 2739: 2715: 2698: 2680: 2205: 2139: 1939: 1921: 1215: 1163: 1146: 1065: 995: 972: 928: 852: 839: 722: 691: 674: 663: 613: 578: 556: 376: 195: 99: 3595:

that refers to the "Canadian monarchy." There's also Dr. Michael Jackson's book, "

1929:

Depends on what country the monarch/royal family member is acting on behalf of. --

3782:. Don't know about a prohibition of adjective forms in the naming conventions. - 1116:

of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms." The dab at the head of

255:

Then the amount overlap alone shows the limited scope of this project's title. --

5554:

So is it a consensus or not (concerning all Commonwealth monarchies) to move to

4851: 4769: 4456: 4279: 3981: 3808: 3783: 3744:

Isn't there a wikipedia policy against naming articles with the adjective form?

3725: 3577:

from the others collectively; that does not require a separate series of polls.

3489: 3312: 3050: 3030: 2995: 2891: 2619: 2550: 2524: 2461: 2086: 2000: 1991: 1967: 1894: 799: 744: 568:

I don't mind where, as long as we don't have to do it on three different pages!

141: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3600: 2592:

Acceptable indeed – but remember the watchword. Appropriate. Huzzah! Solution!

608:

I don't think we're debating the WikiProject's Name anymore. It's remaining at

3697: 3592: 2020: 1104:

Noone has proposed the other realms be mentioned in every instance; could you

873:. This is not surprising, I think, for people who live in countries where the 3795:, the prohibition is against using adjective alone as titles. Example given: 5626:

It appears not; the last poll was too confused. I suggest we start again. --

5258:

I was just going to say, Tharky will never accept it. But he beat me to it.

3596: 3439:. Please state which of the following two styles you prefer for the titles. 2958:(it's a gradual process). Therefore, this page should be changed (again) to 838:

I've considered taking this dispute to an MoS page - Problem is, which one?

5962:

The poll isn't open yet; I shouldn't have placed it there. My apologies. --

5456:

Can you tell me what lies between "all the same" and "not all the same"? --

165:

The monarch and Royal Family have a longer connection to the United Kingdom

4996:, any resistance would cause havoc & headaches (and who needs that?). 2618:, the common usage and reflecting the historical and current situation. -- 5343:

Knowledge (XXG):Naming conventions (government departments and ministers)

4807: 4437: 4060:

A decision was made but they are now wrapped up in this broader poll. --

3991: 3499: 3285: 3210: 2594: 2565: 2534: 2501: 2226: 2149: 2105: 2055: 2007: 2004: 1206:

Agreed, now if the royal opened a supermarket in Australia, we would use

981:

either the Queen's or her family's primary association is with the UK. --

114: 5610:

I thought it was settled, as far as the non-UK realms were concerned.

4886:

It should also noted that other Monarchy pages on wikipedia go by the

3099:

I agree with BillCJ - the set of articles need proper discussion by a

5909:

I think that the overseas realms should have their title in the form

4194:

general opinons have emerged from this Poll 1)have 'all' articles as

4031:(as those articles are still under dispute). PS- we've yet to create 5691:

If you have an opinion on this matter, please see the discussion at

5363:

as this is the standard for other monarchy pages and then set up a

5242:

dictates. Nothing is rendered invalid because of faulty process. --

5162:

say so at the 'Poll' above? It would make it easier to keep count.

3384:

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "contentious status." --

2129:

I think I understand. Increasingly, more editors prefer not to add

242:

why those 15 other realms have the Queen as their head of state is

5750:

All at "Monarchy in X", except the UK, which stays at "X Monarchy"

5747:

All at "Monarchy of X", except the UK, which stays at "X Monarchy"

4575:

So, we could say we have a consensus to make all pages, including

2583:

then your proposal seems more than adequate to me, DBD. Cheers. --

772:

The only assertion you make that aren't a case of "So what?" are:

577:

Agreed, we'll keep it here, since I can't think of another place.

4274:(Emphasis added.) You did not express any problems with the word 3604: 967:

Nobodies ever argued that the monarchy was viewd mostly as being

654:

concerning these disputes (see above). Who's monarchy is it, the

4747:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

3081:, it sorta ties in here concerning Commonwealth realm equality. 1812:

relevant, and you should try and engage with it on those terms.

1214:

compromise to mold, I just felt we needed a base to begin with.

1197:

As that is British-specific, no, that would not be necessary. --

712:

of those countries who have experienced this are now republics.

5014:" is, as pointed out, the established precedent, not "Monarchy 4928:

Are we getting close to closing this discussion & adopting

3049:

doesn't that "benign consensus" then prevent your moves now? -

1912:

For non-Commonwealth realm related articles, we should go with

1317:

Well, forgive me for stating the bleeding obvious, but Britain

25: 5596:

GoodDay, please don't move anything until this is settled. --

4300:

articles be in one form or another. It seems they are not to

3696:

Here's a pretty official reference to the Jamaican monarchy:

2868:

Actually, we were kind of in the process of moving them all:

2523:

and similar articles. If yes, then I agree. If no, I don't.--

4687::::::::The consensus here is very clear on the matter - The 3172:

The collection of articles concerning the monarchies of the

1036:

Commonwealth realm related articles. Here's my idea - 1)For

5718:

Agreed fully; off I go to 'Commonwealth realm monarchies'.

5345:. Further, what counts as a consensus if not a majority? -- 4709: 4399:

All articles should have the same format for consistency --

3989:

No, you're not – that particular move has not been agreed.

5574:

Canadian, Australian, Belizan & New Zealand monarchies

3476:(e.g. Monarchy in Canada, Monarchy in the United Kingdom) 3355:

being moved but it is does have different considerations.

1210:. The compromise can be tweaked for such incidences. It's 1032:

Given it alot of thought. I feel we need a compromise for

542:

Indeed, but that doesn't prove how nothing has changed. --

5885:::::::OK we'll haggle here: All those articles should be 4170:

i favour the latter for all realms that inclues having a

2494:, and never to the exclusion of all others in the article 173:

To ignore any of the above is what sheds light on a bias.

2138:-. If not we might be bordering on 'tentative editing'. 1684:

he? Why does he only choose to attempt to influence the

5234:. There is no need for any discussion to take place at 4805:

of the monarchy, which only one can legitimately claim

4435:

because, like it or no, that one case *is* exceptional

371:. The core of these disputes is quite apparent aswell- 5359:

I suggest that all realms exluding the UK be moved to

4872:

the Commonwealth realm monarchies (including the UK).

4162:

It would just be silly to have some articles with the

300:

putative projects that will be very short on content.

5684:

It has been proposed that the articles pertaining to

5409:

So, no, majority is not the same thing as consensus.

4988:

The consensus reached, is quite clear on the matter.

3799:

would be prohibited (it's allowed as a DABpage), but

3191:

Yep they should be "ish/ian/etc. monarchy" just like

2811:. Please read and continue the discussion below. — 733:

long as said country remains a Commonwealth realm. --

4753:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

4232:

No, what is emerging is that all articles should be

2840:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

2147:

That sounds like the most practicable solution, sir

5540:

Oh, well then, yes. I'd have to agree with that. --

5082:The poll above shows a 'current' consensus to move 4801:Why not? Because the possessive might imply (sole) 3138:, even though the article have already been moved. 1492:

Whenever "it" acts regarding Australian affairs. --

94:

