text:
Earl Dawson

Earl Phillip Dawson (December 17, 1925 –March 28, 1987) was a Canadian ice hockey administrator, politician and civil servant. He rose to prominence in Canadian hockey when he served as president of the Manitoba Amateur Hockey Association from 1958 to 1963. He established a council to reverse the decline of hockey in rural Manitoba and saw the association continually increase its registrations by spending more per player to develop minor ice hockey than other provinces in Canada. Dawson became chairman of the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association (CAHA) rules committee and organized the first nationwide clinic for referee instructors to standardize the interpretation of hockey rules. Dawson became vice-president of the CAHA in 1966 then served as its president from 1969 to 1971. The International Ice Hockey Federation had approved a limited use of professionals at the 1970 Ice Hockey World Championships, but later reversed the decision when the International Olympic Committee objected. Dawson and the CAHA perceived the situation to be a double standard since the Europeans were believed to be state-sponsored professionals labelled as amateurs, and withdrew the Canada men's national ice hockey team from international competitions until it was allowed to use its best players.

Dawson faced internal issues from junior ice hockey teams in Western Canada who were upset with the imposed age limit and demanded greater financial compensation for players chosen in the National Hockey League Amateur Draft. The Western Canada Hockey League played outside of the CAHA's jurisdiction for two seasons, when Dawson negotiated a new deal that saw the league accept the age limit in exchange for increased financial compensation. Dawson oversaw the CAHA reorganize its executive to include vice-presidents for minor hockey, junior hockey and senior ice hockey to give each level of hockey a greater voice. He later announced that junior hockey would split into a two-tier system for the 1970–71 season. The Memorial Cup remained the championship for the top tier and junior hockey, and the CAHA established the Manitoba Centennial Cup for the second tier's championship. Dawson oversaw the transition of both the Memorial Cup and the Allan Cup's formats from an east-versus-west final into a round-robin involving league champions. He also led the CAHA into the product endorsement business, released a logo for the CAHA, and used the money generated to reinvest into hockey in Canada.

Dawson served with the Royal Canadian Air Force and the Canadian Army during World War II, then operated a dry cleaning business for 19 years in Rivers, Manitoba. He was extensively involved in community service groups, was a town councilor from 1957 to 1965, and represented the Hamiota electoral district as a Manitoba Liberal Party member from 1966 to 1969. Dawson wanted to use the 1967 Pan American Games and the Canadian Centennial events to boost recreation in Manitoba and improve local infrastructure. He sought to increase subsidies for rural students, to employ students locally and stop human capital flight. He argued that medicare laws in Manitoba discriminated against rural citizens, and wanted to reduce medical costs and increase their services. He also supported the development of local resources to relieve rural industries and businesses from tax burden.

Dawson served as a director for Sport Canada and the secretary of the Canada Games council from 1970 to 1987. He oversaw the Canada Fitness Award Program and supported the Junior Olympics program. He served as chairman of the 1975 World Junior Ice Hockey Championships hosted in Winnipeg which coincided with the Manitoba Centennial celebrations. He aimed to increase the level of competition in women's sport across the country, and implemented testing for doping in sport in the Canada Games in 1984. Dawson summarized his career by stating, "I just seem to be the kind of person who gets involved in controversy, be it in hockey or politics", and the Winnipeg Free Press concurred that he "had controversy as his constant companion". He was named Western Manitoba Sportsman of the Year by the Brandon Sun in 1964, and was posthumously inducted into the Manitoba Hockey Hall of Fame in 1995.

Early life and community involvement

Earl Phillip Dawson was born on December 17, 1925, in Saint Boniface, Winnipeg. He was the son of Thomas and Irene Dawson, and was educated at École Provencher. He contracted polio at age 12 which prevented him from playing ice hockey.

Dawson became a reserve officer in the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF), and served with both the RCAF and the Canadian Army during World War II. He married Madeline O'Callaghan on June 29, 1949, with whom he had four sons and one daughter.

Dawson moved to Rivers, Manitoba in 1951, where he operated a dry cleaning business for 19 years. He was a town councilor for Rivers from 1957 to 1965, and was president of the local chamber of commerce. He served as president of the local Royal Canadian Legion, and was the commanding officer of the Royal Canadian Air Cadets squadron in Rivers. He also served as president of the local Kiwanis Club, the Rivers Credit Union and the Rivers Liberal Association. He was chairman of the financial committee for the Immaculate Conception Church in Rivers, and was chairman of the board of governors for the local hockey arena.

Manitoba Amateur Hockey Association
Dawson managed an intermediate level ice hockey team from Rivers during the 1952–53 playoffs, which was disqualified by the Manitoba Amateur Hockey Association (MAHA) for the use of illegal players. He became president of the Rivers Hockey Association in 1953 and served three consecutive terms until 1955. He was also invited to join the MAHA executive committee after expressing his grievances, and served as a convenor for the intermediate level from 1954 to 1957. He was elected second vice-president of the MAHA in October 1955, and was elected first vice-president of the MAHA in October 1957.

Dawson was elected president of the MAHA to succeed Curly Tyler in October 1958. The MAHA had its greatest registration to date and sought to reimburse teams in rural Manitoba for the cost of developing players lost to the Manitoba Junior Hockey League (MJHL) who in turn profited by selling players to professional teams. Dawson planned to promote and raise funds for minor ice hockey with a Minor Hockey Week in January 1959.

Dawson was re-elected president in October 1959. He sought a financial arrangement with the Saskatchewan Amateur Hockey Association (SAHA) if the Flin Flon Bombers were to affiliate with the Saskatchewan Junior Hockey League (SJHL) instead of the MJHL, and wanted to recuperate the MAHA's costs of developing minor hockey players and on-ice officials in Flin Flon that contributed to local talent. Without a suitable agreement in place to receive a portion of playoffs profits, the MAHA made a proposal at the 1960 Canadian Amateur Hockey Association (CAHA) general meeting for Flin Flon to be transferred to the SAHA. He also wanted consistent rules used in Western Canada that allowed replacement players for interprovincial playoffs, and was opposed to teams in the Alberta Amateur Hockey Association or Thunder Bay Amateur Hockey Association being given the advantage over the MAHA and SAHA.

Dawson was re-elected president in October 1960. The MAHA reached an agreement with the SAHA and Dawson served an ultimatum to the Flin Flon Bombers to pay a flat rate of C$300 or be denied permission to play in the SJHL. He felt that the Winnipeg Warriors team had a negative impact on junior ice hockey in Winnipeg and spoke up against professional teams encroaching upon MAHA territory. After backlash from the media, Dawson clarified the comments to disagree that professional teams should have an exclusive zone to dictate operation of teams under CAHA jurisdiction. After the Winnipeg Maroons opted out the 1961 Allan Cup playoffs, Dawson allowed lower-level senior teams to compete since the MAHA wanted a provincial representative in the national playoffs. After the season, he renegotiated the MAHA's financial arrangement with the Brandon Wheat Kings to prevent a proposed to switch from the MJHL to the SJHL. He also wanted to see updates to the MAHA constitution to deal with modern problems, and set up a committee to oversee issues specific to hockey in rural Manitoba.

Dawson was re-elected president in October 1961. The MJHL hired a new promotional director and requested to use international ice hockey rules without body checking to begin the 1961–62 season as an effort to attract more spectators. Dawson approved the request, but CAHA president Jack Roxburgh ordered the MJHL to revert to standard Canadian rules. The MAHA allowed the Prince Albert Mintos of the SJHL to move to Dauphin, Manitoba after a fire ruined the team's arena in December 1961, and levied a fee of 10 per cent of ticket sales to cover lost revenue for the existing senior team in Dauphin. Despite the Flin Flon Bombers also playing in the SJHL and paying a flat fee, Dawson justified the higher fee for temporarily displacing an existing MAHA team in Dauphin.

Dawson was re-elected to a fifth term as president in October 1962. During his presidency, the MAHA had grown to be the country's third largest provincial association by registration and spent more per capita to develop minor ice hockey than other provinces in Canada. Journalist Laurie Artiss stated that the Rural Minor Hockey Council established by Dawson had succeeded in reversing the decline of hockey in rural Manitoba by enforcing geographical limits on where the bigger cities could claim players. The decision resulted in players staying in smaller towns and gave more children a chance to play locally.

Dawson completed his final term as president in October 1963. As the past-president he represented the MAHA at an arbitration committee in October 1964. His stance on teams playing out-of-province was confirmed when the CAHA ruled that the Flin Flon Bombers and Brandon Wheat Kings would turn over the majority of profits for their home games to the MAHA despite the teams playing in the SJHL.

