Template talk:Monarchies/Archive 1

Inclusion of UK as well as Commonwealth
In response to the statement that only one of these entities should be included in the current listbox, I want to draw the attention to the factors that 1) the UK must be certainly included, as the most well-known and one of the oldest surviving monarchies on the planet, and 2) that the Commonwealth should also be mentioned alongside the UK, as the part of the former British Empire that still recognises the Queen as their sovereign. That the UK is (the 'central') part of the Commonwealth is no complication in this matter. To list each and every non-UK country of the Commonwealth would totally overflow the listbox and is not needed, as articles on the separate contries is easily reached via the single link anyway. Dropping either the UK or the Commonwealth from the box would also give an incomplete picture in my opinion. --Wernher 11:33, 23 May 2004 (UTC)


 * The current setup perpetrates the notion that the UK is not a part of the Commonwealth. If we can't fit all the monarchies, then this box isn't a good idea. The Queen is equally sovereign in each of her realms. Not placing this box in the Canada article is POV.--Jiang


 * Regarding the UK & Commonwealth listing question, I must say I have a feeling that one must want to misunderstand in order to be mislead by the current setup. The simple reason Canada was 'left out' (and a whole lot of other commonwealth countries, and other monarchies for that matter) was that I didn't have the stamina to add the box in all the needed articles in one edit binge.:). --Wernher 18:30, 24 May 2004 (UTC)


 * No, you do not need to want to misunderstand. It's a misconception that the commonwealth is "formed by former British colonies" and just that. You need not put the footer in every article listed. --Jiang 05:22, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Footer removal consensus
Also be advised that these boxes are being removed per wikiproject countries consensus. Add them to the politics articles only or dont add them at all. Or better, insert a link to List of monarchies. --Jiang 02:13, 24 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the information. After having read the discussion(s) about this on WikiProject Countries (Talk), I get the impression that the focus was set on the large and numerous 'international / regional organization' footers. To be taken into consideration in any 'defence' of the monarchies footer is its small size and its relatively small number of occurrences (not very many monarchies around anymore...). --Wernher 19:16, 24 May 2004 (UTC)


 * So mediawiki:APEC is not large... Again, why not just link to a list? What does this footer accomplish? We can perhaps just keep it in the 'politics of...' articles and out of the main articles. --Jiang 05:22, 27 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I think the footer accomplishes the (small) feat of conveniently displaying which other countries remain in the small 'club' of monarchies left in the world. I think it is a well-spent centimetre-and-a-half (?) on the bottom of the monarchy articles. I also understand the point of view that the number/size of footers should be reduced; but I think this small one is worth having. --Wernher 15:00, 28 May 2004 (UTC)


 * The government of Saudi Arabia is very different from that of Britain. In certain parts of the world, monarchies are not uncommon. I guess there's no way out of this disagreement, but IMO, if we have a footer, it needs to be comprehensive. --Jiang 04:56, 30 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm with Jiang on these matters. This message is not needed, and if it's there, it must take up all current monarchies, no less. The UK, Canada, Australia, Tuvalu etc. are monarchies, so they shall be included, and not grouped together, and certainly not grouped together under a misleading name. (The Commonwealth is not a monarchy because it isn't a state and so has no head of state; neither is it comprised of, or even dominated by, monarchies.) -- Jao 11:57, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Categories
Now that we have a categories system, this is all really unnecessary. This msg should be limited to the 'politics of...' articles as I've stated before. --Jiang 20:21, 31 May 2004 (UTC)