I wander if this WikiProject should be renamed to -

5933:, that's where this discussion's being continued. 5294:I know. I'm thinking about contacting an admin. -- 4625:Ya get the feeling, there's gonna be a rumpous at 2791:. It deals with deciding on the title format for 2706:G2bambino and I, have moved a few more pages from 177:royalty" is accurate, but just seems too wordy. -- 5485:Days ago, I started changing these pages over to 153:What does make sense is acknowledging the facts: 5580:(tried to fix mistakes on in/of, but couldn't). 5238:, this vote was opened and conducted exactly as 3607:. In all, I get over 1,000 hits for the term. -- 2834:The following discussion is an archived debate. 2659:Updating changes here -I've done the following: 2258:I do hope, though, that we can clear this up. -- 1635:country, not automatically as monarch of the UK. 1158:compromise is turned down, we may have to go to 18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject British Royalty 3793:Knowledge (XXG):Naming conventions (adjectives) 3283:is the correct demonym for the UK, not just GB 3134:If it'll satisfy everyone, let's bring this to 2487: 1145:thing, we already know there's sixteen realms. 367:I honestly can't see a problem with creating a 3866:Awaiting 'verification' then, if there's any. 3603:calls it the "Canadian monarchy," as does the 2985:Uh, the main problem here is that this is the 2950:A few more related pages have been moved from 2805:(e.g. Canadian monarchy, British monarchy) or 2499:Please say we can agree, or compromise, here? 4489:-- It is always called the British Monarchy. 3559:. Interestingly a Gsearch gives 758 hits for 2783:Title format of Commonwealth realm monarchies 954:is primarily British means that the monarchy 8: 4210:and 3) Have each article decide for itself, 3225:So you support that all articles, including 3079:Knowledge (XXG): WikiProject British Royalty 1003:I know. It completely baffles me as well. -- 3687:Ouch, it don't look good for my proposals. 3448:(e.g. Canadian monarchy, British monarchy) 3090:Why even think about changing them back? -- 2637:Infobox discussion for monarchs and royalty 108:Well, more than a thousand years' worth is 5158:Could the 'two' of you (JK & Tharky), 4914:Great point Barry, you've hit a home run. 4787:That would be equally acceptable to me. -- 3514:Support for all commonwealth monarchies -- 130:family only British is quite incorrect. -- 5686:the monarchies of the Commonwealth realms 4268:First, to decide on the title format for 3632:By the way, what's the main objection to 3431:First, to decide on the title format for 2787:The following discussion was copied from 1920:would raise questions at those articles. 4715: 4712: 3229:, should be titled as "Monarchy in "? -- 3060:I take it, then, your answer is "no." -- 1431:And how often is it "within" Australia? 5104:I agree all of them should be moved to 5392:Allow me to quote wikipedia policy at 4166:title and others with the Monarchy in 3818:So the pages have to be moved back to 2932:proposal so an overview can be taken. 2214:because nobody actually debated us. -- 494:And since then things have changed. -- 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3597:The Canadian Monarchy in Saskatchewan 3437:monarchies of the Commonwealth realms 3395:1975 Australian constitutional crisis 2797:monarchies of the Commonwealth realms 1056:, 3)For Australian related artirlces 7: 3195:, as the Commonwealth realms are of 754:That is indeed a case of "So what"? 3724:Support, except British monarchy.-- 2734:. -Note- There's yet to be created 2563:, where the situation is explained 1938:Agreed, country being represented. 5693:Talk:Commonwealth realm monarchies 5090:; at least that's what I thought. 4868:Again though, we're talking about 2655:Changes to some Commonwealt realms 1048:, 2)For Canadian related articles 1028:The Commonwealth realms Compromise 24: 5889:, so as to avoid the friction at 3497:Support, except British monarchy 1040:related articles we use the line 96:WikiProject: Commonwealth Royalty 5640:Agreed, let's start over again. 5371:page and ask for input there. -- 4553:We have a consensus, above, for 4015:I've moved back all the page to 950:The fact that what the monarchy 29: 5941:) 00:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC) 5232:Knowledge (XXG):Requested moves 3837:No, that means the opposite. -- 3553:Lieutenant Governor of Manitoba 3530:Comment - well, they're either 2747:There's current on exception - 645: 4994:Monarchy in the United Kingdom 4938:Monarchy in the United Kingdom 4693:Monarchy in the United Kingdom 4172:Monarchy in the United Kingdom 3591:." Then there's Her Majesty's 3258:Monarchy in the United Kingdom 1775:Yes, but it's not relevant. -- 650:As pointed out above, we've a 192:WikiProject Australian Royalty 1: 6148:05:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC) 6133:04:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC) 6115:04:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC) 6101:01:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC) 6081:20:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC) 6057:17:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC) 6043:17:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC) 6028:12:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC) 6000:04:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC) 5986:01:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC) 5972:00:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC) 5953:00:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC) 5931:Commonwealth realm monarchies 5923:00:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC) 5903:00:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC) 5879:21:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 5867:Commonwealth realm monarchies 5847:00:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC) 5827:23:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 5812:22:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 5797:22:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 5782:21:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 5764:21:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 5728:21:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 5713:21:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 5650:20:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 5636:20:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 5620:20:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 5606:20:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 5590:20:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 5568:20:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 5550:17:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 5534:16:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 5520:16:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 5503:16:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 5481:16:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 5466:16:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 5450:15:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 5435:15:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 5419:03:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 5388:03:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 5355:01:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 5327:00:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 5304:00:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 5290:00:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 5268:23:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC) 5252:00:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 5223:23:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC) 5188:23:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC) 5172:20:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC) 5154:19:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC) 5139:19:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC) 5125:18:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC) 5100:18:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC) 