Canadian Amateur Hockey Association
Dawson became involved in national hockey during his tenure of president of the MAHA and served on several committees of the CAHA. He was secretary of the Western Canada intermediate senior hockey committee for three seasons, and sat on the CAHA leadership committee. He later became chairman of the rules committee and organized the first nationwide clinic for referee instructors in 1964 to standardize the interpretation of hockey rules across Canada.

Second vice-president

Dawson was elected second vice-president of the CAHA on May 28, 1966, serving under Fred Page as president. The Canadian Major Junior Hockey League was launched for the 1966–67 season, despite reservations by Dawson that the league was premature and too expensive. He advocated for the Brandon Wheat Kings to remain in the MJHL amid negotiations for top-level junior teams to leave their provincial associations and join the new league. He was named chairman of the minor hockey committee that oversaw promotions dedicated to the Canadian Centennial in 1967, and organized a Minor Hockey Week and the Midget Centennial Tournament. He also oversaw the Memorial Cup playoffs in Western Canada as vice-president.

In 1967, Dawson became chairman of the CAHA committee to oversee the Canada men's national ice hockey team. The CAHA approved establishing a second national team based in Ottawa in addition to the Winnipeg-based team. Both teams were expected to play international tours or exhibition games, and increase the number of players with international experience in advance of ice hockey at the 1968 Winter Olympics. Canada was subsequently awarded hosting duties of the 1970 Ice Hockey World Championships and Dawson sat on the planning committee. Dawson planned to continue the two national teams despite operating a deficit during the 1967–68 season.

First vice-president
Dawson was elected first vice-president of the CAHA in May 1968. Lloyd Pollock resigned as president in October 1968 due to business reasons, and Dawson became the acting president.

The CAHA had approved the concept of Hockey Canada in 1966, as a corporation with tax-free status to operate the Canadian national team. In December 1968, John Munro, the Minister of Health and Welfare, stated a federal task force was looking into establishing such a corporation, and Dawson felt that the government was taking credit for something which the CAHA had proposed. Dawson later suggested disbanding the national team program as it would not be financially viable without an annual $100,000 grant from the government. Munro announced a $200,000 contribution for operation of the national team in 1969.

Dawson arranged for the Soviet Union national ice hockey team to tour Canada in January 1969, but his relationship became strained with what he called "childish problems" by the Soviets. Frustrations grew when they arrived late for the first scheduled game on the tour which negated profits for the CAHA, and Dawson was reported as wanting to see discipline handed out by the International Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF) against the Soviets.

First term

Dawson succeeded Lloyd Pollock as president at the CAHA executive meeting on January 27, 1969. When the transfer of control of the Canada men's national ice hockey team from the CAHA to Hockey Canada became imminent, Dawson sought a clear definition of the CAHA's responsibilities and did not want to compromise its authority over amateur hockey in Canada nor its membership within the IIHF. He also wanted to ensure that all players in Canada to had the opportunity to play on the national team. The Hockey Canada board of governors was formed on February 24, 1969, with Dawson and Gordon Juckes named to represent the CAHA.

Dawson increased the number of annual executive meetings from two to three due to disagreements with National Hockey League (NHL) and increasing dissent from branches of the CAHA. Team owners in Western Canada were upset with the existing professional-amateur agreement between the CAHA and the NHL signed in 1968 and in effect until 1972. It stipulated the age limit in junior hockey at 20 years old before players would become the property of professional teams. The NHL declined to alter the age limit despite continued requests by Dawson and the CAHA. Dawson and the CAHA were also opposed to potential expansion into Canada by the American Hockey League, and asked NHL president Clarence Campbell to follow-up on press reports of rumoured farm teams in Montreal, Ottawa and Kingston.

Junior teams in Western Canada claimed that the lower age limit decreased its talent pool and negatively affect ticket sales. The teams wanted greater financial compensation for players lost to professional teams since their travel costs were greater than teams in Eastern Canada. The teams in the Canadian Major Junior Hockey League broke away from CAHA jurisdiction and formed the Western Canada Hockey League (WCHL) under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Hockey Association (CHA) led by Ron Butlin. The WCHL and Butlin were opposed to the CAHA's structure of elected officials who were not connected to any team but were determining hockey policies. Dawson and the CAHA responded by proposing committees to operate senior hockey, junior hockey and minor hockey.

Second term
Dawson was re-elected president in May 1969. The CAHA reorganized its executive to include vice-presidents for minor hockey, junior hockey and senior hockey respectively; and decided against unilateral action to change the junior age limits imposed by the professional-amateur agreement with the NHL. Hockey Canada took over control of the national team from the CAHA in June 1969, although Dawson committed the CAHA to arrange international exhibition tours for the team. The CAHA approved requests by the Yukon and the Northwest Territories to become branch members and began discussions to separate the territories from the jurisdiction of British Columbia and Alberta respectively.

International hockey

Dawson attended the IIHF general meeting in July 1969, and lobbied for the open use of professionals at the Ice Hockey World Championships. He hoped to convince Europeans that they were competing against second-rate amateur talent from the United States and Canada, and that an open competition would be truly representative of the world's best hockey. The IIHF approved a CAHA proposal to extend the deadline to reinstate professionals as amateurs and be eligible for the World Championships, which had the potential to allow Canada access more talented players. Dawson felt the change was sufficient but Hockey Canada wanted to pursue open competition with unlimited use of professionals. Canada had not won the World Championships since 1961 and had never hosted the event. The unlimited use of professionals was seen as the best chance to return Canada to hockey supremacy.

The next day, the IIHF voted against the second CAHA proposal and open competition at the 1970 World Championships. The Canadian Press blamed IIHF president Bunny Ahearne for the decision since he was perceived to have influenced the vote when he stated that any team which played against professionals at the World Championships would be ineligible for the 1972 Winter Olympics as per International Olympic Committee (IOC) rules. Dawson then announced the cancellation Canadian tours to Sweden and Finland in response to the two countries not supporting the Canadian proposal for open competition.

Dawson went ahead with plans to host the 1970 World Championships and was in favour of using professionals reinstated as amateurs for international competition but noted that would require co-operation from all levels of professional hockey. The Soviet Union protested against the proposed schedule for the 1970 World Championships which had the team playing multiple instances of games on consecutive days. Dawson was confident that Soviet Union would play despite the threat of a boycott, and declined to make any changes to the schedule.

IOC president Avery Brundage objected to the use of professionals at the World Championships and stated that any national team which played against professionals would be ineligible for hockey at the 1972 Winter Olympics. The IIHF called an emergency meeting for January 1970 to discuss the situation. Dawson attended the meeting and argued that national teams participating in Izvestia Trophy tournaments had played against professionals, but were still eligible for the Olympics and the same should apply to the World Championships. He also made the suggestion to consider the 1970 event an invitational tournament instead of a World Championships to avoid the wrath of the IOC, but the IIHF declined the notion. A vote was taken and five of the eight nations in the top division of the World Championships voted against the use of any professionals.

Canada perceived the situation to be a double standard in international hockey since players on European national teams were believed to be state-sponsored professionals labelled as amateurs. Dawson and the CAHA executive unanimously decided to take a stand against what they perceived as hypocrisy by European members of the IIHF.

""We quit. We will not return until the rules permit us to enter a team that is truly representative of Canadian hockey, so we can play our best players as all other countries do"."

- Earl Dawson

Dawson withdrew the Canadian national team from international competitions against European hockey teams until Canada was allowed to use its best players. The CAHA retained its IIHF membership and hosting of the 1970 World Championships was given Sweden. Dawson also stated the CAHA would enter a team of amateurs at the 1972 Winter Olympics, then question the eligibility of all other hockey teams.

Dawson accused Ahearne of not doing enough to stand up to the opinions of Brundage. Dawson felt that Sweden and the Soviet Union combined to sabotage the Canadian attempt to host the 1970 World Championships, because Sweden wanted to host the event and the Soviets did not want to lose the gold medal. He also felt that even if the CAHA accepted not using any professionals, the Europeans would have found some other reason to prevent the tournament from being played in Canada. He also criticized the Soviets for refusing to play on consecutive days in Canada, but accepting the same schedule after the event was switched to Sweden.

Journalist Dallis Beck of the Winnipeg Free Press wrote that organizations involved in planning for the 1970 World Championships felt that Canada's decision to withdraw was correct in principle; but that the timing should have been earlier or after the event was completed, and that it denied the Canadian public of seeing a World Championships. Cabinet minister John Munro defended the decision to withdraw and stated that the Canadian Government agreed to underwrite the losses incurred by the CAHA due to refunds in excess of $400,000 in advance ticket sales.

