Talk:Royal Burial Ground, Frogmore/Archive 1

Term to use for the family

(Porting this hence from UpDown's talkpage -- G2)

I'm intrigued as to how you find "Royal Family of the Commonwealth Realms" a POV creation. Perhaps you could explain? --G2bambino 15:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

(Porting this hence from G2bambino's talkpage -- LW)

It's POV pushing by you as normal you insist on being legal instead of logical. The Royal Family is always referred to as "the British Royal Family", not the "Royal Family of the Commonwealth Realms", an invented title. The Royal Family is first and foremost British; they live there, hold that nationality, work mostly there, are referred to as British by other nations and so so. It is not "POV focus on one country", it is logcial and correct as the UK is "first among equals". Sentences like "Royal Family shared by the Commonwealth Realms" will only confuse people completly unecessarily. The Royal Family are primarily the British Royal Family and to try and say otherwise is POV pushing and incorrect. --UpDown 18:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone should write to the Queen and tell her to stop POV pushing in speeches, then. Her and her "Canadian Royal Family", trying to confuse us...--Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 18:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, this is more pro-British nationalism; they simply can't come to grips that their monarchy isn't fully theirs anymore.

I can understand that "Royal Family of the Commonwealth Realms" may appear to be an invented title; however, the solution isn't to pander to ignorance or cultural popularity, no matter how nuanced a particular concept might be. Surely we're all smart enough to come up with something accurate and appropriate. --G2bambino 21:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You mean, you want to do some original research to come up with a name to use within Wikipedia? — PhilHibbs | talk 14:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

PS- I can't see even one instance where my edits tried to claim the Royal Family as being primarily one thing or another. In the absence of evidence to support such a claim, the POV accusations fly right out the window. --G2bambino 22:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

What you can't "come to grips with" is the fact that your monarchy isn't actually yours at all, but somebody else's. TharkunColl 22:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, brilliant argument, Thark. Another of your witty gems. --G2bambino 22:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It was merely in reply to your own anti-British statement above. If you insist on being such a fanatical monarchist, then why don't you go and get your own monarchy, and pay for it as well. TharkunColl 22:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what it's in reply to; it has no basis in fact nor a point, regardless. And your follow-up response above is similarly inane. --G2bambino 22:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You really should let go of the apron strings sometime, you know. TharkunColl 22:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You really should bring yourself out of the Victorian era and join the rest of us in the 21st century. (See; I can bring myself down to your level of debate.) --G2bambino 22:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

To retain the mother-country's monarchy as a relic of a colonial past is indeed to remain in the Victorian era, so it is not I to whom you should address that comment. TharkunColl 22:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Your comment might have merit if you had concrete evidence that the Canadian Crown is a relic.

What does any of this have to do with the article in question? --G2bambino 22:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Relic [1]

• 1. Something that has survived the passage of time, especially an object or custom whose original culture has disappeared: "Corporal punishment was a relic of barbarism" Cyril Connolly.
• 2. Something cherished for its age or historic interest.
• 3. An object kept for its association with the past; a memento.

TharkunColl 22:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I see then that, by some of the definitions of the term "relic," the Canadian Crown may be seen partly as such; however, no more or less than the British Crown could be similarly categorized. To clarify, perhaps: my request for definition was more looking for evidence of the generally useless and anachronistic nature of a relic. If you're going to argue that the Canadian Crown should be characterised as such, then you'll have to accept that the UK Crown is just the same. --G2bambino 22:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

(replying to G2bambino at 21:52)
Avoiding pedantry has nothing to do with pro-British nationalism. "British Royal Family" is the ordinary, well-understood and immediately understandable term, and the international aspect of the family to whom it refers is irrelevant to the subject of the article. So "British Royal Family" is all that is fitting, here. Writing the article accordingly is not "pandering to ignorance or cultural popularity", or to anything else. Nor is it a matter of inattention to nuance or lack of smarts. It is sticking to the subject, and following common usage and common sense. -- Lonewolf BC 22:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Common usage can only carry you so far; do we refer to Elizabeth II as the "Queen of England," as surely 80% of the planet does? There's no argument that the term "British Royal Family" be absolutely excluded; indeed, it probably is well understood, and I see the issue with "Royal Family of the Commonwealth Realms." But, that's no excuse to deny the international context in this case and accordingly supress the relevant facts. --G2bambino 22:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not denying or supressing anything. It's sticking to the subject, and writing for the sake of the reader, rather than that of an ideology.
-- Lonewolf BC 23:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

To the contrary, it's confirmed that one group of related people serves at least two countries, which are each, in themselves, separate jurisdictions with distinct crowns. In short: we have cited evidence of the existence of, at minimum, a Canadian and a British Royal Family, the deceased of whom are interred in the plot that is the subject of this article. Mentioning, in this context, that the group is associated with only one state willfully avoids the fact that these people belong, equally, in fact, to another. And belittling supported verity as "ideology" only suggests an attempt to push said facts under the carpet for the sake of a biased agenda, not for the benefit of any readers.

Taking earlier concerns into mind, I would suggest, perhaps, The Royal Burial Ground is a cemetery used by the Royal Family of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth Realms. Though I believe it's unduly weighted, that takes into account the familiarity readers will have with the Royal Family's connection to the UK, while still acknowledging that the entity does not uniquely belong to the United Kingdom. --G2bambino 00:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh oh, another royal brewhaha. I thought these British VS Commonweath disputes were settled? GoodDay 23:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I wish. --G2bambino 00:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I wish so to, but certain people will not accept that they are primarily British, and to constantly insist on inserting "Commonwealth" into every single mention of them is absurd! Wikipedia has articles explaining the Commonwealth and the Crown and how it works and so on, so we do not need to make sure every reference to the family or the people should explaining this. It's not necessary. Call them the British Royal Family, and people know who you mean, starting calling them the "Royal Family of the Commonwealth Realms" (an invented title I've never heard before) and we will confuse people totally unessarily. They are first and foremost the British Royal Family (for the reasons I've stated above). --UpDown 10:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

And who exactly has made any claim as to what they primarily are or primarily are not - at least in the article? Secondly, as you may have earlier had some difficulty reading, I'll repeat myself: "Royal Family of the Commonwealth Realms" was not intended to be a title, and I understand how it could be misconstrued as such. So, that's two of your bones of contention knocked away.

People will know what you're talking about when saying "British Royal Family" (again, something never disputed), but it is wrong to mislead unknowing readers into believing these people belong solely to the United Kingdom; without a link from here, how else would they understand otherwise? One gets the impression from your protestations that you (and other editors) would like to have these facts suppressed as much as possible; even the existence of those articles explaining the Commonwealth and Crown irk you all.

I have made what I believe to be an accomodating proposal. If there are no protestations against it that aren't rooted in some quirky personal biases against having to share your Royal Family, then I'll insert it into the lead. --G2bambino 15:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

As a Canadian republican, knowing we have our own monarchy (Canadian monarchy), is annyoing. However the fact is this, the 16 Commonwealth realms are equal status. I'm not sure how to edit this in though; Royal Family alone, isn't discriptive enough. Perhaps in this case British is the only solution. GoodDay 15:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You know, GoodDay, I've always wondered why a republican like yourself is so attracted to monarchical subject matter. Could there be a secret love for the Crown there? ;) --G2bambino 15:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I like to read & learn about things, that I object to. It helps me be as NPOV as possible (notice as an athiest, I've made appearances at the Papal articles, by the way papcy is an elected-monarchy). Trust me, if a Canadian plebesite were held to make Canada a republic, I vote 'republic'. Monarchies intrigue me, in that they still exist in the 21st century; someday though, they'll fade into history (just not today). GoodDay 16:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ya gotta admit though, a republican editor's participation does create a 'calming effect' in these discussions. GoodDay 16:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the personal character and, perhaps even more importantly, the simple longevity of the Queen have sustained the monarchy in the former dominions way beyond its natural sell-by date. I seriously doubt it will survive more than a few years or so after the end of her reign, though the slow and cumbersome procedures of constitutional change those countries have adopted will no doubt retard its abolition somewhat. In the UK itself I expect the monarchy will survive, though I suspect it will be radically trimmed down in terms of cost and the anti-Catholic clauses (and possibly the sexist clauses) of the Act of Settlement scrapped - indeed, this will probably be the trigger for the monarchy's abolition elsewhere, as changing the Act of Settlement would require just as much constitutional hassle as abolition, in those countries in which parliamentary sovereignty is subordinated to an entrenched, written constitution. TharkunColl 16:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

We're veering off topic here (though, that may be my fault), but I'll say that I think the situation is more complex than simply the Queen's charming demeanour. As you note, constitutional change is in itself a difficult process, but beyond that, finding an equivalent or better system may actually be harder to achieve. Further, at least in Canada, there's no general desire to change the system; I imagine that if there ever is a campaign like the one that took place in Australia, it will be driven by the political elite who have the most to gain in the Crown's absence, just as it was in Australia. Hopefully we'd again follow Australia, seeing the plan it for what it is, and vote it down. I wonder, though, if we'll eventually just see a dissolution of the personal union and the creation of separate royal houses in each realm, somewhat à la Sweden and Norway in 1905. --G2bambino 16:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The idea of each of the Queen's children taking a realm has been mooted before, but the main problem is cost. I do not believe for one moment that Canadian taxpayers - still less Australian ones - would be prepared to fund a royal establishment. If they were asked to do so for any reason, the popularity of republicanism would increase overwhelmingly. With regard to Norway and Sweden, Norway is an ancient kingdom that existed long before it entered into personal union. The former dominions, on the other hand, have never had their own monarchies - which is one of the reasons why I think "personal union" is a wholly misleading term to use. It is true, as you say, that Canada has never had a strong republican movement (unlike Australia), but at least one Canadian acquaintance of mine feels this is through a desire to appear as different to the Americans as possible, by retaining the monarchy. I think it's probably the case that Canada, as the very first dominion (by quite a long way), will also be the last, and there is no doubt that the Queen has an affection for the place. Personally speaking I think it will be a shame when they decide to sever the link, but almost certainly inevitable in the long run. TharkunColl 18:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

We already do pay for a monarchy, to the tune of $40 to $50 million a year. There's nothing to say the Canadian Crown will cost any more on another's head; and, like you say r.e. the British monarchy, any patriated Canadian royal house may similarly be pared down in terms of size and extravagance. Given that, plus the monarchy's definite part in defining Canadian identity, plus the absence of a system that will function as well as or better than the present one, I have my doubts this country will ever see a president at its head; at least, not this country in the form it has now. --G2bambino 18:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hold it gentlement, let's put away our crystal-balls. What's the choice at this article, do we stick with British or not? GoodDay 18:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I would be fine with something like the solution at Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, i.e. "Royal Family of the United Kingdom and the other commonwealth realms", although it is a bit long.--Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 18:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That is essentially what I proposed above: The Royal Burial Ground is a cemetery used by the Royal Family of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth Realms. Length is an unfortunate consequence of the circumstances. --G2bambino 18:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This should be acceptable - we get the Commonwealth mentioned, plus Tharky and UpDown get the UK mentioned (first at that). Yeah, this covers it. GoodDay 18:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Stick with plain "British Royal Family". That's all that's needed here. The rest is irrelevant pedantry and essentially linkspamming. -- Lonewolf BC 18:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Only if your intention is to mislead. --G2bambino 18:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Misleading is what you are doing, and I do wish we could avoid the long debates above about the Monarchy and how long it will last. This is not a Forum. With regards to the wording "Royal Family of the United Kingdom and the other commonwealth realms", this sounds like it is shared my mutliple monarchies, not one family like is the truth. The sensible and NPOV way is to stick with the "British Royal Family". This is clear, concise and the most widely known way to refer to them. Remember that the link will explain all in detail. This page does not need to be exactly legally correct, as that is misleading and unnecessary. Thats why we have many articles.--UpDown 11:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV my ass; your assertion flies in the face of cited evidence. Methinks you need to more cleraly understand the Commonwealth Realms before deciding who the Royal Family belongs to and who they don't. --G2bambino 16:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I do wish we could have a debate without you being patronising and arrogant. My "assertion" does not fly in "the face of cited evidence". Its your usual POV that we have all seen across Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not for your POV. If you can't see that, then leave Wikipedia and create your own website. --UpDown 18:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

No more patronising and arrogant than chiding us on the use of this page, as though we were school children and you our matron.