 * What would you think of a category replacing the present footer? And please also see this comment of mine in the Denmark talk page; feel free to reply if you want to. --Wernher 21:00, 31 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Update: take a look at Category:Monarchies and tell me what you think. As a test, I have only included Andorra in the category so far (and removed its Monarchies footer). The footer is now put into the category page instead. --Wernher 20:18, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Multiline footer
Eh - I'm a little uncertain of the agenda of some contributors to this footer regarding minimization vs liberal numbers of lines -- I actually thought vertically large footers annoyed some people no end? Oh well, I guess we're going over to a category system anyway (which I like very much, by the way). --Wernher 21:00, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Commonwealth realms in Europe
Jiang commented in an edit summary of this article: ''all commonwealth realms in Europe? i didn't think so...'' Just to clarify why I originally put the Commonwealth under Europe: when listed the UK, one of the oldest remaining monarchies, I put the Commonwealth alongside due to the UK's 'motherly' role, as I used to perceive it, among the Commonwealth realms (the UK being the head of the former British Empire). Of course, most of the Commonwealth realms is located (far) outside Europe, no discussion about that. --Wernher 19:26, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Bias ?
I think that the current template is rather biased towards the Commonwealth and Europe. With its categories: "commonwealth", "European Christian Traditions" (the naming of this category is really rather biased) and "Non-European Traditions". I've looked at previous versions of the template: when it looked like this for instance, with all countries standing equal next to each other:

I'd prefer this version over the current version. Not only because it less biased, but also because it is less cloggy (what kind of monarchies these countries are can be looked up on their individual pages), but also because it more simple.

If its up to me, the entire commonwealth is grouped into one mentioning instead of 17, because other of monarchies, like the Kingdom of the Netherlands, which consists of out of the European part and the carribean islands of Curacao and the Dutch Antilles, not all individual parts are mentioned. It would look like this:

This last part is open to debate. I'll settle for anything that is not classed "Commonwealth/Christian Europe/Rest of the World". C mon 20:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I would agree that it's pretty silly to separate "Christian" and "Non-Christian" monarchies and have no objections to putting everything in one big list. The Commonwealth Realms should not be collapsed into one list item though.  For one thing, there are many members of the Commonwealth that are not Commonwealth Realms -- that are republics or have their own monarchs.  The Commonwealth Realms are 15 separate sovereign states that happen to have the same monarch.  This is very different from the Dutch situation you mention -- Aruba and the Neth. Antilles are not internationally recognized sovereign countries and do not claim to be, while the non-UK commonwealth realms are.  --Jfruh (talk) 20:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

===>My two cents I personally think the classifications are kind of goofy, too as they don't actually explain anything about the monarchies or provide a systematic taxonomy for them. I would be in favor of keeping information like constitutionality or democratic election, as that seems useful to the reader to me. On the other hand, I'm not exactly married to that. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 20:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Seeing the overwhelming support, I'm returning the template to the old version. C mon 23:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

===>Overwhelming support? You have one person that agrees with you and another that agreed in principle. I'm leaving the template the way it was until we have an actual dicussion on it. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail


 * Okay I'll wait two days for real opposition to the plan. C mon 12:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

===> Since the commonwealth realms share one monarch, not grouping them is ignoring the one 'family' that is undeniable, while calling the commonwealth a monrachy wpuld be wrong (it does NOT have a Monarch, nor is it even a state). Whle the Christian tradition makes sense historically, I suppose it may seem outdated to apply this criterion. Terms like 'Absolute' and (semi-)cosntitutional are not absolute, but somewhat subjective and vary oer time; marking out the truely unique forms (elective, co-principality, emperor ...), which are permanent and well-defined constitutional features, makes more sense. Fastifex 15:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I hope you understand that templates are better simple than complicated. Information on what kind of monarchy it is might be a part of a list of monarchies article, which could not only show the very important typologies you propose but also the current monarch and the name of the royal family etc. Quickly comparing monarchies would be possible there, as it is possible in the way the template is worded now.
 * On the other side I am deeply opposed by the classification commonwealth/christian/other, because it is very eurocentric, and somewhat condescending towards the rich traditions in hinduistic, buddhist, african and islamic traditions of monarchy. Grouping the commonwealth realms in one group, possibly giving them their own template:commonwealth could be a solution for their exceptional situation.
 * With these two new features on wikipedia, which are linked this template, I hope you can agree on simplifying the template. C mon 11:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems you confuse my last version, which IS simpler (abandoning the Christian grouping, just Commonwealth realms grouped as they uniquely share one monarch, and only marking the unique cases) with the indeed somewhat crowded three group plus codes for absolute etc. someone else put back (fine with me, but I can accept simplification for clarity; even if the idea of a 'condescending' motive is rather paranoid, since most historical monarchies themselves systematically appeal to the sacred dimension as well as to genealogical and other inheritances) Fastifex 21:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Your proposal is to do it like this, isn't it?