Dawson met with Canadian Olympic Association officials later in January, and proposed a joint meeting with Ahearne and Brundage to seek a clearer definition of eligibility for the Olympics with respect to amateurism and professionalism. Dawson wanted to avoid compromising the 1976 Winter Olympics bid by Vancouver, but felt that it would be impossible for a Canadian hockey player not to have played against a professional at one time. Hockey Canada and the CAHA requested to use professionals in Group A of the 1971 Ice Hockey World Championships. The IIHF declined and instead invited the Canadian national team to play in Group B. Dawson declined and stated that Canada's stance on professionals at the World Championships remained unchanged.

Junior hockey

Dawson proposed terms for the WCHL to rejoin the CAHA in August 1969, but he was doubtful that the WCHL would agree to a limit on the number of players it could import to the league or restrictions on moving teams from one city to another without CAHA approval. He terminated negotiations but welcomed individual teams to apply for CAHA membership. The WCHL took legal action seeking payments for players chosen in the NHL Amateur Draft, after Dawson stated that no money would be paid by the CAHA to teams not under its jurisdiction.

In October 1969, the MJHL executive called for the resignation of Dawson, due to not carrying out a "verbal commitment" in which he allegedly promised money to the league for the 1969–70 season, which Dawson denied. The MJHL felt it should have been consulted on the terms proposed to the WCHL for rejoining the CAHA, and that the WCHL jeopardized teams in the MJHL.

In March 1970, a meeting between the CAHA and the WCHL to resolve their differences ended after 15 minutes when Dawson reportedly wanted the WCHL to accept the same conditions as other junior leagues under CAHA jurisdiction. Butlin refused and made demands for increased financial concessions from the CAHA and more autonomy for player registrations. Dawson subsequently received a unanimous vote of confidence from CAHA executives, despite reports to the contrary from the WCHL.

In April 1970, Dawson announced that the CAHA was splitting junior hockey into a two-tier system for the 1970–71 season, which planned to have the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League (QMJHL), the Ontario Hockey Association Major Junior-A Series and the WCHL in tier-1 and other junior leagues in tier-2. The Memorial Cup became the national championship trophy for the tier-1 teams, and the CAHA established the Manitoba Centennial Cup as the national tier-2 junior championship in 1971. Dawson and fellow former MAHA president Bill Addison were named trustees of the Manitoba Centennial Cup.

Third term
Dawson was re-elected president in May 1970. He felt it was time that the CAHA caught up to other sports in the endorsement business, and to use the money generated to develop the game in Canada. The CAHA released a logo to identify the association and established CAHA Properties Limited to endorse products, which included recommended use of an endorsed hockey puck in amateur hockey across Canada.

Dawson recommended that Canada remain out of international competition until professionals became eligible for the World Championships, and that what he referred to "state-sponsored amateurs" were not allowed in the Olympic Games. He stated that Canada would not compete in a B-pool to qualify for the Olympics. He also stated there would be no exchange visits between Canada and Europe, but did not rule out competitions versus the United States men's national ice hockey team. He attended the 1971 Ice Hockey World Championships and met with the Soviets, Swedes and IIHF executives in an effort to host an international tournament using professionals. He was committed to a best-on-best tournament and opposed a recommendation by Alberta Golden Bears coach Clare Drake to have a university all-star team represent Canada internationally.

The CAHA considered a proposal to restructure the playoffs for the Allan Cup from an east versus west final into a tournament format based in one city among the country's regional champions. Dawson felt that the CAHA was perceived as focused on junior hockey and neglecting senior hockey. He wanted to introduce private sponsorships for the national finals to generate profits which could be used to cover travel expenses for six to eight regional champion teams. The CAHA experimented with the Western Canada senior hockey final as a four-team round-robin among league champions instead of a knockout draw. Dawson stated that if the experiment was successful, the same would be done for Eastern Canada the following year. Despite criticism by senior hockey teams that it was unfair to their hometown fans to travel much further to attend the games, the concept was financially promising.

Dawson announced on June 24, 1970, that the CAHA and the WCHL signed a two-year agreement which included 14 clauses to reunite the organizations. The WCHL became recognized as the only tier-1 league in Western Canada and qualified for an automatic berth the Memorial Cup final. The WCHL was allowed four over-age players in the upcoming season, but was reduced to two thereafter. The WCHL agreed to abide by the CAHA's professional-amateur agreement with the NHL, and was entitled to fees paid per player chosen in the NHL Amateur Draft and $100,000 in development grants for the 1970–71 season. The WCHL agreed not to expand or relocate a team without approval of the CAHA, and was given direct representation on the CAHA's junior council. Dawson later threatened to have the WCHL expelled when it broke several terms in the agreement; specifically the number of over-age players and importing players from the Ontario Hockey Association (OHA). Further disagreement arose when WCHL teams drafted players from a tier-2 league, and Dawson ruled that the players must be either released or transferred according to CAHA by-laws.

Dawson faced escalating tensions which threatened to cancel the 1971 Memorial Cup and interrupted the George Richardson Memorial Trophy finals for the Eastern Canada junior hockey championship. After five games, the Quebec Remparts led the best-of-seven series by three games to two versus the St. Catharines Black Hawks. The players on St. Catharines refused to play game six of the series in Quebec City due to an angry mob atmosphere and violence encountered in game four in Quebec City, and due to threats from the Front de libération du Québec made against their best player, Marcel Dionne. The Remparts refused to play game six at a neutral site and Remparts executives assured Dawson that adequate police protection would be provided. Dawson declared the series forfeited when he received a written statement that St. Catharines would not play in Quebec City. No decision had been made on whether the 1971 Memorial Cup would be contested since teams in Eastern Canada disagreed with the use of four over-age players by the WCHL teams, and Western Canada teams receiving $10,000 in travel expenses compared to $5,000 in the east. The Edmonton Oil Kings became the Western Canada junior champions without any over-age players on their roster, and challenged the Remparts for the Memorial Cup. Dawson arranged a shortened best-of-three series for the 1971 Memorial Cup, with all games played in Quebec City.

Past-president

Dawson declined to accept a fourth term as president and was succeeded by Joe Kryczka in May 1971. Dawson summarized his time as president in an interview with the Winnipeg Free Press by stating, "I just seem to be the kind of person who gets involved in controversy, be it in hockey or politics". He advocated for more full-time employees within the CAHA since it had too big for volunteers, and felt it should be operated by a commissioner with more authority. He also felt that the CAHA had made its point to the IIHF and that it was time to reconsider international games. The CAHA subsequently voted to allow Canadian hockey teams to enter any international competition except for the Olympics or World Championships.

Dawson served as chairman of the 1972 Memorial Cup playoffs. The format for the finals was changed from an Eastern Canada versus Western Canada final, into a round-robin format involving the tier-1 junior champions of the WCHL, the OHA and the QMJHL. Coaches of the three league champions were opposed to the new format, and felt that a short series put extra pressure on players and lacked the environment of a home game during the playoffs. Despite the initial criticism, the new format became financially viable and was retained until the 1983 Memorial Cup when a fourth team was added.

Manitoba legislator
On December 1, 1965, Dawson was nominated as the Manitoba Liberal Party candidate for the Hamiota riding in the upcoming 1966 Manitoba general election. He was elected to the 28th Manitoba Legislature with 2,194 votes, compared to 2,043 for the incumbent Conservative Party candidate Barry Strickland. In his first speech as a member of the legislative assembly, Dawson defended local industries in Rivers and spoke against the potential decommissioning of CFB Rivers. Shortly into his time in the legislature, he was quoted in the Hansard as saying, "I believe that at 18 years of age a young person is twice as clever as any person in this House was at 18, when he was 18".

Dawson criticized the Fitness and Amateur Sport Department leadership, and stated that Manitoba was far behind in taking advantage of federal government subsidies compared to Saskatchewan and Alberta, and was failing to keep Manitoba's physical education students employed locally in recreational programs. He also sought for Manitoba to retain skilled professionals trained at the province's expense and to stop losses due to human capital flight. He supported legislation in 1967 to allow for languages other than English to be taught in Manitoba schools. He also sought increased subsidies for rural students attending college or university in big cities due to additional costs of travel, room and board, and stated that rural students paid twice as much as an urban student.

Manitoba hosted the 1967 Pan American Games and arranged events for the 1967 Canadian Centennial. When Sterling Lyon, the Minister of Tourism and Recreation, forecasted a record-high year for tourism, Dawson noted that Dominion Bureau of Statistics data showed that Manitoba received only 3 per cent of national tourism dollars. Dawson wanted to use the 1967 events to boost recreation in Manitoba, and proposed legislation for low-interest loans to communities for installation of artificial ice in hockey and curling rinks. He stated that similar legislation existed in Ontario and it had positively impacted ice sports.

