Talk:Queen of Rhodesia

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by MeegsC (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Rhodesian coat of arms

• ... that though she did not recognise the title of Queen of Rhodesia (Rhodesian coat of arms pictured), it was proposed that Elizabeth II appoint Prince Philip as governor-general to sack the unrecognised Rhodesian Front government? Source: Issuu
  • ALT1:... that despite being proclaimed as the queen of Rhodesia (Rhodesian coat of arms pictured), Elizabeth II refused to recognise the title? Source: The Veiled Sceptre. Cambridge University Press. pp. 79–80. ISBN 978-1107056787.

• Reviewed: Peter Baker (slave trader)

Converted from a redirect by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 05:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC).

• The article was nominated the day it was created, so it counts as new. Its length far exceeds the minimum 1,500 characters. There are plenty of references, most of which are accessible online, and I see no neutrality or copyright concerns. The first hook was almost too long so I shortened it a bit and added links. I have made a number of small edits to the article and the hooks, mainly addressing excessive capitalization (per MOS:JOBTITLES) but also removing a one-item list and fixing some verbosity. I would suggest removing the infobox because it does not (and cannot) adequately point out that the title was not recognized by the person to whom it was assigned; for example, it appears that Elizabeth's own view was that the title was not formed on 11 November 1965 or indeed at any point. The stamp image would do just fine on its own. But it is not a major issue. Surtsicna (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
• The C of E, I do not think it is overlinking to link to articles about Philip, who is central to the first hook, or to little known terms such as governor-general and Rhodesian Front. I can find nothing in the Supplementary guidelines requiring or prohibiting such links, but it is certainly common practice to include them, as can be seen on the Main Page. If you believe the first hook is better off without them, I would like another reviewer to confirm it. Surtsicna (talk) 12:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Queen of Rhodesia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Goldsztajn (talk · contribs) 22:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll take this, I might be up to a week before commenting. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose any promotion of this article to good status. "Monarchy of Rhodesia" is an entirely made-up term that doesn't exist in any reliable source. The article might be salvageable if it was re-written and re-named to "Queen of Rhodesia", but in its current form it's a hodge-podge of original research and synthesis. DrKay (talk) 07:13, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

No it isn't, its about the Rhodesian constitutional theory that only they recognised. Yes it had no international recognition, but under Rhodesian law they recognised that Rhodesia was a monarchy until 1970. If you think it should be changed to "Queen of Rhodesia" as the only holder was female, I'd be open to it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I think this got distracted, @Goldsztajn: could you continue the review please? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:32, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi The C of E, yes, the comments from DrKay had me somewhat concerned about stability, so I put things on hold. If you can be a little bit patient, I'll be able to get back to this in a week. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Goldsztajn:? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:09, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments

Hi The C of E, apologies for the delay, the non-virtual world has not allowed the time I had earlier hoped to go over this. Nevertheless, I thought I would leave some initial comments to see if you would like to work further on this. First, the lead is incomplete; it is too short and contains information that is incorrect. Second, the article is heavily dependent on contemporaneous newspaper reportage; which tends to give the article a news event feel, with a subsequent lack of historical analysis. Further, by relying on newspapers so much, the article focusses on the "Queen" as person, leaving aside issues related to the Queen (ie the Crown) as a political institution (although to be fair, this problem was compounded by the name change in the article).

Lead

• "Queen of Rhodesia was the title of the unrecognised constitutional monarchy claimed by Rhodesia following their Unilateral Declaration of Independence from the United Kingdom." This would read better as: "The Queen of Rhodesia was the title asserted for Rhodesia's constitutional head of state following the country's Unilateral Declaration of Independence from the United Kingdom."

• "The position only existed de facto in Rhodesian political theory" The use of de facto is incorrect here; it was de jure under the Rhodesian constitution, which is not technically "political" or "theory", rather it was existing law of Rhodesia at that time (confirmed by the Rhodesian High Court in 1968). This is elaborated in detail in Gowlland-Debbas. I think here it would be simpler and more precise to say "However, the position only existed under the Rhodesian constitution of 1965 and remained unrecognised elsewhere in the world."

• "Elizabeth II refused the title" This is not constitutionally correct; the British government never recommended ER2 accept the title, so no refusal was ever granted. Here, it would be more accurate to say: "The British government, along with the United Nations and almost all governments, regarded the UDI as an illegal act and at no point accepted the existence of the British monarch having separate status in Rhodesia."