I'll settle for that too. C mon 07:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Seeing no overwhelming opposition I've made the change C mon 22:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The asterisking of Andorra as an elected monarchy is kind of weird - only one of its two princes is elected - and the only :;other monarchy so marked is the Vatican City. I think it might be less deceptive to just mark those two separately as special cases. Ccreitz 03:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's wrong; Malaysia and the UAE are also elective, more or less, and Samoa will be as soon as the current monarch finally dies (although they might also become a republic, of course). &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 12:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, Samoa is a Republic, as its Politics article states. I've removed it from the template. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 12:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Kingdom of the Netherlands
Should the link under Netherlands point to Kingdom of the Netherlands? Im only asking as Beatrix of the Netherlands indicates that is what is the monarch of. John Vandenberg 12:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed I've changed it. C mon 13:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Samoa is not a monarchy!
This was my original email:


 * To whomever this letter concerns,
 * I write to you as someone who is avidly into geopolitics and as an amateur contributor to the internet encyclopedia, Wikipedia. Within the community, there is a question as to whether your Head of State should be seen as an elective monarch or as a ceremonial president, which would simultaneously answer as to whether the Independent State of Samoa should be considered a parliamentary monarchy or a parliamentary democracy.


 * I would graciously appreciate if this could be answered quickly, as I will by cut off from internet access in two weeks and would like to resolve the conflict within the Wikipedia Community as soon as possible.


 * Many Thanks,


 * Benjamin (I've omitted my last name)

This was the response:


 * Talofa Benjamin,


 * Thank you for your enquiry. The Independent State of Samoa is a representative government.  Our Head of State is a ceremonial president.  Being free from politics, any law will not become law unless assented to by the Head of State.


 * Regards,


 * Deborah Mauinatu
 * Office of the Government Press Secretariat

Therequiembellishere 05:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

This seems less than clear. Ms. Mauinatu specifically does not say that Samoa is a republic. And "president" is the title of the head of state of the United Arab Emirates, which is listed here as a monarchy. The case seems somewhat murky. john k (talk) 06:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Definition of absolute monarchy
For the benefit of a clear definition:

Rule by one person—a monarch, usually a king or a queen—whose actions are restricted neither by written law nor by custom; a system different from a constitutional monarchy and from a republic. Absolute monarchy persisted in France until 1789 and in Russia until 1917 (The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. 2002.).

Definition: 	a ruler who governs alone and is not restrained by laws, a constitution, or custom (absolute monarch. (n.d.). Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English, Preview Edition (v 0.9.7). Retrieved September 06, 2007, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/absolute monarch)

It follows that the mere presence of a constitution does not necessarily diminish the absolute nature of political control if and when the ruler can change or abolish his own constitution or rule by decree by fiat. An absolute monarchy is not devoid of a corpus of laws; the only difference is that he can change any law or declare new ones. The simple definition above should suffice to silence ambiguity. Furthermore the criteria set by above definition is a clear rule of who qualifies as an absolute monarch. The whole argumentation can be taken up as an introductory course in college. FYI.