5077:18:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC) 5046:18:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC) 5028:18:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC) 5006:17:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC) 4984:17:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC) 4950:16:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC) 4924:19:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC) 4910:19:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC) 4882:16:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC) 4864:19:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC) 4843:List of Co-Princes of Andorra 4835:20:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC) 4818:14:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC) 4797:13:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC) 4782:08:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC) 4705:17:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC) 4671:23:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC) 4654:21:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC) 4639:21:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC) 4619:21:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC) 4593:21:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC) 4567:21:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC) 4545:20:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC) 4526:20:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC) 4499:23:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC) 4482:21:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC) 4465:20:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC) 4448:19:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC) 4428:19:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC) 4411:19:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC) 4392:19:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC) 4375:18:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC) 4357:18:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC) 4328:18:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC) 4314:18:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC) 4288:18:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC) 4246:18:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC) 4228:18:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC) 4186:18:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC) 4158:16:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC) 4120:18:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC) 4103:18:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC) 4085:17:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC) 4070:17:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC) 4056:16:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC) 4040:15:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC) 4011:01:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC) 4002:01:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC) 3985:01:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC) 3959:00:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC) 3926:23:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC) 3917:23:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC) 3894:23:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC) 3885:22:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC) 3871:22:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC) 3862:21:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC) 3853:21:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC) 3842:21:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC) 3831:19:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC) 3812:19:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC) 3787:19:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC) 3766:19:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC) 3761:Which is the abjective form? 3749:19:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC) 3729:20:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC) 3704:03:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC) 3692:20:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC) 3672:20:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC) 3641:20:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC) 3612:21:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC) 3605:Canadian Royal Heritage Trust 3582:18:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC) 3539:15:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC) 3526:00:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC) 3510:12:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC) 3493:01:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC) 3484:01:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC) 3465:20:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC) 3456:01:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC) 3411:02:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC) 3402:02:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC) 3389:01:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC) 3380:01:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC) 3371:01:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC) 3360:01:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC) 3351:- I have no problem with the 3340:01:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC) 3328:01:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC) 3316:00:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC) 3296:12:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC) 3269:00:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC) 3234:00:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC) 3221:00:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC) 3204:20:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC) 3186:20:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC) 3152:20:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC) 3143:20:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC) 3130:20:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC) 3108:19:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC) 3095:19:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC) 3086:19:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC) 3065:20:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC) 3054:20:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC) 3044:19:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC) 3034:19:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC) 3016:19:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC) 3007:pages have now been moved to 2999:18:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC) 2967:18:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC) 2946:18:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 2937:18:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 2924:18:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 2895:18:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 2881:18:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 2863:17:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 2822:00:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC) 2778:00:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC) 2756:19:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC) 2743:18:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC) 2719:18:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC) 2702:19:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC) 2120:Sorry, I don't understand. -- 641:17:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC) 5276:article? I'm in no mood for 4723: 4720: 4601:Yep, IMHO it's a consensus - 4557:- the position is clear. -- 3307:- Concur with TerriersFans. 