Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/British monarchy

British monarchy

Self-nomination. I apologise for the length of the article, but, as the topic is relatively significant, I think that the current size is not entirely excessive. I have already made some reductions in the history section and elsewhere. -- Emsworth 23:43, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Looks nice (I didn't have a chance to read all of it). The history section could be split off into a seperate article or at least some sub-sections should be added to make it easier to read. Broken Segue 01:01, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree about the history. A longish summary of the moved text would still be needed here though. --mav 04:58, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In my view the history section is about the right length as a summary - I put in some subsections I hope not too clumsily. Then each subsection spins out to their own main article about each house (we already have fine articles on these). Pcb21| Pete 11:04, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the subsections; I think that the length of each is appropriate. -- Emsworth 11:40, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Subarticles would be nice to provide room for future expansion, but 50KB seems reasonable for such a significant topic. Support. Everyking 19:02, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support. Phils 19:27, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Comment - The image of the £5 Bank of England note is a copyvio. (or just plan illegal) that I'm challenging now. ~~Apart from that, Support. - KTC 20:03, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) Neutral, see comment about Scottish monarchy history below. -- KTC 00:33, 4 May 2005 (UTC)~~[reply]
- The image has been removed. -- Emsworth 21:18, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support - It isn't too long, and there are a lot of wiki links to additional information on each subject, such as the monarchs themselves. Well done. Ben Babcock 21:49, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Considering there is around one thousand years of history, the length is certainly not excessive. Rje 00:55, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
Object - It strikes me that the majority of the article is about the English monarchy. Shouldn't the pre-1603 Monarchs of Scotland be mentioned too? I would like to see a sub-section on this. - Grinner 16:19, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
support disagree with above. Everybody knows what is the use of the article. Monarchs of Scotland should have their own article and not a missplaced section. -Pedro 22:26, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess the problem is, while this is an article about the British monarchy, which the majority of the article does talk about, there is a history section (and a resonably size one at that) at the start. Up to and including section 1.3 (the history before 1603), only the English monarchy was mentioned. People seems to forget that the current British monarchy traces its root back to the Scottish one before the English one! Just because the current monarchy official residence is in England doesn't mean the Scottish part of its history have nothing to do with it. So having a sub-section that talk about the Scottish monarchy and then link to a main article on it (like all the other history sub-section) seems reasonable to me. -- KTC 00:33, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~That's my point really, but you made it much more clearly than I, so cheers.~~ Grinner 07:54, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
  - ~~Oh.... OK. I didnt knew that. changed to object (hiding important info). Needs info about ancient Scottish kings.~~ -Pedro 12:12, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Needs lots of work to be a featured article:
- Obviously a section on the Scottish lineage and the crowns unified under James (as mentioned above). I'm English; but they are British monarchs, not English.
- An explanation for the claims of being royalty for Wales and Ireland, i.e. conquest. How it lost France, Normandy etc.
  - This is considered in various parts of the history section. -- Emsworth 10:26, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Upon reflection the loss of France and Normandy is reasonably handled given it is a summary. However, the conquest of Wales and Ireland are not even mentioned in the historical sections; nor the stuggle to keep control of them. The section on the Scottish kings could should cover the struggle by England to conquer Scotland. :ChrisG
      - The Scottish history section has been added. -- Emsworth 21:29, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Role in the British Empire and how that role evolved into the Commonwealth.
  - The Commonwealth role, if added, would cause a significant increase in the article size. I did explain the Statute of Westminster, etc., but I left details to Commonwealth realm. -- Emsworth 10:26, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - I needn't be a significant increase. It only requires 2-3 paragraphs. Not mentioning means the article is not comprehensive. :ChrisG
      - Addressed. -- Emsworth 21:29, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- How it gradually lost power and became a constitutional monarchy.
  - That is already covered under the history sections from British_monarchy#Stuarts_and_the_Commonwealth onwards as it should be. (Long gradual changes involving multiple Houses) -- KTC 02:49, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is no mention of the rise of democracy and thus the increase in the legitimacy of the parliament versus monarchy. Parliament was not one thing it evolved, the article does not explore that evolution. :ChrisG
      - The article now briefly discusses the effect of the Reform Act; however, extensive details on the rise of the Commons would not be relevant to the article. -- Emsworth 21:29, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Current popularity or perhaps lack of it. :ChrisG 02:40, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is covered in the last part of the history section. -- Emsworth 10:26, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think a paragraph on the modern monarchy can be called comprehensive. It surely deserves a few paragraphs in the scheme of things, including the forming of the Commonwealth. Also there is no mention of the future and the possible ascension of Charles and his marriage to Camilla Parker-Bowles.:ChrisG
      - I think that several paragraphs on the popularity of the modern monarchy would be excessive. -- Emsworth 21:29, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
SupportLooks complete to me Giano | talk 08:37, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I will soon be adding a few sections on the Scottish monarchy (one for each dynasty). This will, however, increase the size of the article. I hope that there will be no objections on the grounds of the greater size. -- Emsworth 10:31, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I expect there will, but not from me! Giano | talk 17:17, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I have to admit I've been waiting for this one. And a little more length would be alright in my book. +sj + 07:41, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Looks good, but if external links are in references (and they are) they should be formatted accordingly (i.e. last accessed on...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 10:53, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The section on the Scottish monarchy has been added. -- Emsworth 00:41, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent addition, I now support. Grinner 08:33, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Support KTC 09:58, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support -Pedro 00:33, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My remaining significant objection is that the conquest of Wales and Ireland is not even mentioned in the early historical sections; nor the stuggle to keep control of them, barring the independence of Ireland in 1922. The heir after all is the Prince of Wales.:ChrisG 19:50, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This information has been added. -- Emsworth 22:27, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. James F. (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]