Dr mindbender 19:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It isn't ruled by one person, and he can be dethroned, look at Benedict XI, I believe. So your whole argument is thrown out the window there. Therequiembellishere 00:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * True, it could be co-ruled but it's not often the case. I don't see what the implication is though on the dethronement, since that could happen to any monarch under any situation. That-Vela-Fella 00:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but the Pope can be dethroned by the Cardinals, who are essentially his Parliament. And he is the Head of State. The Governor is the Head of Government, so he is not the singular ruler of the nation. Therequiembellishere 00:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It was not my intention to dignify this argument with a reply because I could not even begin to decide whether to cry or laugh at the utter lack of knowledge displayed on the matter. The subject matter is treated in high school history. European history on more advanced classes. A university education would also provide a proper background and more in-depth examination on this topic. More specifically introductory classes in political science and university European history.

But to answer the question at hand: If you take a look or survey most of the absolute monarchs since the dawn of recorded human history, e.g. Egyptian Pharaohs, Persian emperors, Byzantine emperors, and for that matter, some of the popes; absolute monarchs by their very nature can be eliminated most successfully by being killed/dethroned. The papacy has not been immune to this 'cure' of absolute power.

I think you were also referring to Benedict IX, the 3-term pope. Unfortunately, records of the archives of the Holy See suffered dramatic losses during the Babylonian Captivity in the 1300s and the capture by Napoleon and transfer of the Roman archives to Paris. Although documentation is scant prior to the pontificate of Innocent III, Benedict IX was known to have sold the office twice and forced to abdicate his last pontificate. It is unfortunate for us indeed that records are missing or destroyed on the darkest periods of European history due to the vicissitudes of history and the fortunes of war.

The cardinals tried to dethrone the validly/canonically elected Urban VI which precipitated the Western Schism. So as you can see, once given, it cannot be taken away. Even the Council of Constance had to ask the resignation of Gregory XII. I can go on.

The cardinals are the closest advisers of the pope but no power is above the Roman pontiff save for God Himself, according to Catholic theology. The pope is the Head of State of the Vatican City - this is undisputed. He is not the de facto head of government, simply because he elects not to; not because he can't. He can abolish, change, or create any law. He can install or remove anyone in office in the Vatican or the Holy See. He can even theoretically suspend or abolish altogether and change the constitution of the Vatican (it happened several times). He can issue decrees binding over the Vatican and over the entire Catholic Church (talk about power-tripping)! The popes have done this several times by issuing what are called motu proprio. There is no person, or law, or tradition that restricts the pope from doing what he wants. He can also send anyone to hell( :-> excommunication, anathema -- totally over-the-top!) or say that this guy or that guy is definitely in heaven (beatifications, canonization). He can also change the calendar by the way, e.g. Gregorian calendar. This guy is a veritable one-man army of God!! If this guy is not an absolute monarch, I don't know what is. The only ones to compare with his wide ranging powers are the Pharaohs and Hirohito - both considered divine. Although the pope is not divine, he can be one badass if he wanted to be (no disrepect intended, just illustrative figure of speech). I beg you to read the definition of an absolute monarch once again and let it sink in. It is tedious to explain, you know. Take up a course on political science as an elective and you will appreciate more, throw in political structures and governmental theory for good measure and a thick book on European history.

And just for good measure, it was in reference to the Pope that Lord Acton said: Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Take note: he said "tends to corrupt", examples of which are numerous; but so are the incorruptible popes. Give some, take some. I wish you were in my political science class decades ago. It would have been fun arguing with you.

If you want to go bottomless deep on this matter, go read the current apostolic constitution of the Catholic Church, the Lateran Pacts and canon law, e.g. Corpus Juris Canonici, etc., etc. I don't even pretend to have read them all - I'm not that kind of loser. The Lateran Pacts, yes.

fyi Dr mindbender 07:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Fine, I'll accept it, but you seem to think I'm a moronic thirty-year-old who learned this. Mind you, I've just started ninth grade, though I was in the semi-finals of the Florida Geography Bee. So I haven't taken these university courses, obviously, and most have not; unless you decide to, of course. Therequiembellishere 19:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't believe that excommunication itself sends you to Hell. you can repent close to death and get Last Rites, can't you? Therequiembellishere 19:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Reversion
I think the long debate about whether Vatican city should be classified as what kind of monarchy proves that the old grouping system is better. These classifications by type of monarchy are problematic for three reasons: The regional division is much more objective (which country is in which region is determined) and this classification is exclusive. therefore I have reverted to the version which most resembled this organization of the template. C mon 20:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) They are arbitrary and subjective. Who says which monarchy is what kind?
 * 2) They are a red flag for debates about this
 * 3) The categories are not exclusive and therefore categorization will always be problematic