When the 1967 medicare bill was introduced by the government it covered services by an ophthalmologist, but not an optometrist. Dawson argued that the government was discriminating against smaller towns which did not have an ophthalmologist by excluding coverage. He recommended combining hospitals and medicare into the same administration to save money and increase services. He also argued for more availability of doctors to provide services, and that premiums being too expensive for the average income in Manitoba. He wanted to implement ability-to-pay options for people with varying income such as farmers.

Dawson criticized the 45 per cent increase in education taxes on agricultural lands after reassessments of property values in March 1968. He felt that mineral, timber and agricultural resources were underdeveloped, and advocated for cattle raising similar to Alberta and Saskatchewan. He sought for changes in the Manitoba Development Fund for these causes and to relieve rural industries and businesses from tax burden. He also sat as a member on a special committee to investigate legislation on the sale and use of farm machinery and repairs in Manitoba, and legislation for artificial insemination of livestock under the Animal Husbandry Act.

Dawson was mentioned as a possible replacement for Gildas Molgat, who resigned as leader of the Manitoba Liberal Party in March 1969. Prior to the 1969 Manitoba general election, Dawson's riding of Hamiota was dissolved when boundaries were redistributed. He was nominated as the Liberal Party candidate in the riding of Virden against its Conservative Party incumbent Morris McGregor. Dawson was defeated with 1,571 votes compared to 2,161 votes for McGregor.

National sports and later life

Dawson became a civil servant in April 1970, when he was hired as a part-time consultant and liaison by the Fitness and Amateur Sport Directorate of Canada working under national director Lou Lefaive. Dawson went on to serve for 17 years as a full-time national sport director and secretary of the Canada Games council.

In July 1970, the CAHA closed its Winnipeg office which had operated for three years and relocated to Ottawa. The new office was in the same building as the Fitness and Amateur Sport Directorate of Canada, and Dawson stated that the CAHA would spend $40,000 less per year and take advantage of the federal funding project for amateur sports announced by John Munro.

The Directorate of Fitness and Amateur Sport was split into Sport Canada and Recreation Canada in 1971, to oversee competitive and recreational aspects of sport. Dawson oversaw funding programs to assist athletes and promote amateur sports, which included the Canada Fitness Award Program at the 1972 Provincial Exhibition of Manitoba, and grants to communities of First Nations in Canada to operate recreational programs.

Dawson's role within Sport Canada included serving on the Hockey Canada board of directors, and supporting Canada's Junior Olympics program. He also sat on the committee for the Master Plan for Sport led by the Manitoba Sports Federation, and represented the Government of Canada on the board of directors for the 1974 Manitoba Games. He served as chairman of the 1975 World Junior Ice Hockey Championships hosted in Winnipeg, which coincided with the Manitoba Centennial celebrations.

Dawson was relocated to the Recreation and Sport Canada offices in Ottawa in January 1976 and focused on developing the Canada Summer and Winter Games. The Winnipeg office was reopened in March 1978, and Dawson was assigned to oversee programs in Manitoba and Saskatchewan while remaining a senior consultant to Ottawa.

Dawson was the federal liaison and advisor for the 1979 Canada Winter Games in Brandon, Manitoba, and felt the event to be the biggest Canada Games to date. He had wanted to bring to games to Brandon since 1973, and was hopeful for government investment to create an infrastructure legacy project in his home province. The government contributed $3.5 million towards permanent facilities.

Dawson attempted to level the playing for hockey at the 1979 Canada Winter Games, and negotiated different rules of player eligibility for each provincial amateur hockey association. Despite criticism by coaches for the rules being difficult to understand, he felt changes were necessary since some region of Canada had a limited number of players available.

Sport Canada wanted to increase the level of competition in women's sport across the country, and Dawson introduced women's team handball and softball at the 1981 Canada Summer Games in Thunder Bay, Ontario. He arranged talks with provincial sports bodies in 1983 to decide on the future of the Canada Games amid disagreements on whether events should be for amateurs or to develop elite athletes for international sports. He implemented testing for doping in sport in the Canada Games in 1984, and planned for reductions in the number of sports by the 1989 Canada Summer Games.

Dawson died at home in Winnipeg on March 28, 1987, due to a year-long battle with lung cancer. He was interred at Glen Eden Memorial Garden in West St. Paul, Manitoba.

Honours and awards
At the 1963 CAHA awards banquet, Dawson was named an honorary deputy mayor of Brandon, Manitoba, by its mayor S. A. Magnacca. In January 1964, Dawson was named Western Manitoba Sportsman of the Year by the Brandon Sun and a recipient of the H. L. Crawford Memorial Trophy.

Dawson received a citation award from the Amateur Hockey Association of the United States in 1970, for contributions to international ice hockey. In the same year, he was awarded a Manitoba Centennial medal by the Manitoba Historical Society.

Dawson was appointed a life member of the CAHA in May 1973. He was posthumously inducted into the Manitoba Hockey Hall of Fame in 1995.

Legacy
Howard Pawley, the Premier of Manitoba, spoke in memory of Dawson during a sitting of the 33rd Manitoba Legislature on May 15, 1987. Pawley stated that, "Dawson served his constituents' interests well, through tireless hours of work on behalf of groups and individuals who sought his assistance and received it in an unstinting way". Gary Filmon, the Leader of the Opposition said that, "because of Dawson's commitment to amateur sport, Hamiota has always been a hot bed of sporting activity and has produced many athletes of national calibre". Fellow MLA Harry Enns felt that redistribution of electoral districts shortened Dawson's political career, and that "Dawson was an aggressive member, and no doubt would have excelled, had political fate been kinder to him". Other tributes came from Sharon Carstairs, Jim Ernst, and Jim Downey, before the assembly observed a moment of silence.

The Winnipeg Free Press stated that, Dawson was "remembered as a pleasant, outgoing personality who had controversy as his constant companion". Journalist Laurie Artiss credited Dawson for his sincerity and leadership, and for being stern but earning respect.

Dawson is the namesake of two honours given by the MAHA. The Earl Dawson Award was established in 1986, and is given for "outstanding contribution toward the development of hockey in Manitoba". The Earl Dawson Shield is awarded to the team that wins the MAHA Pee-Wee division championship. He is also the namesake of the Earl Dawson Award given by the Winnipeg office of the Canadian Cancer Society.

title: Earl Dawson


text:
Talk:Style of the British sovereign

of Great Britain Queen?
Why is the title of the British sovereign "X, by the Grace of God, OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND QUEEN" and not "X, by the Grace of God, QUEEN OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND"? Before the union with Ireland, the style was "X, by the Grace of God, King of Great Britain," and then after the union it became "X, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland King," why the change? I get that the title in Latin has "Queen" after "of Great Britain," but an accurate and correct translation should still be "Queen of Great Britain," right? And, after Ireland separated from the UK, the title, under George V, "by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, King" and not "King of Great Britain, Ireland, etc." WHY is King/Queen AFTER the title!?
 * These just are the gazetted, official English titles. (Please sign your posts.) Errantios (talk) 13:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Request for outside input: Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act, 1927
There's currently a discussion at Talk:Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act about the constitutional significance of the Act and its impact on the relationship between the UK, the Crown and the dominions. The problem is that the article as it stands makes some very sweeping but questionable claims about the impact of the Act on the status of the monarch vis-a-vis the dominions. Input from anyone with any knowledge of or interest in this area would be greatly appreciated. This notice may be put up on a couple of other talkpages. Iota 00:05, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

British Monarch
I have a question after I read the following passage in the Wiki-article "Peerage":

All British honours, including peerage dignities, spring from the Sovereign, who is considered the fount of honour. The Sovereign him or herself cannot belong to the Peerage as "the fountain and source of all dignities cannot hold a dignity from himself" (opinion of the House of Lords in the Buckhurst Peerage Case).

It seems to me that the above passage is not correct, because British monarch could hold ohter aristocratic titles besides the title King, for example:

Lord of Man, Prince of Orange(William III), Elector of Hannover(George I), Duke of Normandy(Henry II) etc.

Could anyone please explain to me ?

--Siyac 14:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The British monarch can hold [i]foreign[/i] titles and honours since as they're not [i]British[/i] honours flowing from the Sovereign.  Lord of Man is a feudal title that was George III got when he bought the island from the family that owned it.  (Alphaboi867)

A few questions
Q: Does anyone know an example of a member of British royal family who is a commoner ?

--Siyac 12:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Define commoner. Under the strictest defination anyone who is neither the soveriegn or a peer is a commoner; according to this Princes William and Harry are both commoners.   Of course most people don't consider Prince/sses and other titles persons commoners.   The highest ranking members of the royal family to lack titles of any kind Princess Anne's kids, Peter and Zara Phillips.   Their father was a commoner who declined to Queen's offer of an earldom. (Alphaboi867 23:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC))

Q: Who is "Mary Queen of Chile" ? That doesn't make any sense - somebody needs to clean up this article. (Charlie (talk) 04:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)) 04:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Welsh
Can somebody please add an explanation as to why the Welsh translation is included? I suppose it's the one language other than English regularly used in British government, but why should it be used in this article if it's effectively a translation?
 * Yes, why is it also in Welsh? GoodDay 23:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Presumably because it is the only other language in which the style is officially defined. Even a translation will have nuances, so is worth including.  I think that if this were an article about the style of the sovereign a non-English-speaking country, we would include it in all the languages in which it was officially defined, as well as in English.  TSP 23:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * See United Kingdom fo similiar arguement on the UK's official language. If Welsh is added, Scottish & Irish should be too. GoodDay 00:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I think you're making the question too broad. The issue is not what the UK's official language(s) is/are, but simply in what languages the Style of the British Sovereign has been officially defined.  Sources are provided for the two existing languages.  If you can find sources which state what the style of the British sovereign has been officially defined to be in either Irish or Scots Gaelic, then absolutely they should be included; but we should not be saying what languages these things should be defined in, merely reporting what languages they are defined in.  TSP 11:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was just 'surprised' that there's no 'Scottish' or 'Irish' transilations. GoodDay 21:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

 * There are different issues here. Welsh has always been a living language in active use in Wales; the lowest its use has dropped to is 21%, and it is now rising from that.  Scots Gaelic was rescued from near extinction during the latter half of last century, and only a few percent of the population speak it as a primary language.  Irish, while spoken widely in some parts of the Republic of Ireland, is rarer in Northern Ireland (with a predictable political divide), and has no official status (though there are proposals to give it one).  In a lot of areas of UK government, the two languages that material must be made available in are English and Welsh.   TSP 22:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Should it be noted that these are the only languages the monarch is currently styled in? 67.176.160.47 (talk) 04:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

2 questions
Why does the list only begin in 1066? And why aren't places like Australia and Canada listed for the current monarch (after all, Scotland is listed and that was only a personal union, same with Normandy, etc.)? TharkunColl 23:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the list should go back to 'at least' Egbert of Wessex, and Secondly, that's a UK, first among equals VS All are equal Commonwealth question. GoodDay 23:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

 * No, and please stop characterising my arguments thus - they are nothing of the sort. This list includes both England and Scotland when they were in personal union. So why should it not list Australia, Canada, etc.? As for Egbert, he was never king of England. TharkunColl 23:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * List should go back to Alfred the Great of England & Kenneth I of Scotland. Sorry 'bout characterization. GoodDay 23:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * PS- Where's the Scottish monarchs from Kenneth I to Mary I (Mary, Queen of Scots)? GoodDay 23:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

 * "Should" seems an odd question to ask. This is about what titles were used, isn't it?  We can't go adding to the titles of historical monarchs because we feel they should have used a different one.
 * By my understanding, until their various independences, Australia, Canada and the like were simply British colonies. Some monarchs chose to recognise some or all of the colonies in their titles ("the British Dominions beyond the Seas" and the like), but ultimately they were monarchs of the colonies because they were monarchs of Britain.
 * At independence, the monarchies split, and the Queen's position as "Queen of Canada" is theoretically separate from her position as "Queen of the United Kingdom". I'm not aware that a compound title is ever used.
 * But, yes, it is entirely valid to ask why this page traces the English line back and not the Scottish. I would have thought that it would be best to trace back to James I and VI, and have separate pages (or at least sections) for the styles of English and Scottish monarchs.  Arguably it should only go back to Anne, but if the monarchs in question actually did use a compound style it seems simpler to keep them as one list rather than have two separate ones.  TSP 23:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It should only go back to Anne, then. She's is the 'first' British monarch. GoodDay 00:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

 * From 1603 to 1707 the crowns of England and Scotland were legally separate, yet both are listed here. So why don't we list the Commonwealth realms under Elizabeth II? TharkunColl 10:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Possibly I'm misunderstanding your point. Both are listed here because the monarchs in question used a single style including both.  The Commonwealth realms are not listed because Elizabeth II, in her role as British monarch, does not use a style including them.  As I say, I'm not sure that should comes into it - this page is reporting what styles were/are used, not saying what styles should be used.  TSP 11:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have WP:BOLD been bold and divided the 'Styles' section into English, Scottish (currently blank), English and Scottish and British. There seems no neutral reason to trace the history back along the English line but not along the Scottish. TSP 11:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

 * With regard to your previous point, the list is incorrect anyway. James I adopted the title "King of Great Britain" in 1604, despite the fact that the two kingdoms of England and Scotland remained separate. So the list as it stands most definitely does not reflect what the monarchs actually called themselves, and seems instead to simply describe what countries they were monarchs of. In which case, there is no legitimate reason to exclude the Commonwealth realms under Elizabeth II. For example, the list currently includes such places as Normandy and Anjou, which were never part of the English monarchy - they just shared a monarch. TharkunColl 14:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Hmm. Well, that's a problem - it's true that this page is a bit low on sources.  This page purports to be a list of the styles actually used by British monarchs - I think it's clear that all the "By the Grace of God" bits wouldn't be included if the intention was to "simply describe what countries they were monarchs of".  If it isn't accurate, we need to fix that; but that isn't a reason to say that we might as well throw accuracy to the wind and just list what we think the titles should have been.
 * I seem to remember that in the case of places like Normandy and Anjou, and certainly France, for a lot of the time they appeared in the monarch's title, the monarch didn't even rule those places; they were included in the style of the British monarch purely as claims that the British monarch was also entitled to rule those places. In the case of Australia and Canada, as I understand it, the monarchies are very explicitly separate, and different styles are maintained (the Canadian one of which mentions the UK; but the Australian one doesn't) and used in the various territories.  TSP 19:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the English/British monarchs from 1328-1801. Styled themselves as King/Queen of France. As for the Commonwealth monarchies? Head of the Commonwealth is acceptable. GoodDay 20:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

-the title 'Head of the Commonwealth' refers to the British monarch's ex officio position as Head of the Commonwealth of Nations; which is not a monarchical title; and it does not refer to the Commonwealth realms. The phrase 'and of her other realms of territories' is the phrase used in the titulary of the British monarch that refers to the other Commonwealth realms; and is used in this way in each and every other commonwealth realm too in respect to the Queen's title as regards each respective realm. JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Defender of...
"...Defender of the Earth." Shouldn't that be faith?68.175.19.252 20:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Incomplete
This article is incomplete concerning its Scottish section. The Scottish monarchs go back before 1603 (like the English monarchs). Would somebody please correct this. GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

 * And the English ones go back to before 1066 as well. The whole thing is just incomplete. But please don't let them add the Pictish ones as well! TharkunColl (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The Picts can't be added, unless the Wessex are added. Actually, this article shouldn't even have the English and Scottish monarchs. This article's earliest date should be 1707. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:76-834.jpg
Image:76-834.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I have suggested merging Most Excellent Majesty, Most Gracious Majesty and Britannic Majesty to this article simply because those articles are little more than stubs and will always be subsets of content on this page. I suggest creating a section with the forms of Majesty used by the British sovereign and the context under which they are used rather than having three little articles on the very closely related subjects. Charles 22:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems perfectly reasonable to me. They are all variants of Majesty.--Gazzster (talk) 13:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps also add the information to Majesty? DBD 13:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Howabout giving these articles a chance to expand? GoodDay (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How could they expand, buddy?--Gazzster (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me, DBD. A template at the section on British variants of Majesty can notify the reader to also see Style of the British Sovereign. GoodDay, some article will never expand... We don't always have to be so inclusionist with individual articles for absolutely everything. Charles 16:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ya mean there's nothing more to put in them? GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I admit I dont know much about them, but how big could they get? Beyond stating what the style is, a bit of history and the circumstances in which they are used, what else?--Gazzster (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It appears merge is the preferred option. Best I go with the majority. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

 * The information is now at Majesty (also, if anyone thinks they can clean it up a little, please do :) ). I can work on adding it to this page as well but I have a lunch meeting to go to shortly. Cheers! Charles 16:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Good job.--Gazzster (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Highess, Grace, Majesty

 * "Majesty", however, was not used exclusively; it arbitrarily alternated with both "Highness" and "Grace", even in official documents. For example, one legal judgment issued by Henry VIII uses all three indiscriminately; Article 15 begins with "the Kinges Highness hath ordered," Article 16 with "the Kinges Majestie" and Article 17 with "the Kinges Grace."
 * -Highness, Grace and Majesty

I would be interested in a citation for this one legal judgement, not because I doubt it (I don't really), not so much that I think it should be there (it should, of course), but that I'd like to read it.

-SM

 * I don't think what's said in the article is correct. My understanding is that the Emperor had been using the style Majesty for some centuries before the kings of England & France adopted it. Peter jackson (talk) 15:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

France
Have you not left out the &c or etc. after "beyond the Seas" that came into use after the 1763 Treaty of Paris? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cphilips (talk • contribs) 13:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Ha(n)nover
Didn't the promotion of Hanover to a Kingdom come some time after the Act of Union 1801? —Tamfang (talk) 03:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Congress of Vienna, wasn't it?--Gazzster (talk) 06:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The Electorates were abolished along with the Holy Roman Empire, so the Elector of Hanover was made a King instead.--Gazzster (talk) 06:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

-the British government did not acknowledge the abolition of the Holy Roman Empire on August 6th, 1806. Thus; the British monarch continued to use the electoral titles pertaining to Hanover until the creation of the Kingdom of Hanover in 1814 and continued to use the Electoral bonnet over the inescutcheon of the Hanoverian dominions in the royal arms; quite strangely up until 1816. Similarly; Hesse-Cassel continued to use the electoral style after the abolition of the Empire.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Irish and Scottish
How come there is only the Welsh translation of the full styles of Elizabeth II? Someone should include the Irish and Scottish version of it.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, this is discussed above. The only officially defined versions are in English and Welsh. And just a pointer, there are 2 "Scottish" languages - the Scots language & the Scottish Gaelic language. Scroggie (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Berwick-on-Tweed
Wasn't Berwick-upon-Tweed sometimes mentioned separately? I seem to remember something about Elizabeth I being Queen of England and Berwick-upon-Tweed. See also Wales and Berwick Act 1746 etc. AnonMoos (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC) -No; that's just an oft-repeated misconception. It's true that Berwick had a separate status from the rest of England; that of a Royal Borough (but it was legally still part of England; and the same is equally true of the counties palatine of Cornwall and Lancaster, and previously of Durham and Chester) that English law did not apply to Berwick (or Wales) unless explicitly mentioned in the particular Act; but the British monarch did not have any particular title in the royal style as regards Berwick; and never did. JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 19:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

King of France
"George III used the opportunity to drop both the reference to France and "etc." from the style."

Why would he want to do that? 81.68.255.36 (talk) 12:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Might be something to do with the Napoleonic Wars. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

 * More specifically, it became awkward for the British king to claim to be king of France while at the same time insisting that the exiled Bourbon pretender was the legitimate king of France. Of course, the Stuart pretenders managed to pull of the trick of claiming to be the king of France while at the same time living as guests of the actual kings of France. --Jfruh (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey thanks! 81.68.255.36 (talk) 10:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Welsh etc
I think the article should make it clear that the legislation that actually confers these titles on the Monarch confers these titles only in the English and Lating languages. At the moment it is really misleading. NelsonSudan (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Different style for George III?
I saw the text of the Treaty of Paris (1783) and it uses a different style for George III: "George the third, by the grace of God, king of Great Britain, France and Ireland, defender of the faith, Duke of Brunswick and Lunenburgh, Arch-treasurer and Prince-Elector of the holy Roman Empire, &c." Hot Stop talk-contribs 04:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC) -The above style is the correct one. The title was never formally 'Elector of Hanover' (and likewise; neither did any of the other electors bear such titles as 'Elector of Brandenburg'; 'Elector of Bavaria'; etc.). JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Henry II or John
There is contradiction in text and in table about beginning of use titles "King of England, Duke of Normandy, Duke of Aquitaine and Count of Anjou" instead of "King of English, Duke of the Normans, Duke of the Aquitanians and Count of the Angevins"... 1154 or 1199? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.87.141.150 (talk) 14:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Lady of the English, Queen of England and Duke of Normans
This is Modern English, but Matilda (if somehow she'd learned English) would have used a form of very early Middle English. Wouldn't it rather have been in Latin or Anglo-Norman? 129.79.203.172 (talk) 15:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * English wiki is in English, understand?--Yopie (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Chile?
Attributed to Mary and Philip:
 * By the grace of God, King and Queen of England and France, Naples, Jerusalem, Chile and Ireland, Defenders of the Faith, Princes of Spain and Sicily, Archdukes of Austria, Dukes of Milan, Burgundy, and Brabant, Count and Countess of Habsburg, Flanders, and Tyrol

Chile was added 25 Mar 2011 (by someone with only one other edit) with this summary: Philip was made King of Chile before his marrige so he would have an equal title, it was included in there style. Hm. It's not mentioned in Philip's own article. Was the name 'Chile' known in Spain by then? —Tamfang (talk) 08:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's unsourced and extremely dubious. I'm removing it. Surtsicna (talk) 08:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Stewart kings styled themselves "King of Great Britain".
This article is inaccurate. From as early as 1603, King James VI / I customarily styled himself "King of Great Britain", rather than "King of England, Scotland, etc.", and the other Stuart monarchas (Charles I, Charles II, James II) followed suit. True, the parliaments of England and Scotland were not yet united, but the Stuart kings RULED England and Scotland as a single entity, Great Britain. Paintings of Charles I, for example, are labeled "Carolus Rex Magnae Britanniae". JD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.156 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

 * You would need to find a reference to a published reliable source for such a change. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Elizabeth II, Dei Gratia etc.
The Latin version of the style is undoubtedly correct, but does anyone know why it uses the English form of the name ("Elizabeth") rather than the Latin form, "Elizabet(h)a"? Looking back to previous Monarchs, the Latin styles always used the "proper" Latin forms of the names – Georgius, Edwardus, Guilielmus, Maria, Anna, Carolus, Iacobus, etc. P M C  09:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

 * Coins of the pound sterling notes that Edward III and both Elizabeths use(d) the English versions of their names. History of the English penny (1154–1485) suggests the names used in the legends weren't standardised (Henri (II), Henricus, Edw (I), Edward (III), Edwardus, Ricardus, Ricard (II), Henric (IV)), even to the point of not changing for Richard I and John; while Crown (English coin) shows Edvvard VI.  Tudor pennies shrank the legend further (H, E, P Z M, E). It looks like they didn't really standardise on the Latin forms until James I and VI.  I would speculate that Elizabeth II was following the precedent of Elizabeth I's crowns, choosing on aesthetic grounds, or both.—dah31 (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

One may add to that: the May 1953 London Gazette gives in the titles 'Fidei Defensor' when surely this should read 'Fidei Defensatrix'. To this day, the Fid Def abbreviation on the coinage is an abbreviation of the latter. The 1953 coins also were minted Elizabetha. All other Latin genders take the feminine for the duration of the present reign, which makes it strange that the London Gazette should have printed what it did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.51.170 (talk) 12:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

 * Which 1953 coins have "Elizabetha"? A quick search shows "" on all circulating coins but the sixpence (which had "" on the reverse) and "" on the Coronation crown.  "" is the edge inscription of the 70th birthday five pounds.—dah31 (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we just have to go with whatever has been officially chosen: (1) in proclamations, which are law, (2) in the London Gazette and (3), earlier, on coins. If these sources are inconsistent or might have got the author sent to the back of a Latin class, our task is only to record what they have done.
 * In any case, in Latin and latinate languages grammatical gender is not tied to biological gender. Thus: in Latin agricola (farmer) and nauta (sailor); and in French there is an illustration that begins, "la sentinelle aimait le manneqin (the sentry was in love with the model)...". So Hollywood has been correct in applying 'actor' to both genders and the same can go for defensor. Errantios (talk) 05:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of titles and honours of the British Monarch which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 07:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Has been moved. Errantios (talk) 01:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Britanniarum omnium
What's the correct translation of Britanniarum omnium? The article currently says "of all the Britons", but I don't think that's right. I don't know much Latin, but I believe Britanniarum is the genitive plural of "Britannia" - the place - and not whatever the Latin word for Briton (a person) is. Shouldn't the translation be "of all Britains" or "of all Britannias"? I found some confirmation of this through web searches, but only in message boards, so not reliable sources. Indefatigable (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Britannia has a plural: Lewis & Short, Latin Dictionary . Why it should have been used here is beyond me. Errantios (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I've inserted the option "of all the British lands". Similarly, "of the British lands" in efns in the list of British titles. Errantios (talk)

Latin translation
This needs updating to Rex, etc. 185.48.63.1 (talk) 18:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Been done. Errantios (talk) 14:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC) But see section "Latin" below. Errantios (talk) 14:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Title Change, or a lack thereof
Unless I am mistaken, Charles III's ascension to the throne has not changed the Royal title beyond the gender and the top of "List of changes to the royal style" states that "Changes that only take into account the gender of the sovereign (such as replacing "King" with "Queen") are not indicated". 2A00:23C5:A180:2901:2CD4:CEF7:1AEE:B6F6 (talk) 19:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You are correct: the Accession Proclamation of 2022 makes no other change. Errantios (talk) 22:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

"By/by" and "God,"
Checking against the Gazette issues all the British titles from 1901 on, I've corrected all "By" to "by" and removed all commas after "God". I've then done the same for earlier British titles, assuming that they were in the same form—but subject to re-correction from their own sources.

Similar changes may be appropriate in the other lists. Happy to discuss: my French is very good and my Latin possibly adequate. Errantios (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Latin
Is Charles III really styled "Carolus III" in Latin? It seems that "Carolus III" is not official. The coins with his name use Charles III. 218.250.159.177 (talk) 23:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Good point. I can't find a proclamation of the title in Latin, so some editor seems to have jumped the gun. While making that correction (I can't do it right now because of Covid), I think it would also be appropriate to follow the Gazette in putting the English text first. Errantios (talk) 12:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It stayed on my mind, so I've done a basic update. More may happen at or following Charles's coronation. Errantios (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! 218.250.159.177 (talk) 12:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I noticed a part of the coronation where a proclamation of "Vivat Camilla Regina" and "Vivat Carolus Rex" was made. I hope editors will be able to include his Latin title if anyone can find a source for the whole thing. Huntington (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think this quite amounts to a declaration of title, rather than being formally proclaimed and gazetted. Errantios (talk) 22:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

A user has removed as 'speculative comment', but I have restored, my "As of 2023, it remains to be seen whether there will also be a Latin version." Not my speculation: merely a comment on what would be a normal expectation. Errantios (talk) 22:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

 * It is speculative, as well as unsourced, and furthermore, it is incorrect. A Latin version appeared on coins in 2022, notwithstanding that the name "Charles" is used in place of "Carolus". A full Latin style, with or without "Carolus", may or may not appear on the Great Seals, whenever they might be authorized and manufactured. Wikipedia is not supposed to forecast the future, especially without reference to reliable sources.
 * , you have also restored your own speculative and misleading addition of "Ireland (Hibernia) may be included in Britanniarum ("of the Britains"), until 1927". I removed this because it is wrong and misleading. "Britanniarum" means "of the Britains", or as we would normally say "of the British Isles" and "rex Britanniarum" or "regina Britanniarum" has been the basic title of British monarchs since the union of Ireland and Great Britain beginning in 1801. For a relatively short time between 1927 and 1953, Great Britain and Ireland were enumerated separately, to reflect the existence of a separate Irish state within the Commonwealth. When this, together with an addition of a comma between "Great Britain" and "Ireland", had been recommended by the Imperial Conference of 1926 (see "Changing the King's title, 1926: an asterisk to 'O'Higgins's comma"), it opened the field to demands from the (other) Dominions that they too should be represented in the royal title, but since they were too numerous, and would not agree on an order of precedence, the matter went back and forth until 1953, by which time Elizabeth II had been proclaimed in the 1926 style and after which the Royal Titles Act 1953 gave the Dominion governments powers (for the first time) to alter the royal style as they saw fit, allowing for the first time innovations like "Queen of Canada", "of Australia", "of Pakistan" etc. This done, the meaning of the British title in Latin reverted to its simplest 1801 form: Queen of the Britains, as was inscribed on all her Great Seals. Since there were no longer two separate monarchies in the British Isles by Elizabeth's (unplanned) accession, there was no longer any need to name Ireland as a monarchy distinct from Great Britain, and no need to separate the two largest Britains, hence the 1953 reversion to the George III style. As of 2022, when Charles III authorized the use of his mother's Great Seal for the time being, "Of the Britains" (Britanniarum) simply meant "of the British Isles", as it has always done, and it includes the realm of Ireland, as "the Britians" has always done.
 * I notice that you,, have also reinstated your own incorrect addition of "of the British lands" and "of all the British lands" as you here admit. Your admission here that you do not understand the meaning of Britanniarum accords with your erroneous translation of omnium Britanniarum as "of all the British lands". "British lands" is by no standard an acceptable translation of Britanniae, which means "the Britains" or "the British Isles". As Pliny the Elder wrote in his description of the British Isles in his famous Naturalis historia, "Britanniae vocarentur omnes", that is: "they are all called Britains". In [omnium] Britanniarum, there is no mention of "lands", and the word Britanniae ("the Britains") is a plural noun of which Britanniarum is the genitive case ("of the Britains"), not an adjective ("British").
 * Your repeated insertion of this unverified and incorrect material is, I believe edit warring. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 15:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The wisest fool in Christendom, please assume good faith and don't accuse lightly of edit warring.
 * Charles/Carolus: as I have tried to explain, my phrase is in no way a speculation—still less is it a forecast. It has been traditional for British monarchs to express their title in Latin, so presumably he will do so too—and also, presumably, by a proclamation published in the Gazette. I have merely commented that these things have not happened as yet. I don't understand your "notwithstanding that the name 'Charles' is used in place of 'Carolus'". If "Carolus" were to appear, or has appeared, on coins, a note on that could be added.
 * I offered "British lands" as a translation of "Britanniarum", not of "Britanniae". Your "British Isles" for "Britanniarum" is guesswork although a justifiable guess, but is the reference simply geographical or only to the monarch's realms within the British Isles (remember, this is a legal claim)? As your detail shows, these two possible meanings used to coincide but no longer do. My "lands" prefers the second meaning. But literal translation (from Latin of what period?) and guesswork are not enough; we need a source about the introduction of "Britanniarum". The point about Charles III and the Great Seal doesn't seem important: presumably this has to happen at every change of monarch. Errantios (talk) 00:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , you appear to have misunderstood my answer in several respects.
 * Charles III has already expressed a version of his title in Latin. It appears on coins. It has not appeared in any royal proclamation and there is no reason to suppose it will. Your presumption that it will is simply unsourced speculation, which has no place on a Wikipedia page. A fuller version of the title may appear on the Great Seal, but unless and until it does, there is no reason to mention a Latin title here. To do so is to indulge in speculation.
 * Britanniarum (in the genitive case) means "of the Britains", not "the Britains" and even less "of the British lands". Britanniae (in the nominative case) means "the Britains", not "the British lands". Your addition of "the British lands" or "of the British lands" is in either case incorrect and unsourced. Your reinsertion of it without consensus is edit warring.
 * Britanniarum does not have two possible meanings. It means "of the Britains", being the genitive form of the word Britanniae ("the Britains"), itself the plural form of the nominative singular Britannia ("Britain"). This has always been the case, and its meaning has not changed in any period, and certainly has the same meaning now as it had in 1801. Your claim that "" is simply wrong.
 * There is no guesswork in my answer. In your additions to the Wikipedia page, your erroneous guesswork misrepresents the facts and suggests an impossible translation for a well-known Latin word. If you have any reason to believe the meaning of Latin words has changed since 1801, you should produce it, or else cease to suggest it has, or could.
 * You point about a "" is incomprehensible because of the preceding facts. The meaning of the word "Britains" has not changed, and the monarch's Latin title is not in any sense a "", whatever that might mean.
 * Your speculative additions to the article are announced as such by your own words: "" and "". Claims following such words require attribution, to establish verifiability. Without a reliable source, this is unacceptable original research. As stated in Verifiability under Burden "" and "". Since you admit that "", and since you do not appear to contest that fact that you have not presented any such source, I will again remove your unsourced mistranslations and speculations from the article. I might further add that "of British lands", as well as being a mistranslation, risks confusion with the British legal term "British possessions", which encompasses all countries and territories where the king is head of state, but which explicitly excludes the United Kingdom itself. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 14:54, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The wisest fool in Christendom, there is no need to lecture.
 * Since British sovereigns have had a Latin title since 1901, Charles will presumably do the same. If that is a 'speculation', it is well founded. That he has not (yet) done so is therefore something to note. If eventually he does not do so, that may still be noted as a break with tradition or convention.
 * What is your source for "Carolus" appearing on coins? Charles has made several proclamations about new coins, but those I have looked at in the Gazette say only "Charles III". The new Australian one-dollar coin likewise has only "Charles III", although its predecessor had only "Elizabeth II".
 * A royal title is certainly a legal claim—to have some kind of authority over or in the place mentioned. Or: whatever it means, it has a legal status and so has to be legislated in some form, British practice being by royal proclamation. Note that, at least for the UK, the English and Latin titles are given as equivalents; neither of them appears as a translation of the other.
 * For the word britanniarum, a translation is needed (which I don't think must count as OR) and I made a guess in good faith since I did not find the word in Lewis & Short; and that a word can be grammatically derived does not show that it was ever in use. I don't agree with translating britanniarum as "of the Britains": while that may be literally correct, it ain't ordinary English. See OED online "Britain" II.3: "1874– In plural. Great Britain and its dominions and dependencies, the British Empire", including as a translation of omn[ium] britanniarum. I have now found britanniarum in Perseus, which confirms it as Roman usage and apparently as meaning "British Isles" (although that is not a literal translation). On that point, it seems we can now agree. But this doesn't get us to finding that britanniarum now means "of the British Isles"; it might include the "Realms and Territories" or at any rate the Territories. Errantios (talk) 03:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , I will try and finally answer these points completely:
 * I don't dispute that the non-appearance of a Latin title in a proclamation is unusual, but I don't think it's proper to note this without any source. If the king decides to have an English-language Great Seal, imitating Cromwell, that will be worthy of note, but it is not yet the time to write about any break with tradition, since we don't really know whether such a break has (or will) actually occur. Writing about something which hasn't happened but may yet seems redundant and premature and adds nothing concrete to this article.
 * "Carolus" does not appear on coins (yet?). Charles does. The rest of Charles's titles on the coins are in Latin: They appeared in December 2022.
 * A royal title, again, is not a legal claim. The royal title is a matter of royal prerogative and has no value in law. Legislation is made by the king-in-parliament, not by royal decree. Royal proclamations on this sort of subject may be official, but they are not law, per se. Anyhow, it's irrelevant. The title is no more or less geographically accurate than the title president of Ireland, which certainly does not imply any "legal claim" to the island of that name.
 * "The Britains" is perfectly ordinary English, even if it is almost always used to translate Latin and therefore necessarily rare. I am afraid that the OED definition is rather misleading; its quotations, from The Times and from Hansard are obfuscatory and misrepresent the meaning of "Britains", and it appears the OED went along with this, rather then what the Latin actually means. For this, there are two sources, though neither deals directly with the 20th/21st-century context. The first is actually quoted by the OED, omitting the crucial point:
 * Stanley Bindoff, writing for the The English Historical Review about the choice of the title "King of Great Britain" by James VI and I in 1604:
 * Wake's poem was entitled "Rex platonicus: sive, De potentissimi principis Iacobi Britanniarum Regis". Bindoff's footnote 4 lists more examples of the non-official Jacobean use of "Britanniarum" and "omnium Britanniarum" to mean "of [all] the British Isles", referring to his three kingdoms of Scotland, England, and Ireland:
 * Since "Britanniarum" is, following standard practice of plural Latin abbreviations, abbreviated "·", this appears to have led to confusion in the 19th century, or the appearance of a misspelling, when the difference with the older abbreviation "·" for "Britanniae" ("of Britain"), or "··" ("of Great Britain"), which had appeared on coins since the Jacobean union of 1603. This confusion is of course deepened by the fact that "Britanniae" can either mean "of Britain" (genitive singular) or "the Britains" (nominative plural). (There is no such ambiguity with "Britanniarum", which is unquestionably genitive plural "of the Britains".)
 * Frederic William Madden, attempting to clear up this confusion in an article for the Royal Numismatic Society, concluded:
 * These two scholars are far closer to the truth than the journalists and politicians quoted by the OED, who grandly, but only rhetorically, equate the meaning with the rhetorical "Greater Britain" of the same period. The OED itself writes, mistakenly calling the usage "post-classical":
 * There is no indication anywhere that meaning of the title of Elizabeth II's "Britanniarum regina" differed from George III's "Britanniarum rex", which itself is no different to the "Britanniarum rex" with which the Latin poets of James VI and I's time (including Hugo Grotius) lauded the first monarch of all the British Isles (or the first, as they might see it, since the dynasty of King Arthur). It is, in effect, the Latin for "of the United Kingdom of Great Britian and [Northern] Ireland", which has never been translated as such. There has never been a "Regno Uniti Rex". If Elizabeth II's "Britanniarum regina" meant to encompass the "other realms and territories", that would make the "regnorumque suorum ceterorum" redundant, even if it has never been an exact translation (it means "and of her other kingdoms" or "other realms").
 * My apologies for another lecture, but I think this adequately answers the questions. Britanniarum regnorumque suorum ceterorum regina means simply "Of the Britains and of her other realms queen". The English title is not an exact translation, and never has been. If "the Britians" means something other than "the British Isles", I have seen no evidence of that. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 12:31, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I still cannot agree about "speculation", but I have made my point.
 * However, I must correct your point 3, since it could mislead. A British royal proclamation is certainly a form of law, although now of very limited scope. It counts as a statutory instrument (a category of secondary legislation). Examples are Charles III's proclamations for his coronation coins, as recorded in Privy Council minutes; the texts can be found in the Gazette. The royal titles are still determined by royal proclamation, as is permitted by the royal titles legislation of each Commonwealth realm. They still take the form of a legal claim, even though other factors render the claim nominal or superfluous (the Irish example is not of the same kind).
 * You hold that "'The Britains' is perfectly ordinary English, even if it is almost always used to translate Latin and therefore necessarily rare." That statement seems to me to be self-contradictory. And I would not be so ready to challenge the OED, which describes English usage and does not seem to be out to correct anybody's understanding of a foreign language.
 * You may be assuming that choices of legal terminology always seek to avoid ambiguity. In British constitutional terminology, however, ambiguity has sometimes been found useful: see e.g. Anne Twomey, The Chameleon Crown (2006). Nonetheless, your point about redundancy of regnorumque suorum ceterorum does count against britanniarum referring more widely than to the British Isles.
 * Each of us seems to have made our views clear. I'd appreciate those of others. Errantios (talk) 14:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * procedurally, I think it would be proper to remove your uncited additions to the article. If you can gain consensus to re-add them, then that could be done at that stage, and not before. I quote again Burden: "" and "". You added the material, I removed it, and you restored it without any inline citation to a reliable source. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 16:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * you still misunderstand. Errantios (talk) 22:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * misunderstand what? Are you denying that that you restored material without an inline citation to a reliable source? The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 11:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll spell it out for the last time. That material points out an encyclopaedically noteworthy factor arising from material already present—to wit, that the practice (tradition, convention or whatever) since 1901 of having a Latin title has not, as yet, been continued. There is nothing actually new in saying that, so no citation is required. Errantios (talk) 11:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * So you claim. I challenge this, and until you can reach a consensus to include the material, it should stay out of the article. Do you object to removing the misleading footnotes on "appears to include Ireland"? The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 12:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "appears to include Ireland" addresses an evident ambiguity. However, I have removed "of the British lands", although I consider it valid for the same reason. Errantios (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If it is "evident" or an "ambiguity" as you claim, readers will be able to see that for themselves. Your addition of your own commentary remains unacceptable. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 11:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , let us both now have confidence in the readers. Errantios (talk) 12:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I have removed the objectionable footnotes. They are evidently incorrect. There is clearly no consensus to include your commentary, and "". The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 14:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * So you claim. I challenge this, and until you can reach a consensus to include the material, it should stay out of the article. Do you object to removing the misleading footnotes on "appears to include Ireland"? The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 12:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "appears to include Ireland" addresses an evident ambiguity. However, I have removed "of the British lands", although I consider it valid for the same reason. Errantios (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If it is "evident" or an "ambiguity" as you claim, readers will be able to see that for themselves. Your addition of your own commentary remains unacceptable. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 11:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , let us both now have confidence in the readers. Errantios (talk) 12:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I have removed the objectionable footnotes. They are evidently incorrect. There is clearly no consensus to include your commentary, and "". The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 14:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

"His Majesty The King" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=His_Majesty_The_King&redirect=no His Majesty The King] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Estar8806 (talk) 22:47, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Resolved: consensus on retargeting. Errantios (talk) 23:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

"Her Majesty The Queen" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Her_Majesty_The_Queen&redirect=no Her Majesty The Queen] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Estar8806 (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Resolved: consensus on retargeting. Errantios (talk) 23:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

"Her Majesty the Queen" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Her_Majesty_the_Queen&redirect=no Her Majesty the Queen] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Resolved: consensus on retargeting. Errantios (talk) 23:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

post 927 england is missing?
the titles of "english monarch" start at 1066 despite england uniting in 927, shouldn't the title of King Aethelstan be there since he was first to create the kingdom of england out of Wessex? 84.71.92.188 (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Style of the British sovereign


text: User talk:65.2.154.22

title: User talk:65.2.154.22