2903:As for previous discussion, 2684:21:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC) 2650:22:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC) 2623:19:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 2605:22:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 2588:20:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 2576:19:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 2554:19:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 2545:12:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 2528:12:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 2512:09:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 2465:08:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 2429:20:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 2372:23:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC) 2318:23:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC) 2309:23:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC) 2263:21:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC) 2237:21:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC) 2219:20:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC) 2209:20:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC) 2200:20:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC) 2190:20:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC) 2160:20:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC) 2143:20:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC) 2125:19:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC) 2116:19:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC) 2099:17:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC) 2090:17:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC) 2078:19:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC) 2066:16:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC) 2032:17:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC) 1995:17:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC) 1985:15:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC) 1971:08:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC) 1943:20:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC) 1934:20:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC) 1925:19:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC) 1898:08:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC) 1851:20:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC) 1817:19:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC) 1780:19:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC) 1755:19:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC) 1733:19:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC) 1716:19:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC) 1703:19:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC) 1693:18:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC) 1648:18:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC) 1570:18:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC) 1497:15:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC) 1436:08:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC) 1379:00:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC) 1326:00:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC) 1273:00:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC) 1263:00:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC) 1219:19:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC) 1202:19:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC) 1193:19:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC) 1167:19:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC) 1150:19:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC) 1125:19:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC) 1109:government related offices." 1098:19:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC) 1080:19:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC) 1069:19:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC) 1064:etc. Any other suggestions? 1008:17:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC) 999:17:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC) 986:17:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC) 976:17:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC) 963:17:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC) 932:17:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC) 919:17:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC) 910:17:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC) 893:17:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC) 883:16:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC) 856:15:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC) 843:17:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC) 812:15:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC) 803:08:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC) 793:16:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC) 748:08:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC) 738:19:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC) 726:19:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC) 717:19:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC) 695:18:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC) 678:18:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC) 667:17:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC) 617:22:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC) 604:21:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC) 582:17:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC) 573:17:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC) 560:17:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC) 547:19:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC) 535:17:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC) 499:17:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC) 438:17:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC) 380:17:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC) 369:WikiProject Canadian Royalty 363:16:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC) 314:16:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC) 305:16:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC) 260:16:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC) 251:16:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC) 209:16:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC) 199:15:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC) 182:15:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC) 145:08:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC) 135:19:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC) 125:19:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC) 103:16:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC) 6069:Monarchy of the Netherlands 5558:? Make up ya minds people. 5333:This was set up exactly as 5272:Err, who wants to move the 4896:Monarchy of the Netherlands 3947:title for all countries. -- 3601:Monarchist League of Canada 2010:, best known for his novel 188:WikProject Canadian Royalty 6163: 4504:We've got a consensus for 2730:pages, have been moved to 2689:Ran into a slight bump at 2679:. It's a gradual process. 2025:Governor General of Canada 682:I must also admit though, 5394:Knowledge (XXG):Consensus 4992:will have to be moved to 4691:will have to be moved to 3636:? I'm not clear on this. 3551:, for example, where the 3435:articles relating to the 2917:Talk:New Zealand monarchy 2795:articles relating to the 2641:Please have a look here: 1808:feel that my argument is 1046:other Commonwealth realms 927:. Nobodies arguing that. 847:Perhaps taking this to a 5833:I've started this up at 4750:Please do not modify it. 4367:Biofoundationsoflanguage 4150:Biofoundationsoflanguage 3746:Biofoundationsoflanguage 3599:." Less officially, the 2913:Talk:Australian monarchy 2837:Please do not modify it. 2789:Talk:Monarchy in Jamaica 2085:and anti-common usage.-- 5738:All at "Monarchy of X"; 4605:articles be changed to 4508:, now what do we want? 4218:. That about right? -- 3964:No problem, Vigeur. On 3900:Well, fine, except for 3122:Monarchy in New Zealand 3003:All the other existing 2992:stick with it this time 1321:have its own monarchy. 