Talk:Monarchy of Barbados

Fair use rationale for Image:Barbados coa.png
Image:Barbados coa.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

— Save_Us _ 229  19:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Image
Though, as the person who's move to change the original is being contested, it is PrinceOfCanada's place to open discussion on the matter, I'll take the initiative from him and start the resolution process here. However, I can do no more than that; only he alone can explain what problem it is he percieves and is trying to "fix." --G2bambino (talk) 01:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Easy. Problem: You're removing an image that doesn't need to be removed. Fix: I've put it back. All done. Prince of Canadat 01:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please explain "doesn't need to be removed." According to whom? --G2bambino (talk) 01:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * According to me. The photo serves the purpose of illustrating who the heir to the Barbadian throne is.  There is no justification for removing it.  Besides, you're the one making the change, you need to justify it.  Since you can't, well, the image stays.  Have a nice day. Prince of Canadat 01:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe your refusal to place it anywhere other than in a location that causes ugliness is reason to remove it; though I'd rather see it in the article, where I want to place it obviously disturbs you, and you won't explain why, so taking it out is a sacrifice I'm willing to make in order to avoid problems. You, however, seem to desire continued disruption. Will you, or will you not, be a cooperative element of resolving this? --G2bambino (talk) 01:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I will be a cooperative element when you do these things. You are formatting so it lays out perfectly solely on your screen.  I have made my position clear. This discussion is over. Prince of Canadat 02:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid the discussion is not over when you say it is. However, thank you for making it clear that you will continue to only be an obstacle as opposed to an assistance. This, therefore, goes to the next level. --G2bambino (talk) 02:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I made it clear that I will not cooperate with you unless and until you acknowledge your hypocrisy, you acknowledge and apologize for your lies, half-truths, and general incivility. So you have only yourself to blame if I am not cooperating with you. Prince of Canadat 02:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You are only creating artificial obstacles here: refusing to participate unless your oponent fulfills your own personal, yet unrealistic requirements. That is not going to get us anywhere. --G2bambino (talk) 02:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right; it's obvious that any attempt to get you to admit to wrongdoing is utterly doomed to failure, despite that wrongdoing (you know, like blatantly lying about me) is right out there in the open. Getting you to acknowledge your own statements is impossible.  One wonders why. Prince of Canadat 03:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously, the sole key to your cooperation lies in my admitting that your personal interpretations about my behaviour are right, and that I should be sorry for acting in the manner you say I have. Well, I don't agree with your take on things, nor do I see a large number of people backing up your claims. With my gross incivility unproven, there remains nothing for me to apologise for. Violating your uniquely high standards of civility just doesn't count. So, as I said, you are only creating artificial obstacles to the proper editing of article space. --G2bambino (talk) 03:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So you never said on your talk page that I edited your comments? You never claimed that I was unblocked with a promise not to start a dispute? Your accusation of vandalism? You never said any of those things?  You never said, quote, "you do realise that it doesn't look the same on every computer, right? It all depends on the size of your screen"?  And your continued edits to make things look right on your screen are not in direct opposition to that, and you didn't revert edits that I had made that were similar to the edits you are now making, calling them bad formatting, and you didn't use your statement as the reason for doing so?  You did none of these things? Prince of Canadat 03:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I can't make sense of your random complaints. The only thing in there that matters, if I'm seeing it right, is your final questions about how things appear on different screens; that is exactly what I am trying to deal with, with or without your cooperation. --G2bambino (talk) 03:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Random? Okay, let me list them for you:
 * Did you or did you not state on your talk page that I had edited your comments? You did, and it was a lie.
 * Did you or did you not claim on your AN3 notice regarding me that I had been unblocked with a promise to refrain from further dispute? You did, and it was a lie.
 * Did you or did you not accuse me of vandalism? You did.
 * Did you or did you not say, quote, "you do realise that it doesn't look the same on every computer, right? It all depends on the size of your screen"? You did.
