Talk:Royalist
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Cavaliers[edit]
There are dozens of articles on the English Civil War that link here. Suggest we point those all to Cavaliers. - PKM 20:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
The page text has been moved from Cavaliers to Cavalier --Philip Baird Shearer 10:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
versus Monarchist[edit]
User:Stijn Calle has changed both Royalist and Monarchism to record his opinion that the two concepts are different. I do not think these are minor edits. --RichardVeryard 19:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Certainly not minor edits.
- With reference to some times and places the terms are interchangeable, but in others they can be distinct. - Jmabel | Talk 07:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge[edit]
I agree that Royalism is indistinguishable from Monarchism. There should also be more prominence given to Anti-Monarchism. After all, Monarchism and Anti-Monarchism are just two two equal parts of the same coin.(Richy) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.141.166 (talk) 18:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
This article should be merged with Monarchism, beacause it's the same exact thing. Charles Essie (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- What's your evidence for their being identical? The start of the royalist article claims that they're quite distinct, with monarchists supporting monarchy in general and royalists supporting a particular monarch or dynasty. Why do you think they should be conflated? Lereman (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- By that logic, Royalism is a form of Monarchism, and thus could be merged. Another reason is that neither article is very big and could very easily fit together. Charles Essie (talk) 23:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- What evidence is there that they are not identical? The current article doesn't cite a source for this definition. Wiktionary and Dictionary.com both give both meanings ("monarchist" and "supporter of the extant monarch against rebels"). Iapetus (talk) 16:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Strongly disagree with merging the articles. There is only minor differences between the two but significant all the same. Could we make a decision soon so I can get rid of the banner at the top of the page.Tomh903 (talk) 20:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok, its been months since this discussion started and it seems to have come to a halt so I will end the discussion. Most users want them to remain separate so they will.Tomh903 (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Another sense, in the British Commonwealth: for the idea of the UK monarch having having a role in the governance of member nations[edit]
There's a sense we're missing here. We may have no article on it, or maybe there're bits on it in various country articles: In many Commonwealth of Nations countries, there is ongoing and decades-running debate about whether to [continue to] recognize the British Monarch as the monarch also of that country, and (if so) whether the monarch should have any role whatsoever in government under the country's constitution (or by treaty), or for this monarchic role to be entirely ceremonial. I know this debate exists strongly in at least Australia (having read some stuff about it) and in Canada (having lived there). People in favor of the British Crown having a continued role, usually including some ability to impose upon the national government to some extent, are typically called royalists, though I've also heard monarchists and there may be other terms. I lived with a self-declared royalist in .ca, though we did not discuss the matter much, so I have little in the way of a sense of nuance about it all. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 13:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)