5929:::Give your opinon at 5835:User:G2bambino/sandbox 5741:All at "Monarchy in X" 2909:Talk:Canadian monarchy 2496: 5339:Talk:British monarchy 5236:Talk:British monarchy 5213:talk page, not here. 5209:achieve consensus on 4764:What about "Monarchy 4338:Same or not the same? 3589:the Canadian Monarchy 3118:Monarchy in Australia 2697:these last few days. 2013:The Thirty-Nine Steps 646:Who's monarchy is it? 42:of past discussions. 4029:New Zealand monarchy 3974:New Zealand monarchy 3910:New Zealand monarchy 3653:, mostly from wikis 2677:New Zealand monarchy 2616:British Royal Family 2561:British Royal Family 2241:Then I am certainly 2053:, etc. What say we? 1118:British Royal Family 5865:Let's take this to 5744:All at "X Monarchy" 4892:Monarchy of Belgium 4850:a certain colony.-- 4025:Australian monarchy 3970:Australian monarchy 3906:Australian monarchy 3826:article? That too? 3249:Monarchy in Jamaica 3174:Commonwealth realms 3075:Commonwealth realms 2907:opened one each at 2874:Australian monarchy 2827:Previous discussion 2767:Continued below. — 2749:Monarchy in Jamaica 2726:: All the existing 2691:Monarchy in Jamaica 2669:Australian monarchy 2521:Royal Burial Ground 2131:Commonwealth realms 1042:United Kingdom and 849:Mediation Committee 90:Name of WikiProject 6065:Norwegian monarchy 5278:page movement wars 4760:Further discussion 3568:Monarchy in Canada 3545:Monarchy in Canada 3114:Monarchy in Canada 2492:primus inter pares 851:is the next step? 5578:Monarchy in/of xx 5489:, so as to match 5361:Monarchy of realm 4728: 4727: 4506:all/no exceptions 4021:Canadian monarchy 3966:Canadian monarchy 3902:Canadian monarchy 3822:? What about the 3805:Organic chemistry 3651:Jamaican monarchy 3634:Jamaican monarchy 3561:Canadian Monarchy 3557:Canadian monarchy 3547:can be sourced. 2960:Jamaican monarchy 2870:Canadian monarchy 2799:with a choice of 2673:Jamaican monarchy 2665:Canadian monarchy 1141:I've removed the 375:of the monarchy. 244:precisely because 87: 86: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 6154: 5891:British monarchy 5491:British monarchy 5385: 5380: 5375: 5369:British monarchy 5311:British monarchy 5274:British monarchy 5203:British monarchy 5122: 5117: 5112: 4990:British monarchy 4934:British monarchy 4907: 4906:Vigeur de dessus 4902: 4860: 4854: 4778: 4772: 4752: 4710: 4689:British monarchy 4627:British monarchy 4577:British monarchy 4408: 4407:Vigeur de dessus 4403: 4344:British monarchy 4208:British monarchy 4183: 4182:Vigeur de dessus 4178: 4091:British Monarchy 3978:British monarchy 3956: 3955:Vigeur de dessus 3951: 3824:British monarchy 3575:British monarchy 3523: 3522:Vigeur de dessus 3518: 3353:British monarchy 3254:British monarchy 3227:British monarchy 3193:British monarchy 2839: 2820: 2818: 2776: 2774: 2003:being called "a 68: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 6162: 6161: 6157: 6156: 6155: 6153: 6152: 6151: 6016: 5698: 5697: 5676: 5572:PS- I've moved 5383: 5378: 5373: 5120: 5115: 5110: 4905: 4900: 4858: 4852: 4776: 4770: 4762: 4757: 4748: 4733: 4607:Monarchy in xxx 4555:Monarchy in xxx 4535:acceptable. -- 4510:Monarchy in xxx 4418:As above. ---- 4406: 4401: 4340: 4234:Monarchy in xxx 4212:Monarchy in xxx 4204:Monarchy in xxx 4196:Monarchy in xxx 4181: 4176: 4019:except for the 4017:Monarchy in xxx 3954: 3949: 3820:Monarchy in xxx 3807:are allowed. - 3566:but 10,400 for 3521: 3516: 3429: 3170: 3005:Monarchy in xxx 2952:Monarchy in xxx 2856: 2848: 2835: 2829: 2814: 2812: 2785: 2770: 2768: 2728:Monarchy in xxx 2708:Monarchy in xxx 2657: 2639: 2046: 1091:WP:Undue Weight 1030: 648: 92: 64: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 6160: 6158: 6084: 6083: 6061: 6060: 6059: 6015: 6012: 6011: 6010: 6009: 6008: 6007: 6006: 6005: 6004: 6003: 6002: 5926: 5925: 5882: 5881: 5862: 5861: 5860: 5859: 5858: 5857: 5856: 5855: 5854: 5853: 5852: 5851: 5850: 5849: 5752: 5751: 5748: 5745: 5742: 5739: 5731: 5730: 5690: 5688: 5682: 5681: 5675: 5672: 5671: 5670: 5669: 5668: 5667: 5666: 5665: 5664: 5663: 5662: 5661: 5660: 5659: 5658: 5657: 5656: 5655: 5654: 5653: 5652: 5624: 5623: 5622: 5594: 5593: 5592: 5538: 5537: 5536: 5507: 5506: 5505: 5454: 5453: 5452: 5423: 5422: 5421: 5407: 5406: 5405: 5401: 5331: 5330: 5329: 5256: 5255: 5254: 5193: 5192: 5191: 5190: 5176: 5175: 5174: 5141: 5127: 5065: 5064: 5063: 5062: 5061: 5060: 5059: 5058: 5057: 5056: 5055: 5054: 5053: 5052: 5051: 5050: 5049: 5048: 4961: 4960: 4959: 4958: 4957: 4956: 4955: 4954: 4953: 4952: 4866: 4839: 4838: 4837: 4799: 4761: 4758: 4756: 4755: 4735: 4731: 4726: 4725: 4722: 4718: 4717: 4714: 4684: 4683: 4682: 4681: 4680: 4679: 4678: 4677: 4676: 4675: 4674: 4673: 4622: 4621: 4596: 4595: 4570: 4569: 4548: 4547: 4502: 4501: 4484: 4467: 4450: 4430: 4413: 4394: 4377: 4339: 4336: 4335: 4334: 4333: 4332: 4331: 4330: 4291: 4290: 4263: 4262: 4261: 4260: 4259: 4258: 4257: 4256: 4255: 4254: 4253: 4252: 4251: 4250: 4249: 4248: 4164:realm monarchy 4137: 4136: 4135: 4134: 4133: 4132: 4131: 4130: 4129: 4128: 4127: 4126: 4125: 4124: 4123: 4122: 4107: 4106: 4105: 3941: 3940: 3939: 3938: 3937: 3936: 3935: 3934: 3933: 3932: 3931: 3930: 3929: 3928: 3898: 3897: 3896: 3878: 3875: 3874: 3873: 3846: 3845: 3844: 3815: 3814: 3791:Found it! Per 3780:X-ian Monarchy 3778:form would be 3756: 3755: 3754: 3753: 3752: 3751: 3734: 3733: 3732: 3731: 3719: 3718: 3717: 3716: 3715: 3714: 3713: 3712: 3711: 3710: 3709: 3708: 3707: 3706: 3666: 3665: 3664: 3663: 3662: 3661: 3660: 3659: 3658: 3657: 3623: 3622: 3621: 3620: 3619: 3618: 3617: 3616: 3615: 3614: 3512: 3495: 3486: 3469: 3468: 3467: 3458: 3428: 3425: 3424: 3423: 3422: 3421: 3420: 3419: 3418: 3417: 3416: 3415: 3414: 3413: 3363: 3362: 3343: 3342: 3330: 3318: 3301: 3300: 3299: 3298: 3272: 3271: 3241: 3240: 3239: 3238: 3237: 3236: 3169: 3168:Requested move 3166: 3165: 3164: 3163: 3162: 3161: 3160: 3159: 3158: 3157: 3156: 3155: 3154: 3097: 3071: 3070: 3069: 3068: 3067: 3057: 3056: 3023: 3022: 3021: 3020: 3019: 3018: 2980: 2979: 2978: 2977: 2976: 2975: 2974: 2973: 2972: 2971: 2970: 2969: 2901: 2884: 2883: 2855: 2852: 2850: 2846: 2843: 2842: 2830: 2828: 2825: 2784: 2781: 2765: 2764: 2763: 2762: 2761: 2760: 2759: 2758: 2656: 2653: 2638: 2635: 2634: 2633: 2632: 2631: 2630: 2629: 2628: 2627: 2626: 2625: 2611: 2610: 2609: 2608: 2607: 2515: 2514: 2497: 2485: 2477: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2456: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2448: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2442: 2441: 2440: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2436: 2435: 2434: 2433: 2432: 2431: 2397: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2393: 2392: 2391: 2390: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2386: 2385: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2381: 2380: 2379: 2378: 2377: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2341: 2340: 2339: 2338: 2337: 2336: 2335: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2327: 2326: 2325: 2324: 2323: 2322: 2321: 2320: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2271: 2270: 2269: 2268: 2267: 2266: 2265: 2256: 2247: 2192: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2045: 2042: 2041: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2036: 2035: 2034: 2023:who served as 1974: 1973: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1951: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1856: 1855: 1854: 1853: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1791: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1706: 1705: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1664: 1663: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1640: 1636: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1523: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1397: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1349: 1348: 1347: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1336: 1335: 1334: 1333: 1332: 1331: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1294: 1293: 1292: 1291: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1234: 1233: 1232: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1188:preposterous. 