Regardless, you apparently can't deal with the cited material. Until you do, your argument is moot. --G2bambino 18:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Erm, I don't wish to appear "matronising", but isn't any argument moot? TharkunColl 18:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... it seems so. It also seems I've given UpDown a confusing gender as both a matron and a patron. Serves me right for trying to do two things at once here. --G2bambino 18:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:FORUM. We are meant to be NPOV, so debating our POVs sort of isn't a good thing to do. And my argument is not moot. They are widely known as the British Royal Family. Your POV, of inserting "and the Commonwealth realms" into every possible sentence where royalty is mentioned, is unhelpful, confusing to the reader and un-needed. You need to accept the UK comes first. First Among Equals I believe the phrase is.--UpDown 18:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you; I think we're all generally aware of the guidelines around talk pages. Hence, as I'm sure you can note, the above conversation ceased.

You also need not endlessly orbit in circles, re-raising points that have already been dealt with. "Royal Family of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth Realms" neither denies the family's "Britishness," places the UK anywhere but first, nor is it confusing to anyone with a modicum of intelligence. The onus thus rests on you to convince us why the other countries to which the royal family belongs should not be mentioned, using but three extra words, and in a format that satisfies every one of your concerns. --G2bambino 18:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Because they do not need to be mentioned every single time they appear in a sentence, which is clearly your idea. Again, your POV. Simply saying "the British Royal Family" is enough. This is an article about a British burial ground, the precise legality of the Family's status is unwarranted. --UpDown 18:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It is obviously your idea that they don't need to be mentioned (though, "every single sentence" is your creative exaggeration). I've spelled out why to include the fact, you have not explained why not to. --G2bambino 19:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't see the harm in mentioning 'commonwealth realms' where possible. If British alone (at this article) is protested and Commonwealth alone is protested, why not put both? Honestly, arene't we getting too upset over this? GoodDay 19:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

One person's getting too upset about it, that's for sure. --G2bambino 19:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I might have a solution- If 'currently' all the royals buried there, died before the Commonwealth of Nations was created, then we leave article at British Royal Family. If/when a royal is buried there after the CoNs creation, then we can add Royal Family of the United Kingdom and the other Commonweatlh realms. What say ya all? GoodDay 19:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

An interesting proposal, but the article states there were interments in 1972, 1976, 1982, and 2004. Plus, the Duke of Windsor is buried there; he reigned as King of each country separately, not as King of the UK in all the other areas. --G2bambino 20:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I see; well then let's go with Royal family of the United Kingdom and the other commonwealth realms, even though (I assume) most royals buried there are from pre-CoN's era. GoodDay 20:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Then that phrase works all the better, n'est pas? It takes into account both the previous nature of the Royal Family as purely British and the group's later international (or, pan-national) stature. --G2bambino 20:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. GoodDay 20:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Can I suggest another way of thinking about the phrase? This article is about the burial ground, not the royal family. Why is it the burial ground of the royal family? Did the United Kingdom provide this grounds for their royal family, or did the Commonwealth provide it for theirs? It's a difficult one to answer, as the use of the site as a royal burial ground dates to around the time that the Commonwealth came into being, and since the estate is owned by the crown. — PhilHibbs | talk 14:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct in that this article's focus is on the burial ground, but the subject of the Royal Family is inextractibly linked to that focus. Regardless of which branch of the Crown maintains the plot, the people buried in it still served more than one country as members of each country's Royal Family. --G2bambino 15:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

There is currently disagreement over how to describe the Royal Family that uses the Royal Burial Ground that is the subject of this article. Essentially there are two variants:

• The Royal Family of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth Realms; supported by the following:
  • The Royal Family is not uniquely British; as each Commonwealth Realm is a separate monarchy in personal union, the Royal Family officially functions separately within each jurisdiction, under the guidance of, and funded by, each local government. Cited material affirms the existence of, at least, a semi-separate Canadian Royal Family.
  • This pan-national aspect of the Royal Family should be briefly covered to avoid misrepresentation to the uninitiated reader; this can be done with the simple addition of the words: "and the other Commonwealth Realms."
  • The proposed text addresses the concerns of the opposing editors; namely: 1) the Royal Family's relation to the United Kingdom should be made prominent for the ease of readers, 2) the United Kingdom should come first, and 3) the description should be easy to understand.
• The British Royal Family; supported by the following:
  • The international aspect of the Royal Family is irrelevant to the article
  • Addition of "and the other Commonwealth Realms" is pedantry.

Comments It's no longer the British Royal Family only, it's also the Canadian, Australian, New Zealand etc Royal Family. Therefore the article should reflect this fact. GoodDay 22:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment This is incorrect. The British monarch reigns over those other countries precisely because she is the British monarch, and they are former British colonies. Legally speaking, they do indeed possess an independent "Crown" (as a legal construct), but by no means a separate monarch, who is after all a real human being who lives in the UK and has an influence on the British government. Elsewhere her powers have been constitutionally removed from her, and placed with a representative chosen by that country itself. TharkunColl 23:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Elsewhere her powers have been constitutionally removed from her, and placed with a representative chosen by that country itself. Completely incorrect. --G2bambino 15:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment I totally agree with the above my TharkunColl. We have the usual POV pushing by G2bambino, who everywhere he sees the British Royal Family or a member of it mentioned, he pushes for the Commonwealth realms to be mentioned. He should leave his well known views as a Canadian monarchist aside. This has got to stop. In this article, about a British graveyard, it is totally inappriopiate and unnecessary to mention the Commonwealth. The Family are first and foremost known as the British Royal Family, they are all British citizens for a start. They live in Britain, have the most coverage there and so on. There are also the reasons given above. They always have been and always will be known as British (unless of course Scotland goes indepedent...), so to try and pretend otherwise is blantant POV pushing. In this context there is no justifiable reason to refer to the Commonwealth realms.--UpDown 07:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

POV, POV, and more POV. As noted, the proposed wording addresses every one of your concerns. Hence, your opposition now can only be driven by some sort of negative feelings about having to share your royal family. --G2bambino 15:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Not it does not, and do wish you would stop with this negative form of arguing. As usual you are trying to turn the argument about my POV, when you are the one with the POV. Have I stated my opinions on the Commonwealth, like you have in the Forum-like discussion above? No I haven't, because POV play not part in Wikipedia. You may deny all you like, but its quite clear you are POV-pushing as normal. In this context, on this page, British is all that is necessary. Anymore is unnecessary, over-the-top and clearly expressing a POV. --UpDown 18:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, this "I know you are but what am I" argument is going far. The three words I propose be inserted are verifiably supported, and the overall composition does indeed address your concerns: 1) make the Royal Family's connection to the UK clear for the ease of readers' understanding, 2) have the UK first, 3) be accurate and concise. Therefore, it's up to you to clarify what exactly the POV is that I'm supposedly pushing. --G2bambino 18:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - As GoodDay notes, it is no longer distinctly the Royal Family of the United Kingdom, and, as an encyclopaedia, the institution should be properly portrayed as such in Wikipedia. Contrary to UpDown's assertions, this clearly isn't about Canadian monarchism, or an issue of POV, as there is no particular bias expressed. Rather, this is an issue of taking a verifiable, appropriate worldview in a proper context. --G2bambino 15:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There was bias in this edit. And "worldwide view" - its about a graveyard in Britian. A worldwide view is not necessary. --UpDown 18:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No, not a bias. What you point out was the insertion of a fact that is directly cited. That this singular group of people serve at least two different autonomous states affirms a more than one-country point of view is necessary for the Royal Family that uses this plot of land; note: not the plot of land itself. --G2bambino 18:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No one is trying to say that the Queen isn't Queen of those other countries, or that those other countries are not sovereign. But what is the Queen's primary role? I do not mean legally speaking, but in practice. Where does she live? Where does she exercise her powers in person? What is her original realm? Which is the country that created those other countries? These are all facts. If you were to rely on constitutional law alone, you would also have to say that the Queen has a very large amount of power. But we all know that in practice her powers are mostly exercised by others. So given that you presumably have no objection to this being pointed out, since it is how it works in practice, why do you constantly try and claim that the Queen's role is no more important in the UK than in those other countries? Because in practice, it clearly is more important in the UK, and for the UK. TharkunColl 18:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of what people are and aren't saying; hence, I never insinuated that this was a matter of where the UK sits in precedence. In fact, for about the umpteenth time, my proposed wording separates and places the UK first - against my own wishes but satisfying yours. --G2bambino 18:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

As G2 said, we propose having the UK mentioned seperately & first; isn't that enough? GoodDay 20:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

To say that it is the royal burial ground of the British monarchs and those of the Commonwealth realms implies that the latter are separate monarchies, who also bury their monarchs in the same place. This is the natural assumption that a casual reader, ignorant of the facts, would make when reading that sentence. Simply to say that the British monarchs are buried there is nothing but the truth, and the fact that the British monarchs are still monarchs of a group of ex-colonies is fully explained in their article. TharkunColl 23:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The latter are legally separate monarchies. How could anyone with a command of the English language not understand that "royal family" is singular and not plural? If it was "Royal families of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms" I could understand, but it clearly states that it is one family. Nobody is trying to argue that British monarchs aren't buried there. It's you trying to argue that the Commonwealth realms are still under British rule.--Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 19:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That is not what we are trying to argue at all. We are saying the Commonwealth realms is not relevant in this article. The term "British Royal Family" is sufficient and accurate for an article on a graveyard in Britain. The Commonwealth realms it part of a continuing war by GoodDay and G2bambino to put their POV across on every article relating to the British monarchy as their evidentally have the mistaken belief it is as much Canadian and it is British. --UpDown 09:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

By saying the Royal Family associated with this burial plot is wholly British and the other countries "aren't relevant" (as well as denying the well established equality of the realms under the Crown) is exactly how you're arguing the non-UK Commonwealth Realms are, if not still under British rule, then certainly under the UK in status and importance, which is entirely an unfounded point of view. --G2bambino 14:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thark, the proposed wording is The Royal Burial Ground is a cemetery used by the Royal Family of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth Realms. It's clear there's only one royal family being talked about. POV about the pure Britishness of the monarch (previous ones, I believe, mostly being buried actually at Westminster Abbey) plays no part in this discussion. --G2bambino 00:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there no possible way of having Commonwealth realms mentioned, at all? GoodDay 01:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Commonwealth realms should be added; let's discuss this more & avoid edit warring (or we'll end up getting this article locked). GoodDay 21:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

As you know, GoodDay, I've already made my arguments; they still stand uncountered by anything other than bandied, baseless, and purely personal assertions of "pedantry." After one week of my last question being answered by silence, it's time to move on. --G2bambino 21:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

If find the excuses for refusing Commonwealth realms on this article, very weak. GoodDay 21:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

In these last few hours, 3-editors have supported adding Commonwealth realms while only 1-editor has opposed. That's currently 3 to 1, ain't it? GoodDay 22:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I also oppose adding it. Basically we need a third party, and despite adding it to "Request for comment", we haven't got anyone involved that wasn't before. I maintain that you are being POV in insisting on "and the Commonwealth realms" at every available opportunity. It is first and foremost the British Royal Family, and for a burial ground in Britain that is all that is needed. --UpDown 08:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

And, again, it's not only more clearly POV for you to insist "and the Commonwealth Realms" not be added where appropriate, it's also disingenuous of you to misrepresent my intent. --G2bambino 14:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

We need a Commonwealth WikiProject, to help coordinate these articles. If we don't create one, we'll have continous disputes like this on every 'related' article. GoodDay 15:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Canada is the only country within the realms who have legitimised the concept of a Royal Family so from that perspective the Canadian editors here would be justified in their assertions. [2] But as far as I can see, the UK is simply 1 of 16 sovereign states that has the queen as their monarch. Britain does not have any superior rights over the others regarding the monarch. As a constitutional monarch and who lives in the UK she carries out her UK constitutional duties herself; in the other realms Governor-Generals performs these duties on her behalf. She took separate oaths with each one of the 16 countries when she became queen so where is it legitimate to exclude any Commonwealth realm from claiming that this cemetery is equally its Royal Family's burial ground? I understand that Frogmore is part of the Queen's private estates, and if it is, then there is nothing official about its status and is nothing more than the burial ground of some royals; in other words, the article should be renamed Royal burial ground. --Bill Reid | Talk 15:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I would be against the renaming of this page. We all understand that legally the Queen is Queen of all countries equally, but in practise this is different. In addition, to be precisly legal is not necessary on this page. This is an article about a British burial ground, and thus to put the British Royal Family is correct and far clearer. Per the above comment by Billreid, if Canada is the only country to legitimised the Royal Family, does that mean the other countries they are not legally the Royal Family? If so putting "the Royal Family of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth realms" is legally incorrect, as only two of the 16 countries are they legally the Royal Family. --UpDown 20:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Canada and UK the only Commonwealth realms to legitimised the concept of 'Royal family'? Now, that's something I didn't know. GoodDay 20:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Neither did I, but thats what Billreid appears to suggest.--UpDown 21:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, then, you didn't follow the piped links in a previous edit I made here, which you automatically dubbed "biased."

Regardless, the members of the Royal Family conduct official duties in all the Commonwealth Realms; not at the request of the British government, but at that of the relevant realm government. That alone demonstrates that limiting the Royal Family to being just British (i.e. only Britain's) is misleading and does not take the appropriate worldwide view. Thus, "the Royal Family of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms" is just as clear as "British Royal Family," but more correct, as it does not explicitly omit a very relevant fact in this context. --G2bambino 23:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

That edit is biased as if you are going to put other countries bar Britain, to pick out one would really confuse the reader. As I have countless times this article does not need to take "the worldwide view", no more than the opening to, for example, Prince Andrew's article should read "The Prince Andrew, Duke of York (Andrew Albert...) is a member of the Royal Family of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth realms". It reads "of the British Royal Family". The worldwide view is not needed everytime the Queen or a member of her family is mentioned, as you seem to think. And this is a good example of when it is not needed.--UpDown 11:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should pay closer attention. The edit didn't in any way "bar Britain," and, as already stated by me: the edit listed the two countries supported by empirical sources - those Bill Reid refers to. Indeed, the articles on individual family members should say "and the other Commonwealth realms" because it is a verifiable, relevant, truth'. You have, so far, absolutely no argument for purposefully ignoring a certain relevant truth besides unfounded statements like "it's unnecessary" or "it's confusing" combined with inane straw-men about this being a burial ground in Britain and my supposed desire to mention the Commonwealth Realms in more locations than appropriate or necessary; round and round in repetitive circles you go. Give us an incontrovertible argument as to why the other countries to whom the Royal Family belongs should not be mentioned in a context where the Royal Family is being spoken about in a general, pan-national manner - using a mere five extra words - or drop this all-together. Please. --G2bambino 15:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't patronise me because I disagree with you. You arguments also go round in circles, so please don't accuse me of that. We disagree, that is no reason to be rude and patronising. I now believe that if you think all articles on the British Royal Family should say "and of the commonwealth realms", then this discussion needs to end here now, as the issue is obviously wider than this article. A new discussion should then be started on a more general talk page, and a wide-spread consensus can be reached. We need to discuss whether the opening of articles like Prince Andrew's should read "and of the commonwealth realms" or the more accurate British Royal Family only. This talk page is no place for that discussion and a new one should be started. --UpDown 08:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you stated something about my actions that was completely incorrect; there is a vast difference between disagreement and total (seemingly purposeful) misinterpretation. Further, you draw no respect for unfounded descriptions of your own arguments as being "more correct" and "NPOV." Prove why your view is "more correct"; illustrate how your view is "NPOV." None of us simply have to take your word for it.

If you wish to discuss this issue as it applies to other articles, so be it. But, I believe GoodDay is right in that currently the majority of those who've contributed to this debate support the inclusion of "and of the other Commonwealth realms." So, let's close this up and move it elsewhere.

And why don't you "prove" your view? As I said we disagree, and are unlikely ever to agree on this issue. I have said time and time again why I believe simply "British Royal Family" is more correct and more NPOV. If you chose to ignore my comments, fine, but don't ask me to waste my time repeating myself.

A majority of, 4 over 3, is not enough for you to say that the page should be changed. And I said there is a bigger issue here which obviously needs settling once for all. A decisision on this page should not be reached. A decision about the issue generally is what we need. I don't believe this can be had a the WikiProject, as I'm not sure it would attract enough people who are neutral on the subject, or indeed attract enough people generally. Perhaps a discussion on a MoS talk page is the best place. After a discussion hopefully a guideline would be formed, avoiding any further arguments like this. This page could then be changed or kep depending on what the agreed guideline is.--UpDown 08:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there a WikiProject page where we could discuss the UK, first among equals VS all are equal dispute? If not how do we create one? GoodDay 14:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a Wikipedia:WikiProject British Royalty, but the name of the WikiProject itself is up for dispute right off the bat! --G2bambino 16:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Though it probably won't succeed, I've just requested at that WikiProject, its name be changed to WikiProject: Commonwealth Royalty. GoodDay 16:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't appear to suggest it, I stated quite categorically that Canada had done something about defining the Canadian Royal Family and provided a link to it. However, I correct some of what I said. Apart from Canada, the other 14 Commonwealth realms have a relationship only with the monarch and not the Royal Family. Out of interest, is Frogmore Royal cemetery formally called the Royal Burial Ground? --Bill Reid | Talk 15:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, in reality there's no verifiable evidence that says the Royal Family has no relationship to the realms besides Canada and the UK. However, as I already said, there's evidence that the Royal Family undertakes official duties in Jamaica, Australia, etc., at the request of, and paid for by, only the governments of those countries; they do so as subjects of the Queen of that particular country, not as foreign dignitaries representing the UK. --G2bambino 15:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

So far (going by Bill's first posting), we've got a majority of editors who feel Royal family of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms is acceptable to add. When a consensus, a consensus? GoodDay 15:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I should have made myself clearer. I didn't mean to imply that the Royal Family didn't play a role in the Commonwealth realms, I was pointing out the constitutional position regarding the monarch. Only Canada has formalised things but the other 15 States still have their own Royal Family who happen to be the same people i.e the Royal Family of Australia, the Royal Family of New Zealand, etc who carry out ceremonial duties. --Bill Reid | Talk 17:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

:::Oh great, now the article is 'locked' (which is unfair to other editors, who aren't interested in our current discussion). Edit warriors never prosper, and the innocent suffer. GoodDay 14:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Intially, I was frustrated with the page being locked. Now, having reviewed G2's recent edit, I accept the logic behind it. Both terms should be omitted until we reach an agreement (or until a guideline for all these related articles can be created). GoodDay 15:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Tally

Two weeks after opening the RfC, the positions of editors on the use of "...and the other Commonwealth Realms" appear to stand as follows (please correct this if I've placed you inappropriately) --G2bambino 05:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC):

I don't think a majority of one really stands!--UpDown 08:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not surprising. --G2bambino 15:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I wonder whether you would have been happy with a majority of one if it worked the other way?

I would have had to have respected it until further changes. --G2bambino 17:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support
  • User:Ibagli
  • User:GoodDay
  • User:G2bambino
  • User:Billreid
• Oppose
  • User:TharkunColl
  • User:Lonewolf BC
  • User:UpDown

I'm considering taking the UK, first among equals VS all are equal dispute to one of the MoS pages (in hopes of getting a guideline). IMHO, these related disputes have to stop, does anyone agree with this move?, if so, which MoS page should I go to? GoodDay 14:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I totally and completly agree with taking to a MoS page. As I say above, a guideline would avoid annoying and time-wasting discussion like this. I can't think what page the discussion should be on though? --UpDown 08:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll also bring that suggestion to the Wikipedia: WikiProject British Royalty article discussion. GoodDay 17:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Surely the aim of the sentence in question is to succinctly inform the reader which distinguished people use the graveyard. I don't think it is necessary to give full information, especially as the phrase in question will be linked to a page explaining the multiple arduous roles these people stoically fulfill. Thehalfone 23:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the aim for succintness, but what do you mean by "full information"?

It should be noted here that ending discussion of this same matter at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty, the founder of the WikiProject stated:

"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 which the article concentrates (Britain unless stated elsewhere) will be used most often throughout the text, but only as primus inter pares, and never to the exclusion of all others in the article."

Save for my agreement, those involved in this debate fell silent after this was proposed to be made a guideline of Wikipedia:WikiProject British Royalty. --G2bambino 03:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

As a complete outsider to this debate (assuming it hasn't been resolved), can someone briefly explain to me why they believe that the more inclusive phrasing The Royal Family of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth Realms is such a bad thing? In life there is rarely a "perfect" solution. I understand some feel the longer wording is "pedantic". Even if its "pedantry", what harm is there in being more inclusive (and sensitive) to non-UK readers who feel a strong allegiance to the Royal family? Perhaps, the real issue here is "perfection of text" vs. "perfection of kindness"? Egfrank 18:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Because it is totally unnecessary and confusing to the reader. Common usage demands "British Royal Family", its as simple as that. Only G2bambino's POV (as seen especially with the current version of the page) can't accept that. --UpDown 08:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

What a hoot! Tell me, how can something verifiable through reliable sources be dubbed POV? --G2bambino 16:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Shall I find sources that refer to them as "British Royal Family"? Think I could, and they'd be verifiable as well. This isn't just about citation, its about common usage, and thats where your argument fails miserably. --UpDown 20:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to; we're all well aware they're referred to as the British Royal Family. But, despite what you say (and there you go again laying out your rules as to what matters and what doesn't) this is indeed about citation, because Wikipedia is all about verifiability, and the information contained within these verifiable citations, as well as many others, debunk your assertions that the royal family is "universally" (to use your own word) referred to as the "British Royal Family." Get it? They prove that to be false. Thus, you have to accept these verifiable facts as they are and work with it. I've acquiesced to your desire to see the UK separated and put first, you are now only being obstinate and sticking your head in the sand so as not to see that which you don't want to. --G2bambino 20:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

As you are aware they are referred as the British Royal Family, and this is universal. Except perhaps in Government sources, the world calls them the British Royal Family, as this page needs to reflect that. You really need to start seeing what common usage means, and no using your POV to ignore this.--UpDown 08:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

As you are aware they are referred to as the British Royal Family, and this is not universal; your "execptions" prove this without a doubt. How can you be so blazenly contradictory? Regardless, just because the world calls something "some name" doesn't mean Wikipedia has to: very often common usage is incorrect, and we don't change the facts in this encyclopaedia to suit ignorance (though, it can be mentioned that that something is often called "some name"). You rely too heavily on common usage to support your argument here; it takes you to a certain point, but only that far, and beyond which you simply state that your argument is irrefutible and start to ignore that which contradicts you, or, as above, start to contradict yourself. --G2bambino 16:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Which reader? Not all readers read text the same way, including you and the other guy. Egfrank 09:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but British Royal Family is a universally-known term. His versions are not.--UpDown 12:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

My goodness, I didn't know you could speak on behalf of the universe. That would explain why you believe we're all supposed to take what you say as god-given truth just because you said it. If you would like the exact words "British," "Royal," and "Family" to follow each other in that precise succession, as opposed to the somehow confounding "Royal Family of the United Kingdom," then that's fine, if we can work those three words into a way to express that the royal family using this burial plot isn't just British. --G2bambino 16:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Tell me honestly they are referred as something other than "British Royal Family". And yes they are just British. Time you accepted that its not your Monarchy, you have use Britain's, but its not yours. --UpDown 20:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Three words: Canadian... Royal... Family. Or, did you not follow the link in the article? --G2bambino 20:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

In what way are the family not just British? They were born in Britain, work there, and have lived their whole lives there. TharkunColl 16:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

We've been through this a thousand times already, Thark. You know full well why they're not just British. --G2bambino 16:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It's now 5-to-3 in favour of Commonwealth realms inclusion. GoodDay 16:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Not really sure thats accurate. And anyway, like deletion discussion, its not the number of votes, but the quality of the argument. --UpDown 20:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

As an outsider to this argument, can I just point out that the official site of the Monarchy in question http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page1.asp refers, clearly on the front page, to "The British Monarchy". That is the widest used term for the family, it's the term anyone around the globe knows for them. A quick search on "British Royal Family" gives 402,000 results on google, "Royal Family of the Commonwealth Realms" gives only links to these pages. It seems pretty clear which term should be used on an article like this Paul 1978 02:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That's the official site of the British monarchy (which, incidentally, refers in subpages to the Australian monarchy, New Zealand monarchy, Canadian monarchy, Jamaican monarchy, and the like). For another perspective, see the not so slick but equally valid website for the Canadian monarchy. So, obviously the royal family in question here is the royal family of more than just one country (again: Canadian Royal Family, anyone?). "Royal Family of the Commonwealth Realms" has been off the table for ages, and there's no objection to the use of "British Royal Family," as long, that is, as the words are part of a phrase that acknowledges it isn't just British. --G2bambino 03:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Per what Paul 1978 says, do a search for "Royal Family of the United Kingdom and the commonwealth realms", and again the hits are for Wikipedia and mirror sites. I would not object to a footnote saying something on the lines of "Due to the shared nature of the British Monarchy, its Royal Family are also the Royal Family of the other Commonwealth realms". Such a footnote could also be after "is a member of the British Royal Family" in lead of articles on family members themselves. Anyone like this idea?--UpDown 08:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

When using google hits to determine usage counts, its important to be sensitive to context, especially in geographic questions like this. See WP:Google test for other issues. For example, if all of the top ten google hits on the royal family come out of the UK, then you could be merely finding the "more common" usage only in the UK. The real question is what do Canadian, Australian, Jamacan etc most often use when talking about the royal family. If sites out of canada most often use "Canadian Royal family" or merely "Royal Family" then that might tell us that Candaian's prefer to use "Canadian" over alternatives. Have you looked at results from that perspective? Are there reasons why the google hits wouldn't be representative (there may well be)? Egfrank 12:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

But Surely on an article like this, "British Royal Family" is enough...once people click onto that article they can find out all the details about the other countries that she is also sovereign of. You seem to be confusing absolute accuracy (and i'd argue that you're wrong about your phrasing in that) and common usage...On a page like this, for a link, you should use the name which is most commonly used. After all, if you're doing an article which mentions that famous book by Jonathon Swift, would you use the name Gullivers Travels (which is strictly innacurate, but which it is most commonly known as), or the accurate Travels into Several Remote Nations of the World, in Four Parts. By Lemuel Gulliver, First a Surgeon, and then a Captain of several Ships...Would you refer to the statue in Picadilly Circus in London as the commonly used name Eros or the more accurate Shaftesbury Monument Memorial Fountain. Paul 1978 12:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You raise some interesting and valid points. But, I also think Egfrank is correct in that this is a geographic issue - or more accurately, a geo-political issue - where context matters; in this instance the family can officially be known as something completely different depending on the place being talked about, it isn't just a matter of abbreviation or slang, as your examples are. It's interesting that UpDown raises the possibility of a footnote (finally, the barrier starts to come down!); I'd been thinking something along the same lines last night. However, I'm not positive that in an instance like this just "British Royal Family" with an easily ignorable footnote is sufficient. What I wondered about was something along the lines of: the royal family shared by the Commonwealth realms; most often referred to as the British Royal Family, with a footnote, or, perchance, a better writing of the opening of the British Royal Family article. The above sentence would, of course, only be used in situations where the context is pan-national, such as here, or on articles of those members of the Royal Family who act on behalf of non-UK realm governments. --G2bambino 16:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The burial ground is in Britain. By your own contrived logic, the people buried there are therefore the British Royal Family. If they choose to get buried somewhere else, your specious arguments might carry a bit more weight. TharkunColl 16:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It isn't about literal geography, it's about jurisdiction. Along the same lines as what you were told elesewhere, there is only one family and no matter where they are geographically located they are always the royal family of all the Commonwealth realms, though, at that time, they may be acting on behalf of a particular realm as a member of the royal family of that realm. So, there you have the two contexts: either nation-specific or pan-national. Surely they weren't acting on behalf of the United Kingdom when they were buried. My god, does their service never end? --G2bambino 17:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if we could avoid comments like "finally, the barrier starts to come down!", you are making this unnecesarily personal. You seem unable to accept that if someone disagrees with you that doesn't make them wrong. Again your proposal "the royal family shared by the Commonwealth realms; most often referred to as the British Royal Family" is too wordy, and unnecessary. Simply British Royal Family with the footnote (actual wording of footnote aside). Footnotes are quite easy to click on and see what it is says, so I don't see a problem there. This footnote should also be used on articles on the family themselves (except the Queen & Charles'; where the openings do not, and should not, include the words "British Royal Family"). On these articles British Royal Family is quite sufficient.--UpDown 18:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

We'd completely avoid the comments if barriers weren't put up in the first place; and I mean barriers against the presence of sturdy evidence. Denying something exists is not the same as disagreeing with it. Please be clear on that.

Is my new proposal too wordy because it could communicate the same thing in a more condensed form? Or, is it too wordy just because it adds what you don't want? In this case "British Royal Family" isn't wordy enough; it doesn't communicate the facts relevant in this context, either fully or clearly. To do so, we're probably going to have to be a bit more wordy; as little as possible, but more none-the-less. Footnotes are often ignored, and I think that you're counting on this fact; this footnote thing is a way for you to shove that which you don't wish to acknowledge, if not completely out of Wikipedia, then at least into the recesses of footnotedom.

In case it didn't occur to you, I've been trying to compose something that makes you happy. First it was "royal family of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms"; separate UK, place it first. Then it was "royal family shared by the Commonwealth realms, most often referred to as the British Royal Family"; separate out UK, specifically use "British Royal Family" for reader comprehension. What have you done? Offer to shove the shared notion off into a footnote. The text of the article itself needs to stand on its own; footnotes, or, in Wikipedia's case, a link to an associated article, only offer some added clarity. We should not rely on those two options, though, when composing (see Talk:Canada for an even more lengthy discussion on the formulation of just one sentence). --G2bambino 19:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Footnote

Footnotes are acceptable; for the sake of the articles let's adopt their usage. GoodDay 18:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Do we have agreement with in articles like these we say British Royal Family with the footnote? Of course this page can't be changed yet.--UpDown 18:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No. --G2bambino 19:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::For the sake of the articles, please accept. GoodDay 19:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I wonder who here has heard of the band XTC? I mention it because during the 80s they recorded a couple of albums under the name The Dukes of Stratosphear, which was technically a different band, but with precisely the same people in it. Do we therefore have to mention The Dukes of Stratosphear every time we mention XTC? Of course not, because it is obvious which of those two bands is the primary one. TharkunColl 21:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Does "every time" have anything to do with this discussion? Please stop trying to derange the debate. --G2bambino 21:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Tharky, do you accept UpDown's idea - use footnotes? GoodDay 21:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have no objection to that. So it would be something like: British Royal Family TharkunColl 23:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, okay, if it's going to be a footnote, then the footnote should read: The Royal Family in question, though predominantly known as the British Royal Family, is actually shared amongst the Commonwealth realms. See: Commonwealth realm: Royal Family. I'll then add the piped section to Commonwealth realm. This situation needs adequate explanation. --G2bambino 22:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll go along with that. GoodDay 22:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I also go along with the wording above.--UpDown 10:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It's just more pedantry I'm afraid. "The Royal Family in question" simply sounds insulting. TharkunColl 23:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Tharky, G2 has 'begrudgingly' accepted having Commonwealth realms as a footnote, a huge olive branch move on his part. Now, it's your turn, agree to G2's discripition in it. GoodDay 23:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"The royal family mentioned here, though predominantly known as the British Royal Family..." Or, how about: "The royal family that uses the Royal Burial Ground is shared amongst the Commonwealth realms, though is predominantly referred to as the British Royal Family"? F*ck's sake, I'm trying so hard to bite my tongue right now... --G2bambino 23:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

After over a year of this schism, a solution is in sight. Tharky please for the sake of the articles themselves -shake hands-. GoodDay 23:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

What's the opinon of the others, who've been involved here. GoodDay 23:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

How about, "The British Royal Family is also..." Note the use of also there, rather than just is on its own. Because surely even G2 would agree that it is indeed also those other things. TharkunColl 23:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That defeats the purpose of the footnote. --G2bambino 23:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This is good -communicating-, though we're yet to hear from the others, it's good to see the both of you haggling. The both of you (G2 & Tharky) have been head butting over this topic longer then the rest of us - It's great to see you 'both' trying to work things out. GoodDay 23:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Surely the purpose of the footnote is to explain that the British Royal Family is also the royal family of those other places. What over purpose can it possibly have? TharkunColl 23:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of the footnote is to explain that the royal family is shared, but also why, despite that, the term "British Royal Family" is being used. --G2bambino 23:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The British Royal Family is not the RF of the Commonwealth realms. They have in common with each other that the same people occupy the RFs of the realms but this need not always be the case e.g. Canada had Angus Ogilvie as a member of its RF while the UK did not. I have put an alternative footnote below.

I still have an issue with the article title; shouldn't it be Royal burial ground? --Bill Reid | Talk 10:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, and according to its website the Canadian RF still has Angus Ogilvie as a member, even though in the UK he's been dead for some time. Given this, can we say for sure that his inclusion was not just a matter of sloppy research by people who didn't really care that much? Are we really to believe that different people are in the RF depending on which realm we're talking about? TharkunColl 13:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The official website gives the Canadian RF and Angus Ogilvy is not mentioned; see [3] There is no doubt that he was officially a member but you may well be correct so a verifiable citation should do the trick.

Now about the article title ....... --Bill Reid | Talk 14:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's settle the footenote's context first, then discuss the page title. Don't forget folks, the footnote we decide on, should be added to the WikiProject pages concerning this topic - as it effect pages like this one (Royal Burial Ground). GoodDay 15:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my wording: the footnote is to explain that the royal family is shared, but also why, despite that, the term "British Royal Family" is being used. I don't think the Angus Ogilvy thing is a big issue; there is an official list of royal famliy members in various countries, but a royal family need not be officially defined. In other words: there are official and non-official royals (like Peter Phillips).

I'm also not sure, GoodDay, that this exact format should be applied to all other articles; but, let's not go there yet. Let's settle this first. --G2bambino 16:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was overcome by a wave of high hopes for closure. GoodDay 16:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm on the verge of asking for this page to be unprotected.

As for the other articles, I'm thinking specifically about certain members of the Royal Family who undertake official duties on behalf of non-UK realms. But, like I said, I think that's another issue all-together. This footnote thing can just go everywhere else. --G2bambino 16:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem, whatever gets the traffic going. Get'er done. GoodDay 16:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think G2's note below, note 2, isn't really all that bad. At least it's concise. TharkunColl 16:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

No argument here. #2 version? no problem. GoodDay 16:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not mine, and I don't approve of it. It should say: The Royal Family is shared amongst the Commonwealth realms, though is commonly referred to as the British Royal Family. See: Commonwealth realm: Royal Family. One of the reasons for the footnote is so that we don't have to be all that consise. --G2bambino 16:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me folks, I'm sobbing at the momment. GoodDay 16:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Didn't you have some sort of Canadian high court ruling from only a few years ago that referred to it as the British Crown? TharkunColl 16:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't bring up the irrelevant to purposefully confuse the matter. ---- G2bambino (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Howabout this version: The Royal Family of the Commonwealth realms, internationally known as the British royal family. GoodDay 16:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I fear there'd be objections to "Royal Family of the Commonwealth realms"; UpDown thinks that's a title. There's absolutely nothing wrong with my wording. ---- G2bambino (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes my note but to go with an opening paragraph such as: The Frogmore Royal burial ground is a cemetery used by the Royal Family.^[2] It surrounds the Royal Mausoleum on the Frogmore estate in the Home Park at Windsor in Berkshire, England. -- Bill Reid | Talk 16:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Per your note: no. It's self evident that the British Royal Family is the royal family of the United Kingdom; there is no need to have a footnote to affirm this fact.[Struck out as I see you meant to have the opening say just "Royal Family."] If we really must be consise it could be: The royal family of the Commonwealth realms is predominantly referred to as the British Royal Family. See:Commonwealth realm: Royal Family. The directing link will be important.[Strike that as well: I used "royal family of the Commonwealth realms," to which UpDown objects. So, it's back to my last proposal.] ---- G2bambino (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

No, because the phrase "predominantly referred to" implies that the designation is somehow wrong. -- TharkunColl (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

In this context it is insufficient. You know that. ---- G2bambino (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

That's no good as an opening line, because it doesn't say which royal family. -- TharkunColl (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There's gotta be a way to combine these 3 versions. -- GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You either keep it general in the opening line then footnote to a specific meaning or you make it explicit in the opening line and not have a footnote. --Bill Reid | Talk 17:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

So far myself, Bill and Tharky accept version #2; G2 rejects it. What's UpDown opinon (seeing as Ibagli hasn't posted in lately)? -- GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry GoodDay but note 2 falls if the opening sentence isn't changed. --Bill Reid | Talk 17:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. And I do have to agree with Thark that "Royal Family" is just too vague. ---- G2bambino (talk) 17:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Will those who presented those 'notes' below, please sign their moniker(s), before I go bunkers? -- GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

In which case the sentences should read something like:

The Frogmore Royal burial ground is a cemetery used by the Royal Family of the realms of the United Kingdom and Commonwealth. It surrounds the Royal Mausoleum on the Frogmore estate in the Home Park at Windsor in Berkshire, England.---Bill Reid | Talk 17:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, yea, I could go with that; except, the UK is a realm of the Commonwealth. ---- G2bambino (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

True; then how about:

The Frogmore Royal burial ground is a cemetery used by the Royal Family of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms. It surrounds the Royal Mausoleum on the Frogmore estate in the Home Park at Windsor in Berkshire, England.

Let's go with that. PS- ya forgot to sign your post. -- GoodDay (talk) 18:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol. That takes us right back full circle. That's the exact phrase I had put into the article to which these people objected. I still support it's inclusion, though I'd decapitalise "royal family" as it's not being used as a title in this case. ---- G2bambino (talk) 18:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh boy, I need to see a shrink. -- GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but what has happended to the whole footnote idea? I thought we'd agreed on that. I am not happy about "the Royal Family of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms", as I have stated several times. I though we'd agreed on saying "the British Royal Family", followed by a footnote (the one written by G2bambino).--UpDown (talk) 13:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The footnote idea has been adopted -- the dispute now is the context of the footnote. GoodDay (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

A need to cut through the pedantry

The people who are buried on the Frogmore estate are the British Royal Family. This needs to be stated up front. That the British Royal Family reign over 15 other countries in certainly true, but is it really necessary to mention it in this particular article? It is fully pointed out in their own article, which is linked to. TharkunColl (talk) 00:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

We've got Commonwealth realms off the article's main context and reduced to a footnote. Oh, and yes - we have to mention Commonwealth realms in the footnote. GoodDay (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine. What's wrong with a really simple footnote along the lines of "The British Royal Family also reign over 15 other Commonwealth realms". TharkunColl (talk) 09:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Because that's incorrect. The royal family doesn't "reign." The British Royal Family need not be singled out in this context, except to explain that common usage labels them as the "British Royal Family." This is not an excuse for you to continue your outmoded, rule-Britannia POV. --G2bambino (talk) 13:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, thought this had been settled. We say British Royal Family, for reasons mainly being common usage, and then a footnote.--UpDown (talk) 13:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

That's been settled. However G2 & Tharky are arguing about what the footnote's context should be. GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Once again G2 is misrepresenting my arguments in order to discredit them. They have nothing to do with "outmoded, rule-Britannia POV", as he calls them, but the simple fact that 15 sovereign countries, formerly in the British Empire, choose to retain the British monarchy as their own. This does not make them any less sovereign, because they could repudiate it at any time (as 16 already have). If any nationalist agenda is at play here, it is clearly G2's, who seems to have some sort of chip on his shoulder at the idea that his country doesn't actually have its own monarchy, and has selectively read the evidence in order to convince himself that it does. TharkunColl (talk) 16:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Err guys, things are starting to unravel a little. GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It's time for that dirty word, Compromise. Here's how I see it -- the UK, first among equals side gets the 'article context' (British with a footnote); the All are equal side gets the 'footnote context'. Now, let's wrap this up please. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I couldn't agree more. This really needs to be ended now.--UpDown (talk) 17:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Can we at least agree to something besides the utterly horrific protected version? I'm incredibly sick of Bambino's constant crusade to include a mention of the Commonwealth Realms every damned time there is a reference to the British royal family, no matter how tedious and irrelevant this pedantry is, and in this article, given how tangential this issue is to the content of the article, it is particularly unfortunate. But the offensiveness of the current version of the page is several levels beyond the normal obnoxiousness, in that it mentions Canada and none of the other commonwealth realms, which is pretty clearly a POV violation. john k (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope, the current setup was the result of people insisting on nothing other than verifiable information. What's there now is verifiable and cited. I know it will be hard for you, John, but perhaps you could set your haughty snobbery aside for a moment and explain to us how something cited and verifiable is POV. Hmmm? --G2bambino (talk) 20:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Can your avoid perhaps comments which appears to be personal remarks. As before your tone is not polite or assuming good faith.--UpDown (talk) 20:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that it was necessary to react that way to a snide and condescending commentary, but please don't lecture me on tone while letting others away with it without comment. It's hypocritical. --G2bambino (talk) 20:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Have no fear, if the (above) compromise indorsed by myself & UpDown, is accepted? Then all those articles will have harmony. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with your proposed compromise, though I suspect G2 will wish to push his POV in the wording of the footnote. TharkunColl (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

As long as it stays in the footnote. GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It depends on how blatant it is. If it contains any suggestion that the term "British Royal Family" is merely what they happen to be most commonly called, it will be going too far because it will be implying a falsehood. They are not merely called that - they are that. TharkunColl (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

How about the statement about the Commonwealth Realms in British Royal Family: "Apart from the United Kingdom, the Queen and other members of the Royal Family regularly perform public duties in the other fifteen Commonwealth Realms in which the Queen is Head of State," or some modification of it? john k (talk) 18:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's first see what the rest think of the compromise proposal. So far myself & UpDown (and I assume G2bambino) accept it. GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I will then just say that while I think the ideal solution to these issues would be to ban G2 as an inveterate POV pusher, in the absence of that happening I'll accept this, so long as the footnote is not worded in a misleading fashion. john k (talk) 18:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol. What a joke you are. --G2bambino (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Another personal remark. Please stop these, they appear to be coming more frequent.--UpDown (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you admonishing me for personal remarks because you agree with John's insulting commentary about not only my motive, but also my character? --G2bambino (talk) 20:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thinking further on this: I do apologise. Though John's done nothing to add to this discussion, and this isn't the first time he's introduced himself into a debate by throwing around judgemental insults about other parties, I should't sink to his level. I am getting frustrated, but I shall try to control myself. --G2bambino (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Making the remark was foolish, and I apologize for making the discussion personal, which was pointless and counterproductive. john k (talk) 23:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