 * Did you or did you not revert edits I had made to the Order of Canada article, citing the above statement as your reason? You did.
 * Did you or did you not refer to those edits as, quote, "bad formatting"? You did.
 * Given #'s 4-6 above, are you or are you not engaging in editing that is "bad formatting" because the formatting in question "doesn't look the same on every computer" as it "all depends on the size of your screen"? You are.
 * So, given all that, what possible justification do you have? Is your justification that when I do it, it's wrong, but when you do it, it's okay?  Do you have anything more than that? Prince of Canadat 04:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * [deindent] Whether or not I did those things has little to do with what you're accusing me of. Making a mistake is not the same as being rude. Commenting negatively on the result of edits is not the same as being rude. Making negative critiques of behaviour is not the same as being rude. Now, I'm sure you'll note from the MedCab case you've recently jumped into, that I've never changed my stance regading how layout can appear differently on different screens. That does not mean, however, that I believe your edits are better than anyone else's, and should remain unchallenged. --G2bambino (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no 'whether or not'. You did those things.  Unquestionably.  Commenting negatively when it is things like 'hideous' and 'you make everything look like shit' is, actually, rude.  As for 'not changing your stance', you still refuse to acknowledge what you said, and you still refuse to understand how it applies to you, and you still refuse to understand that you are editing for your computer and I am editing for every computer.  Tsk. Prince of Canadat 16:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Only from your viewpoint are things as black and white. Hopefully the MedCab will work this out, and, if not, it goes to the next level after that. --G2bambino (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, so the things you tell other people don't apply to you, then? Is that what you're saying?  You have made it clear time and again that you are formatting based solely on what you see on your computer.  But I guess that doesn't matter, seeing as we have to do what you say while you go and do whatever you like. Prince of Canadat 17:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Whatever makes you happy, Prince. --G2bambino (talk) 17:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Really? Whatever makes me happy? Honest?  Then acknowledge what you said, and acknowledge that it applies to you! That would make me happy.  Apologies for your lies and accusations would be nice, too. Prince of Canadat 21:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Why? You've already come to the conclusion that all you believe to be true about me is true. You're obviously happy with that, so, whatever. --G2bambino (talk) 21:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Because you claim to be acting in good faith. Acknowledging your own statements and that they apply to you as well would be acting in good faith.  Continuing to ignore them because they are inconvenient to you is not acting in good faith. Your choice, really: show some good faith, or remain a hypocrite.  I certainly know which one I would choose. Prince of Canadat 22:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed; I think a number of people now know which of the two you have chosen. Regardless, as your demands for an expression of good faith are based solely on your unique take on reality, there's no way I could possibly meet them without taking part in your fantasy. But, as you have constructed things in such a way as to ensure that I will never be a good person, there's no incentive for me to even entertain the idea of playing along. Fortunately, for me, the evidence stands as it does. --G2bambino (talk) 22:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am here from the notice on Talk:Monarchy of Canada as I guess the dispute boiled over there? I am completely new to the dispute and am not familiar with your personal animosities but PrinceOfCanada's statement above that he will not be a co-operative element is concerning. If he truly meant that, it could be grounds for blocking. I choose to believe he over-stated himself but should be more careful to say what he means.
 * I have not looked at the dispute on this page but it appears from the talk here that you both have legitimate concerns and should co-operate or seek outside help to find a solution that satisfies you both and makes the article better for all. Cheers, Double Blue  (Talk) 02:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. In the meantime, I've begun the dispute resolution process by creating a mediation cabal case for Monarchy in Canada specifically (as it is the more well known article), but the result of which would obviously also apply here. --G2bambino (talk) 02:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The MedCab case is now open here. --G2bambino (talk) 03:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Barbados really doesn't recognize the Monarchy?
From: http://www.foreign.gov.bb/UserFiles/File/Precedence.pdf At the top they list the Governor-General. The Queen's representative. It is current as of this administration in power now. July 2008. CaribDigita (talk) 00:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Table of Precedence for Barbados