1176: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1110: 1083: 1082: 1058:Australia and 1029: 1026: 1025: 1024: 1023: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1019: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1011: 1010: 992:United Kingdom 941: 940: 939: 938: 937: 936: 935: 934: 901:Because it is 896: 895: 867: 866: 865: 864: 863: 862: 861: 860: 859: 858: 829: 828: 827: 826: 825: 824: 823: 822: 821: 820: 819: 818: 817: 816: 815: 814: 782: 781: 780: 776: 770: 769: 768: 764: 761: 758: 730: 729: 728: 700: 699: 698: 697: 647: 644: 628: 627: 626: 625: 624: 623: 622: 621: 620: 619: 589: 588: 587: 586: 585: 584: 563: 562: 552: 551: 550: 549: 528: 527: 526: 525: 524: 523: 522: 521: 520: 519: 518: 517: 516: 515: 514: 513: 512: 511: 510: 509: 508: 507: 506: 505: 504: 503: 502: 501: 465: 464: 463: 462: 461: 460: 459: 458: 457: 456: 455: 454: 453: 452: 451: 450: 449: 448: 447: 446: 445: 444: 443: 442: 441: 440: 405: 404: 403: 402: 401: 400: 399: 398: 397: 396: 395: 394: 393: 392: 391: 390: 389: 388: 387: 386: 385: 384: 383: 382: 335: 334: 333: 332: 331: 330: 329: 328: 327: 326: 325: 324: 323: 322: 321: 320: 319: 318: 317: 316: 277: 276: 275: 274: 273: 272: 271: 270: 269: 268: 267: 266: 265: 264: 263: 262: 222: 221: 220: 219: 218: 217: 216: 215: 214: 213: 212: 211: 174: 171: 170: 169: 166: 163: 160: 157: 151: 91: 88: 85: 84: 79: 74: 69: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 6159: 6150: 6149: 6145: 6141: 6135: 6134: 6130: 6126: 6122: 6117: 6116: 6112: 6108: 6103: 6102: 6098: 6094: 6090: 6082: 6078: 6074: 6070: 6066: 6062: 6058: 6054: 6050: 6046: 6045: 6044: 6040: 6036: 6032: 6031: 6030: 6029: 6025: 6021: 6013: 6001: 5997: 5993: 5989: 5988: 5987: 5983: 5979: 5975: 5974: 5973: 5969: 5965: 5961: 5960: 5959: 5958: 5957: 5956: 5955: 5954: 5950: 5946: 5942: 5940: 5936: 5932: 5924: 5920: 5916: 5912: 5911:Monarchy in x 5908: 5907: 5906: 5905: 5904: 5900: 5896: 5892: 5888: 5880: 5876: 5872: 5868: 5864: 5863: 5848: 5844: 5840: 5836: 5832: 5831: 5830: 5829: 5828: 5824: 5820: 5815: 5814: 5813: 5809: 5805: 5800: 5799: 5798: 5794: 5790: 5785: 5784: 5783: 5779: 5775: 5770: 5769: 5768: 5767: 5766: 5765: 5761: 5757: 5749: 5746: 5743: 5740: 5737: 5736: 5735: 5729: 5725: 5721: 5717: 5716: 5715: 5714: 5710: 5706: 5701: 5696: 5694: 5687: 5680: 5673: 5651: 5647: 5643: 5639: 5638: 5637: 5633: 5629: 5625: 5621: 5617: 5613: 5609: 5608: 5607: 5603: 5599: 5595: 5591: 5587: 5583: 5579: 5575: 5571: 5570: 5569: 5565: 5561: 5557: 5556:Monarchy of x 5553: 5552: 5551: 5547: 5543: 5539: 5535: 5531: 5527: 5523: 5522: 5521: 5517: 5513: 5508: 5504: 5500: 5496: 5492: 5488: 5484: 5483: 5482: 5478: 5474: 5469: 5468: 5467: 5463: 5459: 5455: 5451: 5447: 5443: 5438: 5437: 5436: 5432: 5428: 5424: 5420: 5416: 5412: 5408: 5402: 5398: 5397: 5395: 5391: 5390: 5389: 5386: 5381: 5376: 5370: 5366: 5362: 5358: 5357: 5356: 5352: 5348: 5344: 5340: 5336: 5332: 5328: 5324: 5320: 5316: 5312: 5307: 5306: 5305: 5301: 5297: 5293: 5292: 5291: 5287: 5283: 5279: 5275: 5271: 5270: 5269: 5265: 5261: 5257: 5253: 5249: 5245: 5241: 5237: 5233: 5228: 5227: 5226: 5225: 5224: 5220: 5216: 5212: 5208: 5204: 5199: 5198: 5197: 5196: 5195: 5194: 5189: 5185: 5181: 5177: 5173: 5169: 5165: 5161: 5157: 5156: 5155: 5151: 5147: 5142: 5140: 5136: 5132: 5128: 5126: 5123: 5118: 5113: 5107: 5106:Monarchy of x 5103: 5102: 5101: 5097: 5093: 5089: 5088:Monarchy of x 5085: 5081: 5080: 5079: 5078: 5074: 5070: 5047: 5043: 5039: 5035: 5031: 5030: 5029: 5025: 5021: 5017: 5013: 5009: 5008: 5007: 5003: 4999: 4995: 4991: 4987: 4986: 4985: 4981: 4977: 4973: 4972: 4971: 4970: 4969: 4968: 4967: 4966: 4965: 4964: 4963: 4962: 4951: 4947: 4943: 4939: 4935: 4931: 4930:Monarchy in x 4927: 4926: 4925: 4921: 4917: 4913: 4912: 4911: 4908: 4903: 4897: 4893: 4889: 4888:monarhcy of x 4885: 4884: 4883: 4879: 4875: 4871: 4867: 4865: 4861: 4855: 4849: 4844: 4841:No more than 4840: 4836: 4832: 4828: 4823: 4822: 4821: 4820: 4819: 4816: 4815: 4812: 4809: 4804: 4800: 4798: 4794: 4790: 4786: 4785: 4784: 4783: 4779: 4773: 4767: 4759: 4754: 4751: 4745: 4744: 4743: 4742:No Consensus 4741: 4738: 4734: 4732:Close of vote 4719: 4711: 4708: 4707: 4706: 4702: 4698: 4694: 4690: 4672: 4668: 4664: 4660: 4657: 4656: 4655: 4651: 4647: 4642: 4641: 4640: 4636: 4632: 4628: 4624: 4623: 4620: 4616: 4612: 4608: 4604: 4600: 4599: 4598: 4597: 4594: 4590: 4586: 4582: 4578: 4574: 4573: 4572: 4571: 4568: 4564: 4560: 4556: 4552: 4551: 4550: 4549: 4546: 4542: 4538: 4534: 4530: 4529: 4528: 4527: 4523: 4519: 4515: 4514:xxx monarchy' 4511: 4507: 4500: 4496: 4492: 4488: 4485: 4483: 4479: 4475: 4471: 4468: 4466: 4462: 4458: 4454: 4451: 4449: 4446: 4445: 4442: 4439: 4434: 4431: 4429: 4425: 4421: 4417: 4414: 4412: 4409: 4404: 4398: 4395: 4393: 4389: 4385: 4381: 4378: 4376: 4372: 4368: 4364: 4361: 4360: 4359: 4358: 4354: 4350: 4345: 4337: 4329: 4325: 4321: 4317: 4316: 4315: 4311: 4307: 4303: 4299: 4295: 4294: 4293: 4292: 4289: 4285: 4281: 4277: 4273: 4271: 4265: 4264: 4247: 4243: 4239: 4235: 4231: 4230: 4229: 4225: 4221: 4217: 4213: 4209: 4205: 4201: 4197: 4193: 4189: 4188: 4187: 4184: 4179: 4173: 4169: 4165: 4161: 4160: 4159: 4155: 4151: 4147: 4146: 4145: 4144: 4143: 4142: 4141: 4140: 4139: 4138: 4121: 4117: 4113: 4108: 4104: 4100: 4096: 4092: 4088: 4087: 4086: 4082: 4078: 4073: 4072: 4071: 4067: 4063: 4059: 4058: 4057: 4053: 4049: 4045: 4044: 4043: 4042: 4041: 4038: 4034: 4030: 4026: 4022: 4018: 4014: 4013: 4012: 4009: 4005: 4004: 4003: 4000: 3999: 3996: 3993: 3988: 3987: 3986: 3983: 3979: 3975: 3971: 3967: 3963: 3962: 3961: 3960: 3957: 3952: 3946: 3927: 3924: 3920: 3919: 3918: 3915: 3911: 3907: 3903: 3899: 3895: 3892: 3888: 3887: 3886: 3883: 3879: 3876: 3872: 3869: 3865: 3864: 3863: 3860: 3856: 3855: 3854: 3851: 3847: 3843: 3840: 3836: 3835: 3834: 3833: 3832: 3829: 3825: 3821: 3817: 3816: 3813: 3810: 3806: 3802: 3798: 3794: 3790: 3789: 3788: 3785: 3781: 3777: 3773: 3769: 3768: 3767: 3764: 3760: 3759: 3758: 3757: 3750: 3747: 3743: 3740: 3739: 3738: 3737: 3736: 3735: 3730: 3727: 3723: 3722: 3721: 3720: 3705: 3702: 3698: 3695: 3694: 3693: 3690: 3686: 3685: 3684: 3683: 3682: 3681: 3680: 3679: 3678: 3677: 3676: 3675: 3674: 3673: 3670: 3656: 3652: 3648: 3644: 3643: 3642: 3639: 3635: 3631: 3630: 3629: 3628: 3627: 3626: 3625: 3624: 3613: 3610: 3606: 3602: 3598: 3594: 3590: 3585: 3584: 3583: 3580: 3576: 3572: 3569: 3565: 3562: 3558: 3554: 3550: 3546: 3542: 3541: 3540: 3537: 3533: 3529: 3528: 3527: 3524: 3519: 3513: 3511: 3508: 3507: 3504: 3501: 3496: 3494: 3491: 3487: 3485: 3482: 3478: 3477: 3475: 3474: 3470: 3466: 3463: 3459: 3457: 3454: 3450: 3449: 3447: 3446: 3442: 3441: 3440: 3438: 3434: 3426: 3412: 3409: 3405: 3404: 3403: 3400: 3396: 3392: 3391: 3390: 3387: 3383: 3382: 3381: 3378: 3374: 3373: 3372: 3369: 3365: 3364: 3361: 3358: 3354: 3350: 3347: 3346: 3345: 3344: 3341: 3338: 3334: 3331: 3329: 3326: 3322: 3319: 3317: 3314: 3310: 3306: 3303: 3302: 3297: 3294: 3293: 3290: 3287: 3282: 3279: 3276: 3275: 3274: 3273: 3270: 3267: 3263: 3262:Great Britain 3259: 3255: 3250: 3246: 3243: 3242: 3235: 3232: 3228: 3224: 3223: 3222: 3219: 3218: 3215: 3212: 3207: 3206: 3205: 3202: 3198: 3194: 3190: 3189: 3188: 3187: 3184: 3178: 3175: 3167: 3153: 3150: 3146: 3145: 3144: 3141: 3137: 3133: 3132: 3131: 3128: 3123: 3119: 3115: 3111: 3110: 3109: 3106: 3102: 3098: 3096: 3093: 3089: 3088: 3087: 3084: 3080: 3076: 3072: 3066: 3063: 3059: 3058: 3055: 3052: 3047: 3046: 3045: 3042: 3037: 3036: 3035: 3032: 3027: 3026: 3025: 3024: 3017: 3014: 3010: 3006: 3002: 3001: 3000: 2997: 2993: 2988: 2984: 2983: 2982: 2981: 2968: 2965: 2961: 2957: 2953: 2949: 2948: 2947: 2944: 2940: 2939: 2938: 2935: 2931: 2927: 2926: 2925: 2922: 2918: 2914: 2910: 2906: 2902: 2898: 2897: 2896: 2893: 2888: 2887: 2886: 2885: 2882: 2879: 2875: 2871: 2867: 2866: 2865: 2864: 2861: 2853: 2851: 2849: 2841: 2838: 2832: 2831: 2826: 2824: 2823: 2819: 2817: 2810: 2809: 2804: 2803: 2798: 2794: 2790: 2782: 2780: 2779: 2775: 2773: 2757: 2754: 2750: 2746: 2745: 2744: 2741: 2737: 2733: 2729: 2725: 2722: 2721: 2720: 2717: 2713: 2709: 2705: 2704: 2703: 2700: 2696: 2692: 2688: 2687: 2686: 2685: 2682: 2678: 2674: 2670: 2666: 2662: 2654: 2652: 2651: 2648: 2644: 2636: 2624: 2621: 2617: 2612: 2606: 2603: 2602: 2599: 2596: 2591: 2590: 2589: 2586: 2581: 2580: 2579: 2578: 2577: 2574: 2573: 2570: 2567: 2562: 2557: 2556: 2555: 2552: 2548: 2547: 2546: 2543: 2542: 2539: 2536: 2531: 2530: 2529: 2526: 2522: 2517: 2516: 2513: 2510: 2509: 2506: 2503: 2498: 2495: 2493: 2486: 2482: 2481: 2480: 