 * Whoa, did I miss something & everyone agreed to that? Just because of one country it had to be changed? For now it seems the matter is taken care of & good thing I just saw it got reverted back again too. Whatever situations that may arise should be discussed here beforehand & a consensus reached prior to any major revision is undertaken. That-Vela-Fella 21:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a bad argument, since the major edit of User:Therequiembellishere which instituted the classification by type (here) was never discussed. No classification over the classification scheme was ever reached. C mon 13:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Because it was initially ridiculous! And if I ever had someone discuss with me a reversion, I would have first spoken with them on which one was better. That-Vela-Fella did the opposite, he helped me fix the template to make it even better. You reverted it and it was reverted back, which means that WE PREFER THIS ONE. After one immediate reversion with no consensus, you should have learned that it wouldn't be allowed again. Your grounds were the above discussion proved it was unneeded, but if you had actually read it, you would see that we had agreed to leave the Vatican as an absolute monarchy, which highly suggest, at least to me, that this was a thinly veiled way of whining "I don't like it! Change it back!" Therequiembellishere 16:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Therequiembellishere, Please do watch your civility! I edited this template before you did, Therequiembellishere and have shown that I disagreed with you multiple times (here and here). So you can't claim to work from consensus. Furthermore there appear to be four active editors on this template, if one of them does not agree with the current situation there is no consensus, simply because 3/4 is not consensus.
 * Do please go into the arguments I presented above about the problematic nature of the current classification scheme, of which the categories are not exclusive and debatable.
 * The fact there needed to be long discussion, (by non-specialists on the subject) about the categorization of one state, for me shows that the categorization is problematic. That the problem can be solved does not prove that it is not a problematic kind of categorization.
 * The best example is that one of the categories ("semi-constitutional monarchy") does not even has a wikipedia page about it! Also note that the current scheme is inconsistent with Image:World_Monarchies.png, which assigns countries differently. Or with the table on the monarchy-lemma and with the individual descriptions of countries (f.i. Bahrain). The system is just riddled with problems.
 * Finally, I do advise you, Therequiembellishere, to take a look at wikipedia rules, regulations and guidelines. You seem to think that you "own" this template and that you have the right to decide who has the right to edit it and who doesn't. This is not consistent with current policy. C mon 19:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not "own" the template, I've gotten my definitions from articles within the Community, and I'm sure they're sourced. If you have a problem with the definitions, it's best to take them up there first. You seem to have the "owning" complex and out of the four active editors, you are the only one who disagrees with it's current status. The fact that the problem was SOLVED shows exactly what talk pages are for: To take up issues with the article/template and solved through debate and/or compromise. Look at the rules yourself and mind your own civility, as it is as plain as mine, or else bite your tongue. Therequiembellishere 20:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Tsk, tsk. Looking through your talk page, you seem to consistently revert others' work without notice. Therequiembellishere 20:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I like this one the best, it made me laugh. Therequiembellishere 20:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Please REMOVE semi-constitutional monarchy in the template - it is ridiculous
It is ridiculous. A monarchy is either a constitutional monarchy or it is not. As an analogy, it is either circumcised or it is not - you don't do it half-way. It is an on-off switch.

For the benefit of a definition: constitutional monarchy n.

A monarchy in which the powers of the ruler are restricted to those granted under the constitution and laws of the nation.

Dictionary definition of constitutional monarchy The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2007, 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2007. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

constitutional monarchy

A form of national government in which the power of the monarch (the king or queen) is restrained by a parliament, by law, or by custom. Several nations, especially in modern times, have passed from absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy, including Belgium, Britain, Denmark, The Netherlands, Norway, Spain, and Sweden.