• "The purported office ceased to exist following Rhodesia declaring itself a republic in 1970." As above, the office did exist under Rhodesian law between 1965 and 1970, but rather than make this complex (did it actually exist or not), simpler to say: "With Rhodesia becoming a republic in 1970, the status or existence of the office was no longer of relevance."

I think with further revision in the article related to the comments below, the lead could contain more detail.

Main contents

As mentioned above, the dependence on newspaper reports means there's a shortage of academic work to provide deeper historical analysis. Some examples:

• The absence of discussion of why the Rhodesian Front retained the monarchy; what political purpose did this serve? Watts, for example, argues that Smith believed UDI would not be supported by the military or the civil service if a republic had been declared. Pimlott's biography of ER2 discusses this as does Murphy.
• "The Rhodesian theory believed in the divisibility of the Crown to show their political autonomy." This sentence reads ambiguously. The divisibility of the Crown was broadly recognised well before the UDI; one would argue it was only because the divisibility of the Crown was so widely recognised that it was possible for the RF to assert/claim the existence of a Rhodesian monarchy.
• The unreferenced statement "There had been calls for Rhodesia to become a republic as early as 1966" - is contrasted with the work of Murphy, who shows the British government was promoting independence throughout Africa (including Rhodesia) from the early 1960s in specifically republican form to save the monarchy the embarrassment of being associated with the anti-imperialist politics of the African liberation movements or the white rule agenda of the Rhodesian Front.
• The names of the three pardoned men executed by the RF regime should be included (James Dhlamini, Victor Mlambo and Duly Shadrek).
• The discussion on the constitutional referendum on 1969 is somewhat limited. The reference to Catholic Church opposition is from after the event. What of opposition before the event? There's no discussion anywhere in the text of the attitudes of the liberation organisations (ZANU, ZAPU) to the constitutional change or to any of the issues related to the RF's assertion of the Queen as head of state. Furthermore, why did the white electorate move so quickly from being broadly in favour of the Queen as Head of State to embracing republicanism so comprehensively?
• I'd recommend particularly inclusion of the work of Kennrick, White and Brownell.

References

The article covers the basic events relatively well, but does not really provide depth. At this point I would not pass as GA, but let me know if you wish to work on it. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi The C of E - just a gentle nudge; can you let me know if you'll be working on this or not? Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi The C of E, I've not heard anything for more than two weeks, I'll assume you've other priorities for the moment and will close this as a fail. It's certainly an interesting topic (to me, at least); hopefully the comments will help with a future nomination. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:23, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Image

The C of E In carrying out the GAN review, I've found the stamp that you just reverted for use in the article is not correctly licenced. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Goldsztajn: Yes, also a reason why I took it out and restored the one that was licenced. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Ignore the above, I see your point. I have restored the arms just for the DYK to proceed (they may not even use it after all). The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 12 July 2021

Monarchy of Rhodesia → Queen of Rhodesia – "Monarchy of Rhodesia" is an entirely made-up term that doesn't exist in any reliable source. The actual term used by the sources is "Queen of Rhodesia". DrKay (talk) 09:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@DrKay: In the GAN discussion, I did say I was open to a move. And since there seems to have been moves of the Queens other titles to "Queen of...", for consistency I am fine with moving it. I don't think there's a need for RM, you can do it if you feel its needed. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

...an entirely made-up term that doesn't exist in any reliable source ... <cough>

References

Given the relatively small amount of academic work that exists on this subject, I'm not sure there is overwhelming evidence for either title. FWIW I prefer Monarchy in Rhodesia since this conveys more the constitutional nature of the dispute, whereas as Queen personifies the subject. regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@DrKay:. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Note the quote marks. My comment stands unrefuted. You seem incapable of understanding the distinction between the concept and the term used for the article title. DrKay (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