2472: 2468: 2467: 2466: 2463: 2458: 2457: 2430: 2427: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2417: 2416: 2415: 2414: 2413: 2412: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2408: 2407: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2403: 2402: 2401: 2400: 2399: 2398: 2373: 2370: 2365: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2356: 2355: 2354: 2353: 2352: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2348: 2347: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2343: 2342: 2319: 2316: 2312: 2311: 2310: 2307: 2302: 2301: 2300: 2299: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2291: 2290: 2289: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2283: 2264: 2261: 2257: 2253: 2248: 2244: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2235: 2234: 2231: 2228: 2222: 2221: 2220: 2217: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2207: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2198: 2193: 2191: 2188: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2161: 2158: 2157: 2154: 2151: 2146: 2145: 2144: 2141: 2137: 2132: 2128: 2127: 2126: 2123: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2114: 2113: 2110: 2107: 2102: 2101: 2100: 2097: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2088: 2083: 2079: 2076: 2072: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2064: 2063: 2060: 2057: 2052: 2043: 2033: 2030: 2026: 2022: 2019: 2015: 2014: 2009: 2006: 2002: 1998: 1997: 1996: 1993: 1988: 1987: 1986: 1983: 1978: 1977: 1976: 1975: 1972: 1969: 1964: 1944: 1941: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1932: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1923: 1919: 1915: 1911: 1899: 1896: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1885: 1884: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1879: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1874: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1852: 1849: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1832: 1831: 1818: 1815: 1811: 1807: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1781: 1778: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1756: 1753: 1748: 1747: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1734: 1731: 1727: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1717: 1714: 1710: 1709: 1708: 1707: 1704: 1701: 1697: 1696: 1695: 1694: 1691: 1687: 1683: 1649: 1646: 1641: 1637: 1634: 1629: 1628: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1571: 1568: 1564: 1560: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1498: 1495: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1437: 1434: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1380: 1377: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1362: 1361: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1327: 1324: 1320: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1274: 1271: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1261: 1257: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1236: 1235: 1220: 1217: 1213: 1209: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1200: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1191: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1168: 1165: 1161: 1157: 1153: 1152: 1151: 1148: 1144: 1140: 1139: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1126: 1123: 1119: 1115: 1111: 1107: 1103: 1102: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1096: 1092: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1081: 1078: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1070: 1067: 1063: 1061: 1055: 1053: 1047: 1045: 1039: 1035: 1027: 1009: 1006: 1002: 1001: 1000: 997: 994:ahead of it. 993: 989: 988: 987: 984: 979: 978: 977: 974: 970: 966: 965: 964: 961: 957: 953: 949: 948: 947: 946: 945: 944: 943: 942: 933: 930: 926: 922: 921: 920: 917: 913: 912: 911: 908: 904: 900: 899: 898: 897: 894: 891: 887: 886: 885: 884: 881: 876: 875:actual person 872: 871:actual person 857: 854: 850: 846: 845: 844: 841: 837: 836: 835: 834: 833: 832: 831: 830: 813: 810: 806: 805: 804: 801: 796: 795: 794: 791: 787: 783: 777: 774: 773: 771: 765: 762: 759: 756: 755: 753: 752: 751: 750: 749: 746: 741: 740: 739: 736: 731: 727: 724: 720: 719: 718: 715: 711: 710:More than 50% 706: 705: 704: 703: 702: 701: 696: 693: 690:be in place. 689: 686:demands that 685: 681: 680: 679: 676: 671: 670: 669: 668: 665: 661: 658:or the whole 657: 653: 652:major problem 643: 642: 638: 634: 618: 615: 611: 607: 606: 605: 602: 597: 596: 595: 594: 593: 592: 591: 590: 583: 580: 576: 575: 574: 571: 567: 566: 565: 564: 561: 558: 554: 553: 548: 545: 541: 540: 539: 538: 537: 536: 533: 500: 497: 493: 492: 491: 490: 489: 488: 487: 486: 485: 484: 483: 482: 481: 480: 479: 478: 477: 476: 475: 474: 473: 472: 471: 470: 469: 468: 467: 466: 439: 436: 431: 430: 429: 428: 427: 426: 425: 424: 423: 422: 421: 420: 419: 418: 417: 416: 415: 414: 413: 412: 411: 410: 409: 408: 407: 406: 381: 378: 374: 370: 366: 365: 364: 361: 357: 356: 355: 354: 353: 352: 351: 350: 349: 348: 347: 346: 345: 344: 343: 342: 341: 340: 339: 338: 337: 336: 315: 312: 308: 307: 306: 303: 299: 295: 294: 293: 292: 291: 290: 289: 288: 287: 286: 285: 284: 283: 282: 281: 280: 279: 278: 261: 258: 254: 253: 252: 249: 245: 241: 236: 235: 234: 233: 232: 231: 230: 229: 228: 227: 226: 225: 224: 223: 210: 207: 202: 201: 200: 197: 193: 189: 185: 184: 183: 180: 175: 172: 167: 164: 161: 158: 155: 154: 152: 148: 147: 146: 143: 138: 137: 136: 133: 128: 127: 126: 123: 122: 119: 116: 111: 107: 106: 105: 104: 101: 97: 89: 83: 80: 78: 75: 73: 70: 67: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 6136: 6118: 6104: 6085: 6017: 5928: 5927: 5910: 5890: 5886: 5884: 5883: 5869:, shall we? 5753: 5732: 5703:Comments? -- 5702: 5699: 5683: 5677: 5577: 5573: 5555: 5490: 5486: 5360: 5314: 5277: 5210: 5206: 5159: 5105: 5087: 5086:articles to 5083: 5066: 5034:Monarcy of x 5033: 5015: 5011: 4993: 4989: 4937: 4929: 4887: 4869: 4847: 4806: 4802: 4765: 4763: 4749: 4746: 4739: 4736: 4730: 4729: 4692: 4688: 4686: 4685: 4606: 4602: 4581:Monarchy in 4580: 4554: 4532: 4513: 4509: 4505: 4503: 4486: 4469: 4452: 4436: 4432: 4415: 4396: 4379: 4362: 4341: 4301: 4297: 4275: 4269: 4267: 4233: 4216:xxx monarchy 4215: 4211: 4203: 4202:articles as 4199: 4195: 4191: 4167: 4163: 4090: 4032: 4016: 3990: 3944: 3942: 3819: 3804: 3801:Organic food 3800: 3796: 3779: 3775: 3771: 3741: 3667: 3650: 3649:8 Ghits for 3646: 3633: 3574: 3567: 3560: 3556: 3544: 3531: 3498: 3473:Monarchy in 3472: 3471: 3444: 3443: 3432: 3430: 3352: 3348: 3332: 3320: 3309:User:Barryob 3304: 3284: 3280: 3277: 3257: 3253: 3248: 3244: 3209: 3196: 3179: 3171: 3074: 3009:xxx monarchy 3008: 3004: 2991: 2986: 2959: 2955: 2951: 2905:User:GoodDay 2857: 2847:Vote Closed! 2845: 2844: 2836: 2833: 2815: 2808:Monarchy in 2807: 2806: 2801: 2800: 2792: 2786: 2771: 2766: 2735: 2732:xxx monarchy 2731: 2727: 2723: 2712:xxx monarchy 2711: 2707: 2694: 2660: 2658: 2640: 2593: 2564: 2559:rather link 2533: 2500: 2491: 2488: 2478: 2470: 2251: 2242: 2225: 2148: 2135: 2130: 2104: 2054: 2047: 2011: 1918:Commonwealth 1917: 1913: 1809: 1805: 1688:government? 1685: 1681: 1678: 1632: 1562: 1558: 1318: 1255: 1211: 1207: 1155: 1142: 1114:Royal Family 1105: 1059: 1057: 1051: 1049: 1043: 1041: 1037: 1033: 1031: 991: 968: 955: 951: 924: 902: 874: 870: 868: 785: 709: 687: 684:common usage 683: 660:Commonwealth 659: 655: 651: 649: 629: 609: 529: 372: 368: 297: 243: 239: 191: 187: 113: 109: 95: 93: 65: 43: 37: 6121:I. Pankonin 6089:I. Pankonin 5943:Nevermind. 5915:TharkunColl 5674:Start again 5215:TharkunColl 4976:TharkunColl 4890:format see 4853:Ibagli rnbs 4771:Ibagli rnbs 4663:TerriersFan 4559:TerriersFan 4491:TharkunColl 4238:TerriersFan 4095:TerriersFan 4062:TerriersFan 4033:Monarchy in 4008:TerriersFan 3669:TerriersFan 3593:own website 3579:TerriersFan 3481:TerriersFan 3399:TerriersFan 3377:TerriersFan 3366:Such as? -- 3357:TerriersFan 3325:TerriersFan 3266:TerriersFan 3105:TerriersFan 2956:xxx monarch 2934:TerriersFan 2860:TerriersFan 2369:TharkunColl 2306:TharkunColl 2255:particular. 2001:John Buchan 1814:TharkunColl 1752:TharkunColl 1713:TharkunColl 1690:TharkunColl 1567:TharkunColl 1433:TharkunColl 1323:TharkunColl 1260:TharkunColl 1190:TharkunColl 1095:TharkunColl 1050:Canada and 960:TharkunColl 907:TharkunColl 880:TharkunColl 714:TharkunColl 570:TharkunColl 532:TharkunColl 435:TharkunColl 360:TharkunColl 302:TharkunColl 248:TharkunColl 150:standpoint. 36:This is an 5887:X monarchy 5487:x monarchy 5201:to change 4803:possession 4716:Exception 4190:It's seem 3770:What's an 3543:Of course 3488:Support - 3479:Support -- 3460:Support -- 3451:Support -- 2816:AjaxSmack 2772:AjaxSmack 2243:completely 2044:Cease fire 2021:politician 1208:Australian 6049:G2bambino 5992:G2bambino 5964:G2bambino 5839:G2bambino 5804:G2bambino 5774:G2bambino 5705:G2bambino 5628:G2bambino 5598:G2bambino 5542:G2bambino 5512:G2bambino 5458:G2bambino 5427:G2bambino 5384:de dessus 5347:G2bambino 5296:G2bambino 5244:G2bambino 5180:G2bambino 5121:de dessus 5032:Correct, 5020:G2bambino 4827:G2bambino 4789:G2bambino 4646:G2bambino 4585:G2bambino 4579:, in the 4487:Exception 4470:Exception 4433:Exception 4420:G2bambino 4349:G2bambino 4306:G2bambino 4112:G2bambino 4077:G2bambino 4048:G2bambino 3921:Will do. 3914:G2bambino 3882:G2bambino 3859:G2bambino 3839:G2bambino 3776:adjective 3774:? :) The 3772:abjective 3701:G2bambino 3609:G2bambino 3536:G2bambino 3453:G2bambino 3408:G2bambino 3386:G2bambino 3368:G2bambino 3337:G2bambino 3231:G2bambino 3183:G2bambino 3149:G2bambino 3127:G2bambino 3092:G2bambino 3062:G2bambino 3041:G2bambino 2943:G2bambino 2921:G2bambino 2878:G2bambino 2585:G2bambino 2426:G2bambino 2315:G2bambino 2260:G2bambino 2216:G2bambino 2197:G2bambino 2187:G2bambino 2122:G2bambino 2096:G2bambino 2075:G2bambino 2029:G2bambino 1990:Family.-- 1982:G2bambino 1931:G2bambino 1848:G2bambino 1777:G2bambino 1730:G2bambino 1700:G2bambino 1645:G2bambino 1494:G2bambino 1376:G2bambino 1270:G2bambino 1199:G2bambino 1160:Mediation 1122:G2bambino 1077:G2bambino 1005:G2bambino 983:G2bambino 916:G2bambino 903:extremely 890:G2bambino 809:G2bambino 790:G2bambino 767:contexts. 735:G2bambino 544:G2bambino 496:G2bambino 373:Ownership 311:G2bambino 257:G2bambino 206:G2bambino 179:G2bambino 132:G2bambino 82:Archive 5 77:Archive 4 72:Archive 3 66:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 6140:Gazzster 6107:Gazzster 6020:Gazzster 4206:-except 4174:page. -- 3549:See here 3445:monarchy 3199:status. 2802:monarchy 2724:Complete 2695:fatigued 2018:Unionist 2008:novelist 2005:Scottish 1062:other... 1054:other... 6035:GoodDay 6014:Baffled 5945:GoodDay 5935:GoodDay 5895:GoodDay 5871:GoodDay 5720:GoodDay 5642:GoodDay 5612:GoodDay 5582:GoodDay 5560:GoodDay 5495:GoodDay 5374:Barryob 5367:on the 5282:GoodDay 5260:GoodDay 5211:its own 5164:GoodDay 5111:Barryob 5092:GoodDay 5038:GoodDay 4998:GoodDay 4942:GoodDay 4916:GoodDay 4901:Barryob 4874:GoodDay 4737:Result: 4697:GoodDay 4631:GoodDay 4611:GoodDay 4537:GoodDay 4531:I find 4518:GoodDay 4402:Barryob 4384:GoodDay 4320:GoodDay 4220:GoodDay 4198:2)have 4177:Barryob 4037:GoodDay 3950:Barryob 3923:GoodDay 3891:GoodDay 3868:GoodDay 3850:GoodDay 3828:GoodDay 3797:Organic 3763:GoodDay 3742:Comment 3689:GoodDay 3638:GoodDay 3517:Barryob 3462:GoodDay 3349:Comment 3333:Comment 3321:Comment 3281:British 3278:Comment 3201:GoodDay 3140:GoodDay 3083:GoodDay 3013:GoodDay 2964:GoodDay 2900:before. 2753:GoodDay 2740:GoodDay 2716:GoodDay 2699:GoodDay 2681:GoodDay 2647:Charles 2473:of you. 2206:GoodDay 2140:GoodDay 2136:British 1940:GoodDay 1922:GoodDay 1914:British 1686:British 1682:doesn't 1216:GoodDay 1164:GoodDay 1147:GoodDay 1143:fifteen 1066:GoodDay 1060:fifteen 1052:fifteen 1044:fifteen 1038:British 996:GoodDay 973:GoodDay 969:British 929:GoodDay 925:British 853:GoodDay 840:GoodDay 723:GoodDay 692:GoodDay 688:British 675:GoodDay 664:GoodDay 614:GoodDay 610:British 601:Charles 579:GoodDay 557:GoodDay 377:GoodDay 196:GoodDay 110:British 100:GoodDay 39:archive 6073:john k 5978:john k 5819:john k 5789:john k 5756:john k 5526:john k 5473:john k 5442:john k 5411:john k 5379:Vigeur 5319:john k 5205:, you 5160:please 5146:john k 5131:john k 5116:Vigeur 5069:john k 4474:john k 4457:BillCJ 4280:BillCJ 3982:BillCJ 3809:BillCJ 3784:BillCJ 3726:UpDown 3490:BillCJ 3393:Well, 3313:BillCJ 3305:Oppose 3245:Oppose 3051:BillCJ 3031:BillCJ 2996:BillCJ 2892:BillCJ 2620:UpDown 2551:UpDown 2525:UpDown 2462:UpDown 2087:UpDown 2016:, and 1992:UpDown 1968:UpDown 1895:UpDown 1256:always 1106:please 800:UpDown 745:UpDown 633:john k 240:reason 142:UpDown 5365:WP:RM 5335:WP:RM 5240:WP:RM 5018:." -- 4659:WP:RM 4629:? -- 4609:. -- 4516:. -- 4455:- -- 4382:. -- 4365:. -- 4168:realm 3945:realm 3197:equal 3136:WP:RM 3101:WP:RM 2987:third 2930:WP:RM 2854:Title 2484:like: 2252:might 784:With 779:less. 656:Brits 298:other 16:< 6144:talk 6111:talk 6077:talk 6067:and 6053:talk 6039:talk 6024:talk 5996:talk 5982:talk 5968:talk 5949:talk 5939:talk 5919:talk 5899:talk 5875:talk 5843:talk 5823:talk 5808:talk 5793:talk 5778:talk 5760:talk 5724:talk 5709:talk 5646:talk 5632:talk 5616:talk 5602:talk 5586:talk 5564:talk 5546:talk 5530:talk 5516:talk 5499:talk 5477:talk 5462:talk 5446:talk 5431:talk 5415:talk 5351:talk 5323:talk 5300:talk 5286:talk 5264:talk 5248:talk 5219:talk 5207:must 5184:talk 5168:talk 5150:talk 5135:talk 5096:talk 5073:talk 5042:talk 5024:talk 5002:talk 4980:talk 4946:talk 4920:talk 4894:and 4878:talk 4859:Talk 4831:talk 4793:talk 4777:Talk 4701:talk 4667:talk 4650:talk 4635:talk 4615:talk 4589:talk 4563:talk 4541:talk 4533:both 4522:talk 4495:talk 4478:talk 4461:talk 4424:talk 4388:talk 4371:talk 4353:talk 4324:talk 4310:talk 4284:talk 4242:talk 4224:talk 4154:talk 4116:talk 4099:talk 4081:talk 4066:talk 4052:talk 4027:and 3972:and 3908:and 3803:and 3699:. -- 3655:here 3571:here 3564:here 3427:Poll 3120:and 2994:! - 2675:and 2051:spec 1810:very 1633:that 1563:That 1319:does 1156:this 952:does 637:talk 6071:. 5576:to 5315:was 5084:all 4936:to 4870:all 4740:All 4713:All 4603:all 4512:or 4453:All 4416:All 4397:All 4380:All 4363:All 4302:all 4298:all 4276:all 4270:all 4214:or 4200:all 3532:all 3433:all 3077:at 2954:to 2793:all 2710:to 2663:to 2471:all 1916:as 1559:all 1212:our 1154:If 1093:. 1034:all 6146:) 6131:) 6113:) 6099:) 6079:) 6055:) 6041:) 6026:) 5998:) 5984:) 5970:) 5951:) 5921:) 5901:) 5893:. 5877:) 5845:) 5825:) 5810:) 5795:) 5780:) 5762:) 5726:) 5711:) 5648:) 5634:) 5618:) 5604:) 5588:) 5566:) 5548:) 5532:) 5518:) 5501:) 5479:) 5464:) 5448:) 5433:) 5417:) 5396:: 5353:) 5325:) 5302:) 5288:) 5280:. 5266:) 5250:) 5221:) 5186:) 5170:) 5152:) 5137:) 5108:-- 5098:) 5075:) 5044:) 5036:. 5026:) 5016:in 5012:of 5004:) 4982:) 4948:) 4940:. 4922:) 4898:-- 4880:) 4862:) 4848:in 4833:) 4795:) 4780:) 4766:of 4724:3 4721:5 4703:) 4695:. 4669:) 4652:) 4637:) 4617:) 4591:) 4565:) 4543:) 4524:) 4497:) 4480:) 4463:) 4426:) 4390:) 4373:) 4355:) 4326:) 4312:) 4286:) 4244:) 4226:) 4156:) 4118:) 4101:) 4083:) 4068:) 4054:) 4023:, 3968:, 3904:, 3647:10 3264:. 3247:- 3181:-- 3125:-- 3116:, 2962:. 2915:, 2911:, 2872:, 2751:. 2738:. 2714:. 2671:, 2667:, 2645:. 2195:-- 1643:-- 1268:-- 971:. 956:is 786:no 662:? 639:) 612:. 190:, 98:? 6142:( 6129:c 6127:/ 6125:t 6123:( 6109:( 6097:c 6095:/ 6093:t 6091:( 6075:( 6051:( 6037:( 6022:( 5994:( 5980:( 5966:( 5947:( 5937:( 5917:( 5897:( 5873:( 5841:( 5821:( 5806:( 5791:( 5776:( 5758:( 5722:( 5707:( 5695:. 5644:( 5630:( 5614:( 5600:( 5584:( 5562:( 5544:( 5528:( 5514:( 5497:( 5475:( 5460:( 5444:( 5429:( 5413:( 5349:( 5321:( 5298:( 5284:( 5262:( 5246:( 5217:( 5182:( 5166:( 5148:( 5133:( 5094:( 5071:( 5040:( 5022:( 5000:( 4978:( 4944:( 4918:( 4876:( 4856:( 4829:( 4814:D 4811:B 4808:D 4791:( 4774:( 4699:( 4665:( 4648:( 4633:( 4613:( 4587:( 4561:( 4539:( 4520:( 4493:( 4476:( 4459:( 4444:D 4441:B 4438:D 4422:( 4386:( 4369:( 4351:( 4322:( 4308:( 4282:( 4240:( 4222:( 4192:3 4152:( 4114:( 4097:( 4079:( 4064:( 4050:( 3998:D 3995:B 3992:D 3587:" 3506:D 3503:B 3500:D 3292:D 3289:B 3286:D 3217:D 3214:B 3211:D 2601:D 2598:B 2595:D 2572:D 2569:B 2566:D 2541:D 2538:B 2535:D 2508:D 2505:B 2502:D 2233:D 2230:B 2227:D 2156:D 2153:B 2150:D 2112:D 2109:B 2106:D 2062:D 2059:B 2056:D 1806:I 635:( 121:D 118:B 115:D 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

talk:WikiProject British Royalty/Archive 2 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index