Politics information about constitutional monarchy The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition Edited by E.D. Hirsch, Jr., Joseph F. Kett, and James Trefil. Copyright © 2002 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin. All rights reserved.

In other words, semi-constitutional monarchy is UNDEFINED. Always go with the definitions. The definitions have been argued and debated by the best political minds since the ancient Greeks, therefore, you have very clear sign posts. Also, if you read the definitions and know the difference between an absolute monarchy (see definition below near bottom of page) and a constitutional monarchy, you will notice that the mere presence of a written constitution does not necessarily make it a constitutional monarchy or that the lack of a written constitution makes it an absolute monarchy.

If you can't spot the difference - get an almanac or get a conventionally accepted list followed by the UN. Do not re-invent the wheel. You cannot and must not redefine what are conventionally accepted political facts. When arguing something, always fit your arguments with the definitions.

Dr mindbender 16:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Although I truly appreciate your effort and the fact that you have take note of my comments, Dr Mindbender, changing this here on the template will only lead to greater discrepancy with this template and the rest of wikipedia, which sometimes uses this category, C mon 18:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Note made concerning the U.K.
Just noticed when it said all sharing the same monarch & represented by a Gov-Gen, the only one out of that that doesn't is the U.K. itself. Thus I made note of it so as to not be confusing to others if asked. That-Vela-Fella 02:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Japan is not debatable
The Emperor of Japan is undoubtly the head of the state of Japan as he open and closes the government. He lends his powers temporarily to the government in the act of opening. Just like the King of Sweden does when he open and closes the government. What is debatable, the actions speak for themself. Lord Metroid (talk) 01:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that he has no reserve powers and does nothing within government but open and close parliament makes many see him as a "symbol of state" instead of the actual head. I don't have a problem, but others do. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The same is true of the King of Sweden, isn't it? john k (talk) 06:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Subnational Monarchies
Shouldn't the subnational monarchies of Malaysia and the United Arab Emirates be listed out specifically here? john k (talk) 06:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I added them, but it doesn't appear to be showing up in the template. What's the issue? john k (talk) 06:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Good point in adding them in & the problem was fixed after looking for a while at why it wasn't showing up... basically you put the group numbers 2 & 5 separated from the word, whereas it should have been together (ie. group2, not group 2). That-Vela-Fella (talk) 13:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Subnational monarchs in republics
I'm wondering what the criteria are here for listing. Obviously ones like Uganda, where the kings are officially recognized by the government, should be included, but how many of these fall into that category? In what way is someone like the King of the Maori or the Sultan of Sokoto to be distinguished from, say, the Duke of Bavaria, who obviously should not be listed? john k (talk) 02:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, would this include Tibet that was just included now in the list (even though it is not seen as such within China right now)? That-Vela-Fella (talk) 08:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Attached notations
Regarding the notation attached to Japan, I'm not sure that it's actually relevant to this template. Whether the Emperor is head of state or not is irrelevant in this context, as that's not what is being asserted by its inclusion in the template. If the constitution states that Japan is a monarchy, then no explanation regarding the monarch's political office need be included. If, on the other hand, the constitution does not state that Japan is a monarchy, then the attached notation should read something like "Monarchy is traditional rather than constitutional," or "Status as monarchy is debatable." ---which is, after all, what the template is about: a state's status as a monarchy, not the role the head of that particular monarchy plays therein.

Similarly, whatever title the head of a particular monarchy chooses to take is not relevant here either. Yes, President alludes to a republic, but the U.A.E. is still a monarchy regardless. If readers want to read more about the intricacies of the Emirati monarchy, they need only click the link.

This is a template, and notes on irrelevant technicalities should be kept to a minimum. Night w (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That's right, it should be kept simple and if a reader wants more info, then there are links to the article(s) itself. A note should just be done for clarity and/or something is debatable on a particular status on a monarchy(ies). That-Vela-Fella (talk) 20:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)