DrKay, by quote marks do you mean scare quotes? Where exactly? Neither source I've provided does that. The full quote from White (2015:153) reads: The key question of the commission was also its most mechanical: should Rhodesia continue as a monarchy, linked to Britain and the Queen, or should it become a republic? The abstract of Kenrick (2018) reads as: In the aftermath of Rhodesia’s Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) on 11 November 1965, Queen Elizabeth II became a contested icon in a struggle to define Rhodesian nationhood and identity. After UDI, rebel Rhodesians were forced to reconcile an act of treason against the Crown with a monarchism that permeated white settler society. This article moves beyond existing studies that focus upon the Queen as a diplomatic bargaining chip in the negotiations between the British and Rhodesian governments to consider her symbolic position within white settler society in the years after UDI. It argues that debates about the Monarchy were an important aspect of white Rhodesian attempts to define themselves and their nation in a decolonising world. The article also shows how the Rhodesian Front’s changing position on the Monarchy reveals its nationalist project to be essentially reactionary in character, and how the shift over time from settler colonial discourses of ‘loyal rebellion’ to discourses of independent nationhood demonstrates the wider comparative potential of the Rhodesian case study resulting from its peculiar post-UDI position between settler and non-settler colonies. No use of scare quotes anywhere. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

No. I mean the quotation marks in my own comment. DrKay (talk) 19:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

DrKay, as I've taken the GAN review of this and the current discussion pertains to whether the article can be considered stable; would you clarify, please: do you see the sources I've provided as indicating (or not) that the phrase "Monarchy of Rhodesia" is based on reliable sourcing? Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

The sources you've provided do not support use of the phrase, but as the phrase has been removed from both the article title and the article text, and everyone except you has accepted the change, the article will only be unstable, and unsourced, if you intend to reinsert it. DrKay (talk) 06:50, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I gave no indication of seeking to revert the title; please don't project malintent onto my words. I simply expressed a preference given the details of this topic. I raised the question regarding stability since you asserted the article was "a hodge-podge of original research and synthesis", claimed the earlier title was "entirely made up" and then proceeded to seek a name change. It's quite reasonable given those circumstances to wonder about stability and seek to clarify your assertions given the sources show your claims were wrong, Futher to this: Kenrick (2018) p.1079: David Cannadine’s work in particular is salient to the story of Rhodesia’s monarchy p1080: In order to understand the contradictions inherent in Rhodesia’s retention of the monarchy between 1965 and 1970, it is necessary to contextualise the subject both in the domestic context of early UDI-era Rhodesia and a much older international tradition of settler struggles for autonomy in the British Empire. Let's all assume good faith; my interest is in completing the review of this GAN, constructive contributions are more than welcome. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 09:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

My claims are not wrong. My claims stand totally unrefuted. You still fail to comprehend the objection and continue to talk about unrelated issues. "Please don't project malintent": I never did so. "Let's all assume good faith": I wasn't doing anything otherwise. DrKay (talk) 11:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

DrKay, you wrote "Monarchy of Rhodesia" is an entirely made-up term". Given that the term remains in use in multiple sources, your claim is objectively untrue. If you are asserting its lack of existence constitutionally, well, that's a moot point, but then you are not talking about a *term*. Moreover, if you are taking the position that the Monarchy of Rhodesia lacks constitutional existence, then its axiomatic that the Queen of Rhodesia does as well. Perhaps best we agree to disagree and move on. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:14, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

You have shown no sources where the term "Monarchy of Rhodesia" is in use. DrKay (talk) 11:29, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I may be late to the party here. It appears that there are indeed no references to a "monarchy of Rhodesia" in published sources, but when I reviewed the article for DYK I found that the term "monarchy in Rhodesia" is used in, among other instances, the titles of two papers. Surtsicna (talk) 22:32, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that was shown three weeks ago. DrKay (talk) 07:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

You're requesting the article title be changed to Queen of Rhodesia, when it's already at that title? GoodDay (talk) 04:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

No, the article was moved after the opening comment was posted. DrKay (talk) 07:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Queen of Ghana which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Use of Veiled Sceptre / claim that ER2 herself refused title

Twice I've removed assertions inserted into the text that ER2 refused the title. The first time it was in the article it was cited to pp79-80 of Anne Twomey's The Veiled Sceptre (cough, not Spectre...!). The second time it was added to the lede without reference to sourcing. The closest Twomey's text comes to mentioning a refusal is around the attempt to appoint Clifford Dupont as GG in 1965. Even here there is no explicit refusal, ER2 was simply advised not to even consider the request. The text goes on to state that in October 1964, before UDI, the British government made clear it would advise the Crown not to accept any request to become a separate sovereign, but mentions nothing to do with an action by ER2. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 13:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)