That's the spirit guys. GoodDay (talk) 23:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not the compromise being proposed: It's article content to the UK, first among equals editors & footnote content to the All are equal editors. Come on guys, please let's end this schism. GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean that G2 gets to write the footnote? That's unacceptable. john k (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

And it's unacceptable to me too. TharkunColl (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

We have a choice -- agree to the compromise as is or article edit wars may occur anew (something I dread passionately, as seen at my personal page). GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

No, of course he doesn't get to write it. But he does of course get a say on it, and we have to comprimse.--UpDown (talk) 19:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

That is a sensible position. But is that how GoodDay interprets the "compromise"? john k (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Outside opinions

Hmm, we need an outsider, somebody who can't be suspected of bias, to come up with the 'footnote content' -- Anybody agree? GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the 'outsider' comes up with, I'll accept unconditionally. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If the "outsider" is familiar with - or familiarises himself with - the complexity of the subject matter. Also, the person should not be in a position to have a nationalistic conflict of interest (which seems to be the driving force of this neverending dispute). --G2bambino (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to bringing in someone previously uninvolved to deal with this, but I'm not willing to accept anything in advance, without knowing what the content of it is. I think it would be preferable for us to try to come up with a formula that is acceptable to everyone involved. I don't see that bringing in someone from outside will necessarily help us to all agree on anything. I will add that I am not sure what would constitute "suspicion of bias." If it means, as G2 says, someone without a nationalistic conflict of interest, that's fine. That being said, I don't have a nationalistic conflict of interest (I'm American), and I'm sure I would be an entirely unacceptable "outsider", and be considered to be "biased." So I'm not sure what we're trying to accomplish here - do we simply want someone who hasn't already expressed their opinion about this? I'm not sure I see how that's especially useful. john k (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm still sticking to accepting a 'neutral/non-Commonwealth member/outsider editor's version - unconditionally. If a self-proclaimed republican can make that leap? There's hope. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

How would we ensure that an outside party, unaquainted with the subject matter, would not be swayed by G2's tendentious and biased presentation of the facts? After all, G2 has managed to distort untold numbers of articles with his POV. It seems that single-issue obsessives are able to push their agendas far too easily on Wikipedia, perhaps because the rest of us don't care enough. TharkunColl (talk) 00:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The outsider must not be influenced by any of us. By the way, who's going to look for an outsider? Should the 'outsider' be an Administrator? GoodDay (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

But such a person will be so influenced, because G2 will bombard him with "facts", and keep on talking and arguing until everyone else gives up out of boredom. I see no reason why John K should not be the outside arbiter. He is clearly familiar with the subject matter. TharkunColl (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Goodness me; imagine actually wanting to ground ourselves with facts. I think you've just clearly summed up your whole problem: you will not accept verifiable, cited facts. This attitude of yours is exactly what leads to these endless discussions, and runs contrary to Wikipedia policy. --G2bambino (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I recommend we get Administrator Owen (whom I found randomly). Checked him out -- He's an anarchist. There's no way any of us can influence him (as he's anti-government). GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyways, that's my nomination for an Arbitrator. GoodDay (talk) 01:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability

I'm fairly sure that I should not be an outside arbiter or mediator, as I have made my opinions on the subject far too clear to be acceptable to those who disagree with me. I might add that while I have no politically biases or preconceptions on this subject, it would have to be fairly clear to anyone reading this page that I do have personal biases against G2, derived from previous discussions on similar topics, which ought to be make me unacceptable as any kind of impartial arbiter. As to GoodDay's suggestion. I would certainly not think that being an anarchist is any particular recommendation. If we are to find someone, it should be someone sensible and knowledgeable in the requisite areas, who has not previously expressed an opinion as to the subject. Such a person might be difficult to find. Would it not be better to work together on our own to determine the wording of the (unfortunately apparently necessary) footnote? G2 and I have rarely agreed on any issue of substance relating to this subject, but we have, on occasion, been able to agree on specific wordings, and I think a direct approach is a) most likely to lead to a speedy conclusion; and b) most likely to lead to a conclusion acceptable to all parties. I made a proposition earlier, to base the text of the footnote on that found in British royal family, specifically: Apart from the United Kingdom, the Queen and other members of the Royal Family regularly perform public duties in the other fifteen Commonwealth Realms in which the Queen is Head of State. I now revive that suggestion. I also continue to plead that the current formulation be changed. I would much rather have "the royal family of the United Kingdom and other commonwealth realms" to the current ridiculous formulation where there is an entire clause in the first sentence of an article about a cemetery devoted to explaining that the people buried in said cemetery are occasionally referred to as the Canadian Royal family. The current version is embarrassing for everyone involved. john k (talk) 01:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The current version is indeed "embarassing" and does show the POV that G2bambino has. But to the point, I am happy with the footnote suggested by JohnKenney above.--UpDown (talk) 12:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

And you continue to ignore the question I asked earlier: How can something verifiable and cited be POV? Can't just keep ignoring that as though it isn't there. --G2bambino (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Three reasons: undue weight, undue weight, and undue weight. Verifiability has nothing to do with POV. There's all kinds of true statements that shouldn't go into articles, because they give a misleading impression. john k (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Verfiability has everything to do with POV, especially in this case. Everyone is bandying about the accusations of POV, as though everything the other party says is made up fantasy. However, the reality is that, in a sense, everyone's right to a degree. But here's where you touch on a very important part of this debate: misleading impressions. Some people state that it's misleading to refer to the Royal Family as anything other than British; others state that to only refer to them as British is misleading. The judgement then comes down to who's view is supported by evidence, and whose is not; as I said below, we need to decide if they are just British or they are not just British. There is evidence to support the latter, and not much evidence to support the former - none, as far as I can see. So, then, which is truly personal POV? Remember, this is not a fight over common usage; everyone admits they're most frequently dubbed the British Royal Family. The issue is whether or not that is actually sufficient to represent accurately the status of the family shared equally amongst sixteen sovereign states. --G2bambino (talk) 23:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Your POV comes in when you say that they are only the British Royal Family in the UK, and that on those few occassions they do things in other realms they are not the British Royal Family. This is absurd and ridiculous. And the family is not shared equally. They were born, live and work in Britain, their homeland. TharkunColl (talk) 23:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I never said they were not the British Royal Family outside of the UK. They are the British Royal Family all the time, as much as they are the Canadian Royal Family all the time. Need I refer you, yet again, to the apt words that someone expressed to you about a similar matter? The point is that when they are in another realm, acting on behalf of that realm, they are not doing so as members of the UK's royal family; they represent that state, not the UK. Thus, they are not just British. --G2bambino (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

footnote, again

Since the 'outsider' idea has been rejected (I felt it needed unaminous support) - I'm 'gulp' out of ideas. GoodDay (talk) 01:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

::Whatever you guys want in the footnote, is fine with me. GoodDay (talk) 02:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I too support John Kenney's footnote content (thus making it '3' in favour). GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, JK's footnote suggestion makes little sense here. Why say what duties the Royal Family undertakes in other realms? As I said earlier, the point of the footnote is to explain that this particular royal family is not just British, but is most commonly referred to as the British Royal Family. JK's suggestion doesn't address this. --G2bambino (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The duties part, I will agree, is somewhat dubious and beside the point. But, of course, this whole issue is entirely beside the point. The extent to which the royal family is "not just British" is in fact, under debate. The term "Canadian royal family" is used in some contexts, although it remains unclear if it has any official meaning. "Australian royal family," etc., may or may not be used. None of them, though, have any official recognition in law the way that the British royal family does. Furthermore, the article Canadian Royal Family was overwhelmingly voted to be deleted/merged into Canadian monarchy, more than a year ago. I recommend everybody take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Royal Family, where the general opinion of wikipedia was rather overwhelmingly expressed against G2's ideas - the vote was something like 23 to 3. You are refighting a battle you lost over that page over here, in a context where it is overwhelmingly less relevant. I'm beginning to think that any kind of mention of this issue here is a bad idea. With this precedent set, I imagine that G2 is going to go to every other page where the British royal family is mentioned, and insist on adding a footnote. A link to British royal family, which describes the royal family's relations with the commonwealth realms, ought to be sufficient. This is, in fact, how wikipedia works - material which is not specifically relevant to a particular article is not discussed there, but another article that discusses the issue is linked. Anything beyond this is both a violation of POV and a violation of good writing. For the sake of comity, I'm willing to accept something along the lines of my note (and I am by no means committed to the particular wording, which G2 has pointed out some flaws in that I was already aware of). But my very strong preference is that nothing about this subject be mentioned in the article. I am beginning to think that I would prefer a simple statement in the text to a footnote. A statement that it is the burial ground of members of the "royal family of the United Kingdom and fifteen other commonwealth realms" would, I think, be stylistically more felicitous than a footnote, while a footnote implies that this is actually an important issue which it is relevant to discuss in the article. It is not an important issue to discuss in the article. There is absolutely no reason to specifically mention it. Just using it as part of a sentence is not ideal, but is mostly harmless. A footnote or, God forbid, the current text, could be fairly detrimental. I'm beginning to think the "compromise" is rather like King Solomon's compromise - worse than either of the other options. We should avoid creating compromises that make the article worse than either of the individual sides would make it on its own. john k (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

John, please don't make this about something else; this is confusing enough as it is. The separate article "Canadian Royal Family" was deleted, but the content was moved, verbatim, to Canadian monarchy, and has since been expanded upon. It relies on verifiable and cited text.

That, in itself, presents evidence that the royal family we're talking about here isn't just British. Further, regardless of the absence of sourced evidence pointing to the existence of a royal family of Australia, Jamaica, and the like, one has to seriously consider this question: when a member of the Royal Family acts in an official capacity at the direction of these realms' governments, are they doing so as foreign dignitaries representing the monarch of another country, or are they doing so as representatives of that particular state and its monarch? The answer to that question will further clarify what the family is and isn't.

If they aren't just British (and the Canadian evidence alone proves that they are not) then using the term British Royal Family is justified only by common usage; however, as already noted, common usage is not always accurate or communicates the proper information. Thus, the need for added words, either in the body of the article, in a footnote, or in some different explanation at the head of British Royal Family. --G2bambino (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Setting aside the broader questions of whether there is a Papua New Guinean royal family, what is the "proper information"? Why does all this dubious constitutional gobbledygook need to be communicated in this article? I've resigned myself to articles on the monarchy, or the royal family generally, including it, but this is a simple little article about a cemetery. What is the relevance? Is it really necessary that every time a reader might be confronted with the term "British royal family" we have to include this nonsense? john k (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

My intent, anyway, wasn't to include "constitutional gobbledygook" in this article; I was trying to find the most consise way to express a certain situation that's relevant in this context, and other articles that focus on a similar context - i.e. that where the crown/monarch/royal family is not specifically tied to any one country; a pan-national context, if you will.

I'm starting to see that the crux of the problem may come down to two things being known by the same name, which is further complicated by the fact that those two things are physically one thing.

In essence, we have a vaguely defined group of people called a royal family. As the royal family of the United Kingdom they are the British Royal Family. However, in other jurisdictions they act as the royal family of that country, not as that of the United Kingdom. Still, in that pan-national scope, the group is predominantly dubbed as the British Royal Family. Context, hence, becomes very important; if this isn't expressed clearly, the result is thr misleading impression (which you touched on above) that countries are represented by a foreign royal family. --G2bambino (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The idea of United Kingdom and fifteen other commonwealth realms in the main article, was already rejected (I thought). GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

John, I think the present version of the article is because the padlock was snapped on before it could be changed to something different.

In the article Royal tours of Canada, the opening sentence is Members of the Royal Family have visited Canada numerous times since the late 18th century. No mention of Canadian RF or British RF. I put forward above a similar approach by simply saying Royal Family and footnoting with The Royal Family is the royal family of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth realms. Having said that I think there is a strong case for articles that contain references to the RF or the monarch in purely British articles for them to be described as British and this article is about a British cemetry. Similarly, articles such as the Royal Tours of ...... etc, should describe the RF as Canadian Royal Family, Australian Royal Family and so on. In these cases providing the footnote against the RF/monarch would still convey the role of the Commonwealth realms. --Bill Reid | Talk 17:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

G2 has defended the present version of the article several times on this talk page, but otherwise, there does seem to be general agreement that it is bad, yes. Beyond that, the idea of symmetricality between Britain and her former colonies with respect to the monarchy, while obviously legally true, is bound to be misleading for readers. Referring to the "Canadian royal family" or the "Australian royal family" without referring to the fact that these royal families are, in fact, the same as the British royal family is going to confuse people. Referring to the British royal family without mentioning the Commonwealth Realms will confuse nobody. It seems to be this that G2 and others are largely objecting to - if the Canadian monarchy has to be explained with reference to the British one, then the British monarchy has to be explained with reference to the Canadian one. But this is putting pedantry above actually doing service to our readers. This issue was already debated, when "Canadian royal family" was deleted. The position that everything has to be treated as equivalent was overwhelmingly rejected then, and rightly so. Opening the issue again covertly here, and presumably elsewhere, is inappropriate. This article has nothing to do with all this, and is suffering from this hijacking of all discussion towards a completely irrelevant issue. Why can't we just leave it as "British royal family" and leave it in peace. There is nothing inaccurate about saying "British royal family", and nothing particularly misleading. Any potential confusion can be assuaged by the link to British royal family. Why must we fight this same nonsense over and over again? john k (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Please be careful with what you say; I did not defend the present text, I explained why it is presently there.

Also, it's not up to you to decide what is relevant and what is not.

Please see my above response to you for my further opinion on this. --G2bambino (talk) 17:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, it is not up to me alone to decide what is relevant, but of course I can have an opinion of what is relevant, and I can endeavor to have that opinion reflected in the article. I have as much right to argue for this not to be included as being irrelevant, as you do to argue that it should be included as being relevant, surely? john k (talk) 18:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course you're allowed your opinion. However it appears as though you're treating your opinion as an established conclusion. --G2bambino (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it has already been settled. The most common usage & international recognized version is British. That can't be disputed. GoodDay (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

No, and it has not been disputed. Stupidly, though, this keeps getting raised again and again. This says to me that people are dancing around the actual issue rather than dealing with it. --G2bambino (talk) 17:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

And can we finally do something about the awful opening paragraph on Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, which relegates the UK to the place where the Queen just happens to live? TharkunColl (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

What precisely is inaccurate or inappropriate about the paragraph? Maybe you should take it to the article. --Bill Reid | Talk 18:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear god, no. The present wording is in no way incorrect, and it was decided upon by a very lengthy process. There is no need to delve back into that again. --G2bambino (talk) 23:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh oh! where's my football helmet? GoodDay (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It's all a mess. john k (talk) 18:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Are we gonna have a poll on John Kenney's 'Footnote context proposal'? Or is that idea 'thrown out'? GoodDay (talk) 17:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Facts

But such a person will be so influenced, because G2 will bombard him with "facts".TharkunColl (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to highlight this little titbit from Thark; I think it reveals much about what makes these discussions start, and stops them from ending. This admission, taken in conjunction with the systematic deletion of text and its supporting cites from a number of articles, shows that this one editor refuses to accept established facts, something that clearly violates Wikipedia's verifiability and no point of view policies. I'm not going to say that my compositions or ways of communicating certain information is ideal, but the facts always remain of central importance to what ends up becoming an exercise in syntax. For Thark, however, this is actually a battle to suppress information, which is clearly censorious and disruptive. How do we proceed (not just here, but also at places such as Commonwealth realm, where Thark has again been reverting and removing cited material)? --G2bambino (talk) 17:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

And you repeatedly fail to understand that something being a fact is not sufficient to warrant its coinclusion in an article. Furthermore, your facts often come close to taking the form of OR, in inferring novel conclusions from your source material. john k (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Not really. --G2bambino (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

For example, G2 has suppressed the fact that the Secretary General of the Commonwealth recently stated that the 15 realms still retain the British monarch. And a recent Canadian court ruling referred to the Crown as the British Crown, and another advised a person who wished to alter the laws of succession to pursue his claim in the English courts. These examples have simply been ignored, or removed through special pleading. This is not an inbiased presentation of the facts. TharkunColl (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. The court case you refer to is used as a reliable source in a number of articles. Your Secretary General's words aren't suppressed; they just don't, on their own, stand up against the plethora of other evidence that proves your interpretation of his speech to be incorrect. To maintain your version of the truth, you continuously remove - and I mean simply delete - any verifiable information and associated sources that contradict you. You've at least now admitted that you aren't interested in any facts which undermine your POV. I really feel that until this particular problem is resolved, these disputes really never will end. --G2bambino (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Just when, precisely, did I "admit" to not being interested in facts? It is you who have consistently shown a bias to those facts that support your POV, ignoring all others. I am merely presenting the other side of the coin. You cannot use facts to build a case of your own, because that is against Wikipedia policy. TharkunColl (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Building a case is not my goal; expressing subtle complexities in an accurate and understandable way is. Until you accept the facts, and stop deleting referenced material, this disruption will go on indefinitely. --G2bambino (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank goodness the realms within the Commonwealth, don't bicker this way. GoodDay (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm gonna get lambasted for this. Is there any possible way we can reach an agreement without G2 and Tharky being involved. I'm getting annoyed with their continous bickering. GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I'm getting sick of having to constantly bicker with him. That's the whole reason I highlighted his statement regarding the use of facts. --G2bambino (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The facts are crystal clear: G2 will never give up All are equal & Tharky will never give up UK, first among equals -- How's a compromise gonna come out of that? GoodDay (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you're simplifying the case; equal and not-equal depends on context and focus. Thark just refuses to accept that such variances do, in fact, exist. --G2bambino (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

When a deal is reached, I fear one of you (Tharky or G2) will protest (through edit wars) until being banned. Gentlemen, I hope things don't come to that. GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Issue

I didn't want this to get lost in the effuse discussion above, and as I feel it may be an important point to consider in this matter, I want to draw it out here.

I'm starting to see that the crux of the problem may come down to the fact that two things are known by the same name, which is further complicated by the fact that those two things are physically one thing: One family is the royal family of the UK, and thus is the British Royal Family. That same family simultaneously is the royal family of 15 other sovereign states and thus is not purely British, but is still commonly referred to in this pan-national scope as the British Royal Family.

Hence, context becomes very important; if this isn't expressed clearly, the result is the misleading impression that countries are represented by foreigners in a foreign royal family.

That is not to say that this complexity need be expressed in an article like this, beyond, perhaps, either a brief footnote or a consise composition in the text around the term "British Royal Family" in the lead of this article. I'm thinking that the place to clarify this dual use of the term "British Royal Family" is at the article of that name and how the family is related to the realms at Commonwealth realm; what is most important here is links to the future sections of those articles.

Does this seem plausible? --G2bambino (talk) 00:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I fervently agree that it would be best to deal with the issue in one or two central locations, and to avoid discussion of it in articles where its relevance is tangential at best, like this one. I'll suggest that, for this article, it is a lot more natural for the link to British Royal Family to do most of the work in this regard, since it requires considerably less contortion of the article to link to that than it does to link to Commonwealth realm. Anyway, this suggests a possible way forward, which is pleasing. john k (talk) 06:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Currently, the article British Royal Family contains almost no discussion about their role overseas - as if one shouldn't even mention it there. On the contrary, it needs extensive discussion there. As for G2's statement above, I would dispute the assertion that the British are "foreigners" to the Commonwealth realms. They certainly aren't foreigners under British law, anyway, hence the name of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Commonwealth citizens are accorded certain rights in the UK not accorded to foreigners. But, having taken that into account, what he says is actually perfectly true - the Commonwealth realms other than the UK do indeed have a "foreigner" (i.e. a person from another country) as their head of state. This is purely their own choice, and does not imply lack of sovereignty. Furthermore, the Royal Family is completely British - to assert otherwise is merely to follow G2's POV interpretation of the facts. TharkunColl (talk) 08:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thark, read what I say carefully; that too would help us move ahead with much less resistance. I did not say the royals are considered foreigners in the non-UK realms. I said that royals attending official ceremonies at the behest of a non-UK realm's government as members of the UK royal family would mean they were representing a foreign crown, not that realm's. UK law does not apply to anywhere outside the UK, so the exceptions for Commonwealth citizens there does not necessarily exist anywhere else, and therefore has nothing to do with this particular situation.

But, in your rush to declare everything you don't like as POV - a common ruse you use to hide behind - you've managed to contradict yourself in just one paragraph. On one hand you say the royals are not foreigners in the non-UK realms, but then say the Queen is! It seems you're applying your own definition of "foreign" in whatever way suits your stance. Well, sorry, but you can't have it like that. The countries do choose to have someone born elsewhere to be their head of state - but this does not make her a foreigner to those states; no more so than Philip is a foreigner to the UK, or Michaëlle Jean is a foreigner to Canada. And, indeed, this whole tangent is an irrelevant distraction intended to derail the conversation: where they were born is of no importance to us now. We're not talking about a group called the British Royal Family because it is a family made up of British people (which it actually isn't), we're discussing a group called the British Royal Family because it is the royal family of the United Kingdom, just as it is called the Canadian Royal Family (less frequently) because it is the royal family of Canada. I don't know how many times I have to say this: context matters.

As the confusion tends to arise in the pan-national context, I'd say the place to sort it out is at Commonwealth realm; British Royal Family should remain the article about the royal family specifically as that of the United Kingdom. That doesn't mean, however, that brief mention not be made here, and wherever else appropriate, to direct readers to that specific section of "Commonwealth realm" that expands upon the matter. --G2bambino (talk) 16:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It's easy to conceal this when we're talking about Canadians or Australians, who are largely white and of British descent. It's much more difficult to assert that the Princess Royal is actually a Solomon Islander, or that Prince Michael of Kent is a Jamaican. But no reason to argue about this here, if we all actually agree that British Royal Family and Commonwealth realm are the places to deal with this stuff. john k (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where anyone inferred that the intent was to establish nationalities for the individual members of the Royal Family; it isn't necessary. --G2bambino (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I wish Tharky would not use the It's our monarchy, not yours- theme. Such statements (which don't upset me personally), aren't helping things along. GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that comment wasn't terribly constructive. john k (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we get back on the more constructive tack? It seems to me that British Royal Family is an article not about the royal family specifically as that of the United Kingdom, but about the British royal family in all contexts in which it operates. Members of the British royal family occasionally perform royal duties in Canada, or Jamaica, or wherever. That is a fact about the British royal family. Think of the article British Royal Family as being analagous to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom - it is about the family, not about a particular role of that family, even if the Britishness is being highlighted by the article title. Even in Canada, the British royal family is most commonly known as the British royal family (when it's not called just "the royal family," obviously). It seems perfectly reasonable to discuss it there. john k (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree - the article British Royal Family should describe everything the family does, in any part of the world. TharkunColl (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

*Sigh* It seems we're getting all tied up again in confusion over context and title. Let's try to break this down; it may help us to not only decide where to construct explanatory text, but also how to compose it.

• There is one family shared by sixteen countries.
• One of those sixteen countries is the United Kingdom.
• As the royal family of the United Kingdom they are the British Royal Family.
• One of those sixteen countries is Canada.
• As the royal family of Canada they are the Canadian Royal Family.
• The family is thus not only the British Royal Family.
• However, in common parlance the family is called the British Royal Family.

By that string of logic it would therefore follow that the true British Royal Family doesn't exist beyond the sphere of the UK Crown, and it would seem that it is actually a misnomer to call the royal family in any context beyond that the "British Royal Family." After all, members of the United Kingdom's royal family undertake duties in Canada, but only as members of Canada's royal family, not the UK's, representing Canada's crown, not a foreign crown.

Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom does indeed have a UK-centric title, but the shared aspect of her position as sovereign is covered not there but at Commonwealth realm. As this shared royal family business closely parallels EIIR's position in and over the realms, I'd say it's almost obvious that this matter be covered there as well. --G2bambino (talk) 17:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Your points above are tendentious, G2, because it is purely your opinion that the British Royal Family, when acting on behalf of Canada, should not be called the British Royal Family. TharkunColl (talk) 17:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You don't bother to read any referenced material, do you? --G2bambino (talk) 17:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

And you don't read anything that contradicts your POV, or more likely you just ignore it. TharkunColl (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I asked you a question. Would you care to answer it? --G2bambino (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's apparent to all, what article is the core of all this UK, first among equals VS All are equal schism. It's the opening paragraph of Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, no, I don't think it's that simple. It's more a matter of one editor obstinately refusing to accept that "their" monarchy belongs to other countries; I could rack up a whole load of Thark's opinings that would verify this. Perhaps I should. --G2bambino (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the two of you (Tharky & G2) should exclude yourselves from these discussions, and allow cooler heads to work out a solution. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that will only hold off the inevitable until later. --G2bambino (talk) 17:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

G2, what does it matter whether the family is "not only" the British royal family? They are the British royal family, as I'm sure we all agree, and we also agree that "British royal family" is the most common name for them. As such, it makes sense having an article describing the family (whatever it is to be called) in all its various operations, and it makes sense for that article to be British Royal Family. john k (talk) 17:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It makes no more sense than having British monarchy cover the Canadian monarchy, Australian monarchy, Jamaican monarchy, etc., etc. I'm not saying mention of the shared aspect of the family, and the common use of "British Royal Family" to describe them shouldn't be made at British Royal Family, but Commonwealth realm, as it does for the monarchies and the monarch, should be the neutral ground where this pan-national context is dealt with in-depth. --G2bambino (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Not the same thing. The British monarchy is an institution which only covers Britain. The British royal family is a group of people. I think the model of Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is more appropriate here than that of British monarchy. Just as the monarch herself gets one article which describes her role in all her realms, so should her family get one article which describes their role everywhere. That article can only be titled British Royal Family. I think this material can be dealt with at both British Royal Family and Commonwealth realm. john k (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this a proposal to merge the non-UK monarchy articles into the British monarchy article? Kinda makes sense, since there's no Elizabeth II of Canada, Elizabeth II of Australia etc articles. GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Jeez, no! An article like that would be of such unwieldy length that it would have to be divided into separate articles anyway, per WP:MOS. John's right in that each monarchy article deals with a separate institution, and it should remain that way. I also agree that the shared royal family issue should be dealt with at both the BRF article and Commonwealth realm article; I thought I'd made myself clear on that; apologies that I didn't. I just feel that the Commonwealth realm article is where the main body of text explaining the shared nature should be placed, as that same article does for both the shared aspect of the monarch and monarchy. All three - the monarch, the monarchy, and the royal family - go hand-in-hand anyway, and, as I said, Commonwealth realm is the neutral, non-nation specific article where this pan-Commonwealth stuff is explained for two of the three parts of the royal-trinity. --G2bambino (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

That's fine - as long as it's dealt with in both, I don't care which article has a longer discussion of the issue. john k (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

A very good point. Why aren't there separate articles about the Queen for each of her realms? Why hasn't G2 created them? It's okay, I know the answer to these questions. It's because there would be almost nothing to put in them. TharkunColl (talk) 19:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This isn't terribly useful, Tharkun - we actually seem to be making reasonable progress, so the sarcasm doesn't help. john k (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't this 'Issue' discussion be at British Royal Family (or shall we create 'the long overdo' Commonwealth of Nations WikiProject? PS- When are we gonna go back to discussing the 'Footnote content'? GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think we're trying to decide where to take this to: British Royal Family or Commonwealth realm. I suggest we move to Commonwealth realm first to decide on how to create a new section there that deals with the royal family's relationship to the realms, and then tackle some new paragraph or something to go in at British Royal Family. I think the footnote suggestion has been dropped here, and we'll just have to leave this be until the bigger fish at Commonwealth realm is fried up nicely. --G2bambino (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Can we then take the issue discussion to Commonwealth realm, since it concerns all the Commonwealth realms (not just the UK)? GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Commonwealth realm is fine. In terms of this article, can we unprotect it, and just leave "British royal family", at least for the moment? Would that be acceptable to G2? john k (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. That's what I meant above. --G2bambino (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, unprotect - other editors should not suffer a locked article. GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Lamest edit wars

Congratulations guys; you've made it onto this page. :) No offence is intended. See Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars#Royal Burial Ground. (And well done for finally coming to a consensus, by the way!) Terraxos (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Ashamedly and embarrasingly, it is well deserved. LOL, about the 'dead people' line. GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yay! At least I'm famous for something. --G2bambino (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Not complaining, but why did I suddenly get a guizzy feeling in my gizzard? GoodDay 19:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this page gonna have to be locked again? GoodDay 20:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If Thark II, the revenge, keeps up his usual editing habits, it may well be. --G2bambino 20:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

That said, nobody, save for myself, has really moved on to Commonwealth realm as we decided to do. I tried to start a section there, but, so far, no discussion or other contribution. --G2bambino 20:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I've asked Loner to take his objections to 'Commonwealth realm'. I'll take a peek, too. GoodDay 20:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Link

I'm going to pipe the link for the royal family to Commonwealth realm#Royal family, with further work to be done to that article. Okay? --G2bambino 20:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me, I've also opened up a discussion at 'Commonwealth realm', seeing if others accept such links. GoodDay 20:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

No, that's a bad idea. A link saying "British Royal Family" should lead to that article, not somewhere else. It is a disservice to readers to have things otherwise.
The agreement, here, was to take the issue to Commonwealth realm and to British Royal Family and solve the supposed problem by ensuring that those articles covered the shared-monarchy thing adequately. Of those two articles, British Royal Family is the one that is actually germane to the editing of this article, because that is the one to which this article links. The evident aim of that agreement was to solve the "problem" elsewhere, and not have it trouble this article further. -- Lonewolf BC 21:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Can we take this to Commonwealth realm, I'm getting confused. GoodDay 21:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The decision was to take the issue to Commonwealth realm to sort out an appropriate secion there, not at British Royal Family. I have subsequently created a section there; there's no sense in having a section at Commonwealth realm to deal with international context and then not link it to somewhere that the family is being looked at in an international context; which was the whole point of this debate to begin with. Your opinions on which article is more germane than others is noted, but is, so far, in the minority. --G2bambino 21:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

How is this article looking at the family in an international context? Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle are the principal homes of the Queen of the Solomon Islands. Does that mean that those articles are talking about the monarchy "in an international context" and need links to Commonwealth Realms? john k 23:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

As I asked somewhere above: when they were buried, were these members of the Royal Family acting on behalf of the United Kingdom?

I don't know about the other articles; I haven't considered them yet. --G2bambino 16:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is taking place at talk: Commonwealth realm. -- GoodDay 21:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Wallis, Duchess of Windsor

Naivety was my downfall, I honestly thought by correctly showing Wallis was Duchess of Windsor, there'd be no protestations. However, I was reverted faster then Wallis was rejected by Stanley Baldwin. GoodDay 16:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Lol. Look who you're dealing with: Loner, fastest revert in the west. --G2bambino (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Decided to restore Duchess of Windsor and Duchess of Gloucester. GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

British Royal Family??

Had to break away from the Commonwealth discussion - Does anybody know if all the royals buried here, are British? Is there any members of the English, Scottish, Irish Royal Families. GoodDay 22:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Only in as much as there was an Irish Royal Family between 1931 and 1949. Beyond that, Wallis Simpson was certainly American. --G2bambino (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

So, there's nobody buried there, who died before 1707? GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't really know, but the article says no. --G2bambino (talk) 18:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I just had to be sure. Had there been any royals buried there before the Act of Union. They wouldn't have been members of the British Royal Family. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The Burial Ground was established during the reign of King George V. It is for members of the British Royal Family who are not sovereigns (Edward VIII is thus the most senior royal buried there). Some members who died before 1928 were moved here, such as Princess Helena and Prince Christian of Schleswig-Holstein, but no one before King Edward VII's generation has been moved here. The last person buried at the BG was Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester in 2004.

I think there was some talk that Queen Elizabeth's close friend, Baron Plunket, was buried there, but I'm not sure if it's true. If it is, he is the only non-royal buried there. PeterSymonds | talk 16:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Duchess of Kent?

Duchess of Kent redirects to Duke of Kent, which is probably inaccurate. Could someone know which Duchess it was please put her name in? Ta. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 23:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld.  Fixed PeterSymonds | talk 20:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

In fact it had been fixed already. But the intent was there. :) PeterSymonds | talk 20:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry I didn't respond earlier. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 15:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Article name

Royal Burial Ground. This is a daft name. Does every minor royal of every Royal Family in the world get to buried here? No, its a cemetery for British petty royals only and the title should reflect that. I propose Frogmore British royal family cemetery or such like. Bill Reid | Talk 19:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

'Petty' is a bit of a loaded term, seeing as the Duke of Windsor is buried there--an important Royal figure in his own right. Further, the Royal Family refers to it as the Royal Burial Ground, so unless you can provide a couple of citations suggesting that its proper name is Frogmore British blah blah blah, it'll be staying precisely where it is. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 15:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

File:Royal burial ground plan.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Royal burial ground plan.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Royal burial ground plan.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)