" Most of the Queen's domestic duties are performed by this vice-regal representative."
I'd love to see a verifiable source that shows the Queen's domestic constitutional duties in Barbados. The sentence should read "All of the Queen's domestic duties are performed by this vice-regal representative." --LJ Holden 04:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Monarchy of the United Kingdom which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Monarchy of Barbados. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120306065519/http://www.nationnews.com/Politics/26973.htm to http://www.nationnews.com/Politics/26973.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705025347/http://www.barbados.gov.bb/bdsconst_first_schedule.htm to http://www.barbados.gov.bb/bdsconst_first_schedule.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081002152915/http://www.barbadosparliament.com/independence.php to http://www.barbadosparliament.com/independence.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070523083154/http://www.barbadosparliament.com/history.php to http://www.barbadosparliament.com/history.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071228082001/http://www.caribbeannetnews.com/2005/02/07/vote.shtml to http://www.caribbeannetnews.com/2005/02/07/vote.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071228045102/http://www.nationnews.com/story/317791120649409.php to http://www.nationnews.com/story/317791120649409.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:03, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

This article is weird as hell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nelson21101805 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

RM in future, likely.
Assuming Charles doesn't succeed to the throne, before Barbados abolishes it. This article will likely be 'moved' to Queen of Barbados. Seeing as Queen of country is used for the other abolished monarchies, that had only Elizabeth II as monarch. GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose: They all were monarchies, not queenships. "Queen of Barbados" is just a title, whereas this article (and all other similar ones) cover the monarchy as an institution: how it functions, it's history, symbols etc etc.  Peter Ormond &#128172;  23:05, 23 October 2021 (UTC)


 * PS: All the former monarchies were originally titled Monarchy of country, but were moved to Queen of country without any RM discussion.  Peter Ormond &#128172;  23:08, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You're free to open an RM on all those articles-in-question. Now would be a good time, with a little over a month left before Barbados becomes a Commonwealth republic. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I did recently. See Talk:Queen of Ghana, which resulted in no consensus.  Peter Ormond &#128172;  23:13, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Give it another go, then. I'll support "Monarchy of country" for all of them. But, I won't let Barbados be out of sync with the "Queen of country" articles, unless Charles ascends the throne between now & 30 Nov. GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I've opened up a discussion on this topic, over at WP:NCROY. -- GoodDay (talk) 23:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Article name change after Barbados becomes a republic?
Barring any unexpected developments, Barbados will become a republic on November 30, 2021 (a bit over a month from me writing this). In addition to some necessary rewrites (e.g. changing instances of "is" to "was"), we may want to change the article name to "Queen of Barbados" (assuming Elizabeth II doesn't die before the transition). Queen of Mauritius is the equivalent name for article on that country's former monarchy, which similarly was only ever Elizabeth II. (I'm less sure if an article name change would be in order if she dies before then and is thus succeeded by her son, Charles, who would be styled as King.) --ROADKILL (talk) 00:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 26 October 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. DrKay (talk) 07:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Monarchy of Barbados → Queen of Barbados – The vast majority of the former monarchy articles, that have had only Elizabeth II as monarch, are titled Queen of country, rather then Monarchy of country. What should this article's title be, when the Barbadian monarchy is abolished on November 30, 2021? GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Survey

 * Strong Oppose: It is a monarchy, not a queenship. "Queen of Barbados" is just a title, whereas this article covers the monarchy as an institution: how it functions, its history, symbols etc etc. The title of the page should not be about the monarch herself, but about the institution that governed Barbados for more than 50 years.  Peter Ormond &#128172;  20:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose per User:Peter Ormond. This article is about the institution, not about the Queen herself. J I P  &#124; Talk 02:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There's a pic of Charles as heir.  Is Charles the next Queen of Barbados? Walrasiad (talk) 09:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The article is about the monarchy, not the Queen. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is about the role and not the title. Tigger Jay&thinsp; (talk)  15:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Neutral - my concern is for consistency. Note: A related RM is occurring over at Queen of Nigeria, concerning the same topic. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose, not about one person (the above Queen of Nigeria is about only Elizabeth, a different kettle of fish). Randy Kryn (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - The Barbadian monarchy will be abolished on November 30, 2021. Unless Charles succeeds to its throne before then? It'll have had only one monarch. GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Good point, thanks. Maybe December 1 will be the time to change the name for site consistency since until then this monarchy is set-up to be a hand-me-down to Charles or William. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm hoping this RM will last a full month. Thus the reason, I opened it yesterday. GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Without my handy crystal ball it is difficult to tell what might happen in the next month or so. Perhaps we should take a day at a time, and by that, attempt at some consensus now as things stand today. And then let next month/year/decade take care of itself. And as the current consensus is leaning towards keeping it the way it is, there is certainly little harm if things do change in the future. And we can always do a new move request at that point in time. Tigger Jay&thinsp; (talk)  20:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep it going until after November 30. No harm will be done, between now & then. GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose See my thoughts below. Scorpions13256 (talk) 18:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose the article is about the institution, not the specific Queen at the moment (regardless of the fact that it is the only one).Eccekevin (talk) 04:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose as per the first comment. --eduardog3000 (talk) 21:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

NOTE: A similar RM is open at Queen of Nigeria. Please comment there to generate a clear consensus.  Peter Ormond &#128172;  04:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion
Note, the lone stand out among the current former monarchy articles-in-question, is Monarchy of Fiji. The rest are in Queen of country form. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The Fiji monarchy has had other reigning rulers aside from Elizabeth, so that is in a different class than those already abolished where she was the sole ruler. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The Fiji page-in-question, can be split into separate articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * One option would be to title all articles about monarchies "Monarchy of X", regardless of who ruled. We would also rewrite for consistency if necessary. Another option would be to name articles where only Elizabeth II ruled as "Queen of X" while naming countries where others have ruled as "Monarchy of X" (e.g., Pakistan). I personally prefer the former, but I am willing to change my mind. Scorpions13256 (talk) 18:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I too prefer Monarchy of country for all current & former monarchy articles. Consistency is paramount, in my PoV. Was disappointed in the result of the August 2021 RM. GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I also prefer "Monarchy of X", even when the country was only ruled by a single king/queen. 36.77.95.52 (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I also prefer Monarchy of X". Not sure why that discussion was closed as it was, it should re relitigated and reverted.Eccekevin (talk) 04:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that August RFC needs a re-do in the near future. GoodDay (talk) 05:15, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

- Ya could've left it open for a month. Anyways, looking over at the other RM (Nigeria). Why can't we achieve consistency among these former monarchies that had 'only' Elizabeth II as monarch. The results here, is the opposite of what happened in August 2021. GoodDay (talk) 05:20, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Pinging all participants: JIP, Walrasiad, Necrothesp, Tiggerjay, GoodDay, Randy Kryn, Scorpions13256, Eccekevin, and Eduardog3000: A similar move discussion about many articles is open at Talk:Queen of Ghana. Please comment there to generate a clear consensus. Thanks.  Peter Ormond &#128172;  08:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Exactly when does the monarchy end?
Does Barbados become a republic at the stroke of midnight? Which would be 04:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)? GoodDay (talk) 01:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we'll have to go by Barbados's time. I am following the events here.  Peter Ormond 💬 01:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Noting: Midnight in Barbados, is 04:00 (UTC) Wikipedia time. GoodDay (talk) 01:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:BRD
User:Celia Homeford, please don't remove content based on your personal opinion and discuss on the talk page rather than edit-warring. Thanks.  Peter Ormond &#128172;  14:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Peter Ormond, please don't add content based on your personal opinion and discuss on the talk page rather than edit-warring. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, two can play at the game of personalising a content dispute. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Anyone can see who is edit-warring, and I won't respond in this section further as I don't want to get involved in pointless arguments. Regards,  Peter Ormond &#128172;  16:08, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Overuse of 'Barbadian'

 * See also Talk:Charles III/Archive 11.

Elizabeth II wasn't Barbadian, and it is unnecessary to disambiguate Barbadian items at an article devoted to a Barbadian topic. The context is already clear. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * First you said that the institution "was not Barbadian", now you say that this article is already "devoted to a Barbadian topic". Eh?  Peter Ormond &#128172;  14:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. This is similar to discussions you've had before (with other editors): Talk:Queen of Trinidad and Tobago. The topic is related to the island but the institutions and the person were not Barbadian. The mainstream view in the Caribbean is that they were imposed and foreign. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Nobody is saying that Elizabeth Alexandra Mary was ethnically Barbadian. The thing is that the Crown functioned as a distinctly Barbadian institution in the country, where the legal personality of the sovereign was considered Barbadian (which is distinct from the real person of the monarch). Although the monarchy's roots lie in the colonial period, the insitution today is neither "imposed" nor legally "foreign" in the Commonwealth realms (as it would contradict their own sovereignty).  Peter Ormond &#128172;  16:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * "Monarchy of Barbados" and "Barbadian monarchy" are synonyms. The article never states Elizabeth was Barbadian. There did seem to be a slight overuse of "Barbadian", specifically. In some cases, it's the only appropriate word. I've trimmed what I think could go and mixed up the remaining terminology a bit. But, there's no problem whatsoever with "Barbadian monarch" or "Barbadian monarchy".
 * "The Barbadian monarchy was abolished"
 * "he Barbadian monarchy was abolished"
 * "a plan to abolish the Barbadian monarchy"
 * "it is time for Barbados to do away with its affiliation with the Barbadian monarchy"
 * "the head of state remained Queen Elizabeth until the Barbadian monarchy was abolished" -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  15:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC)