Wikipedia

Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 26

< Talk:Elizabeth II
Latest comment: 2 years ago by 190.46.80.76 in topic GA Review
Archive 20←Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28→Archive 30

Head of state issue

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I just want to direct the attention of those who regularly edit this article to a dispute at List of current heads of state and government. There's an RfC open at the talk page. Cheers. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Description of role

Latest comment: 13 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

I still think it gives an incredible amount of undue weight to the other commonwealth realms to treat the United Kingdom as simply one realm of 16, such that we have to list her reign over Saint Kitts and Nevis in the first paragraph of the article and give her title in the infobox as the fictitious "Queen of the Commonwealth realms". I propose that the infobox call her Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and fifteen other commonwealth realms, and that the intro read as follows:

Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary, born 21 April 1926)[1] is the reigning queen and head of state of the United Kingdom and 15 other sovereign states known as the Commonwealth realms. In addition, as Head of the Commonwealth, she is the figurehead of the 54-member Commonwealth of Nations and, as the British monarch, she is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

The full list can be given in a footnote, or elsewhere in the article. I am open to other wordings, but the pedantic listing of all these places does not belong in the first paragraph. john k (talk) 00:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe this was already settled and the resolution maintained, in essence, through a number of previous discussions: Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 6#Order of mention of Commonwealth Realms, Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 6#Other Encyclopedias, Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 6#RFC, Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 6#Order of mention of Commonwealth Realms, Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 9#Title in Infobox, Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 10#Introduction, Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 12#Lead, Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 12#UK, Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 12#Involvement, Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 12#You're at it again. Please stop it!, Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 12#The UK does have a superior status amongst the monarchies. In a number of those, john k presented essentially the same opinions as he gives above. I remain unconvinced by them and maintain my long-held position: it is against WP:NPOV to elevate one of Elizabeth's 16 realms above the others with the only justification for doing so being theories built around perceptions of popular perception and place of residence when, in actuality, for over eighty years, these countries have been, in law and international diplomacy, on an equal footing. This latter fact made up a good part of the reasoning for why this page was recently moved so as to eliminate the exclusive mention of the UK in the title. Adopting the changes suggested above would run contrary to that shift. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 06:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
The realms are legally equal, obviously. But a narrowly legal perspective is not the only one we should take into consideration here. There are other contexts (practical politics, for instance) where the Queen's role in the United Kingdom is more important than her role elsewhere. The queen spends the vast majority of her time in her role as Queen of the United Kingdom. She is called the Queen of the United Kingdom in every context except when she is specifically acting in her capacity as queen of one of the other commonwealth realms. She rules the UK directly, as opposed to through a governor-general. Focusing on a narrow, almost entirely theoretical, legal definition at the expense of any other understanding of her role is far more POV than anything I am proposing. But obviously we're never going to come to an agreement on this. I do want to emphasize, though, that I believe we should emphasize the United Kingdom because it is of much greater importance in the life of the subject of this article than any of the other realms (or, really, than all of the other realms put together), and that doing so should not be taken to indicate any belief on my part that Tuvalu and New Zealand are not in a state of formal equality in international law and diplomacy. This article is not about the institution of the monarchy. It is about a particular woman who has spent most of her life doing things related to her capacity as head of state of the United Kingdom, and a much smaller portion of her life doing things related to her capacity as head of state of the other commonwealth realms. Lavishing constant attention in article name space on pointing out again and again a fact which nobody is disputing - that the commonwealth realms are equal - does no service to our readers. Anyway, obviously Miesianiacal and I aren't going to agree. We've been going back and forth on this intermittently for years now. Input from others would be welcome. john k (talk) 07:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I see no problem with the present arrangements. The article states what countries the subject is queen of, as it well should, and the UK is done no disservice as it comes first in the only two instances where this information is given - the opening paragraph and the infobox. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, I already explained why I dislike it - it is unnecessarily detailed for the first paragraph, and difficult to read. john k (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with John K, on his suggestions. IMHO, Queen of the United Kingdom should be 'atleast' in the infobox. We've already got the article title as Elizabeth II & the 16 Commonwealth realms in the introduction. It's time for a change on atleast 1 of those 3 areas (article title, infobox or intro). The downplaying of the United Kingdom in this bio article has been overdone. GoodDay (talk) 03:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
As far as Canada, Australia, New Zealand & the other 12 realms are concerned, Elizabeth II is mostly an absentee monarch. GoodDay (talk) 03:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
DISAGREE: This article is not about the UK monarchy or about the United Kingdom it is about Queen Elizabeth. In any article about Queen Elizabeth the UK has no higher status than any of the other realms of which she is Queen. She is not Queen of those countries BECAUSE OF her reign of the UK, she is Queen of those states in their own right. If the UK scrapped the monarchy she would still be Queen of those other states. This was all laid out in the coronation ceremony during which she was appointed as Queen of each of the states separately.
What is worse about this introduction though is that it makes no mention of her being head of state of the Bailiwick of Jersey and the Bailiwick of Guernsey where she is head of state through her role as Duke of Normandy. Marlarkey (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Her coronation oath didn't mention the majority of the countries that are now Commonwealth realms, so the oath source is not relevant. And if one is using the Queen's website as a source surely we should defer to the description in it which refers to her as "head of state of the UK and 15 other Commonwealth realms" (Atanu Roy) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.97.85 (talk) 00:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

New lead proposal

Latest comment: 13 years ago21 comments7 people in discussion

I've read all the debates, and unfortunately the article can not progress until this is figured out.

So, idea. Scrap the list. Just leave

"Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary, born 21 April 1926)[N 1] is the constitutional monarch of 16 independent sovereign states known as the Commonwealth realms. In addition, as Head of the Commonwealth, she is the figurehead of the 54-member Commonwealth of Nations and, as the British monarch, she is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England."

The list is already in the infobox anyway, we don't need it cluttering up the prose. The paragraph could just be left like that, but that would not look nice as there would be room to add something more. Perhaps information about how she was not directly in line for the throne, or about recent failed referendums to abolish monarchy in the realms. Thoughts? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It should be "...constitutional monarch of the United Kingdom and 15 other independant sovereign states known as the commonwealth realms". The UK should be singled out in atleast 1 of 3 places (Article title, intro or infobox). GoodDay (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
GoodDay, you've repeated that same comment three dozen times and nobody's interested; there was strong opposition to singling out the UK.
The proposal made by Chipmunkdavis is essentially one that was raised in the previous debate over the lead. As I said there, I'm personally fine with the idea. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
There are numerous strong opinions on both sides of the dispute; I wouldn't say "nobody cares". This suggestion seems completely reasonable. Swarm X 04:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't think you understand the history behind my statement. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
What makes you say that? There was an RfC, it's not exactly hard to figure out how different users feel about particular things. Swarm X 00:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Because it appears that you're unaware of just how many times he's repeated the exact same statement over the past two months or so (and the trouble that habit has brought to his talk page (though, not from me, personally)). We don't need the proposal raised again in this conversation; the earlier RfC reaffirmed that the UK should not be singled out. The focus of this discussion should be kept on the question of whether or not the lead should list all the countries Elizabeth II is queen of or simply state "16 (or sixteen) independent states known as the Commonwealth realms". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Why not, for now, put the list in a note saying "These are the United Kingdom..."? -Rrius (talk) 05:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with that idea. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
@Miesianiacal & GoodDay - re "you've repeated that same comment three dozen times " - I hate to agree with Miesianiacal here, but this conversation has been had and a clear majority were against singling the UK. Now that decision might have been a result of the royalist, D&D playing, fantasy-land cabal that is WP:OWNing this article, and obviously consensus can change, but I suggest we wait a while before dredging up this issue again.
That said, I support Chipmunkdavis's proposal, as it avoids the ridiculous list. NickCT (talk) 16:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
And those who want to single out the UK are stuffy crumdugeons who sit around club fireplaces, drinking brandy and harumphing and tut-tutting about the lack of respect for Mother England and her Empire. See? The silly insults can go both ways. Hence, no point in engaging in them. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
MIESIANIACAL - The comments were meant to be good-hearted. If the light chiding really upsets you that much, please feel free to delete them. It won't upset me that much. Especially as I'm pretty far into this carafe of brandy..... NickCT (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Ah, yes. Of course. How silly of me to miss that those were good-natured accusations of ownership, pov pushing, and detachment from reality. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I think it's mostly D&D players that NickCT should be apologising to, he clearly doesn't think very much of them. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
How about you both stop with the personal attacks and focus on the article content? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
@MIESIANIACAL - I think it's fair to say that everyone has POVs, and in some regards, everyone is slightly detached from reality. But before this discussion gets to philosophical, I'd agree we should probably be focusing on content. I think from your previous comments that you are neutral to what Chipmunk is proposing. Am I right? If so, could we immediately institute that change?
@Chipmunk - Thanks for letting us know that there are at least a few wikipedians who can take a joke. NickCT (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Wow. Can we stop acting like children? If anyone has a problem with someone else, DR is that way. Otherwise, please get over it and focus on the issues at hand. Swarm X 04:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Since the responses to my proposal got off track, I'm going to make the edit and see what happens. I don't think it is terribly controversial, especially as it is intended as an interim move just to get out of the main text of the lead what most people think doesn't belong there. -Rrius (talk) 01:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
You'll have to forgive me if a guest's comments don't carry weight/or the issue is closed but Elizabeth's position as Queen of the United Kingdom has to mentioned as her other titles/roles flow from that one. I can't see how Wikipedia can distance itself from what the Queen's own website lists her as 'Head of State of the UK and 15 other Commonwealth realms'. Also, any idea that the existing text is accurate is torpedoed by the nonsense title given to her father in the next paragraph - 'King-Emperor of the British Empire' - no such title existed legally, only in general parlance reflecting genuine political reality, as in now when Elizabeth is primarly known as the Queen of United Kingdom - (Atanu Roy) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.97.85 (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
British website. She's known primarily as "Queen of England". Non-British titles flow from respective parliaments, not British title. Nobody said what's there now is an official title. Etc., etc. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
IP, there's not enough editors here, to overide the current majority, who favour of "..16 Commonwealth realms...". It stinks, but there's not much can be done about it. GoodDay (talk) 01:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Update the picture in the infobox

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Does anyone have a more recent free use image of the Queen? I say this because the one in the infobox is 4 years old now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Queens in the British Isles

Latest comment: 13 years ago33 comments11 people in discussion

Sorry, how is it in any way controversial to add Liz to Category:Queens regnant in the British Isles? If you don't think such a category should exist, then propose it for deletion, but if we have it, then surely she belongs to it just as much as all the other members of the category (and its subcategories), which (apart from two) also didn't reign over the whole of the British Isles. And nothing in the category's name implies that they did.--Kotniski (talk) 11:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

In general British Isles is a geographical term not a political one. Personally I can't see why the category exists given that, --Snowded TALK 11:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Snowded. Totally pointless cat and should be deleted. And if I knew how to go about it I would as it seemed to breach WP:OVERCAT in terms of location. Bjmullan (talk) 11:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
WP:CFD? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Might be worth doing something about Category:Queens regnant. Perhaps upmerge all the European ones. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
British Isles is much more than just a geographical term - it also describes a cultural entity with a shared history. Which is exactly as one would expect with a geographical region, because geography also includes human geography. ðarkuncoll 12:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
So are we agreed that the category might best not exist (and that matter should be discussed at CfD), but as long as it does exist, Liz II certainly ought to be in it? --Kotniski (talk) 13:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the category shouldn't exist but I do not agree that Liz should be in it. Bjmullan (talk) 13:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Why not? She perfectly fits the criterion for membership which is implied both by the name of the category and the way it's currently used. --Kotniski (talk) 13:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Elizabeth II, shouldn't be included at that category, as she's not reigning over the entire British Isles. GoodDay (talk) 14:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
But nor are any of the others in the category (except two, arguably). It says "in" the British Isles, not "of".--Kotniski (talk) 15:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
There's no denying that she's reigning in the British Isles. You've got me stumped, now. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with the category nor the placing of QEII in it. This is yet another example of the anti-British Isles POV which has been pushed by one editor for several years, but who has now seemingly been replaced by another with the same motives. Please see User talk:Bjmullan#Targetting articles containing British Isles for some recent background. LemonMonday Talk 21:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I do love wikipedia. We now have the resident "British Isles wherever possible SPA" and GoodDay as ever littering a page with his opinion without bothering to check his data. Basically Liz does fit the category, but the category is a nonsense (just look at who is there and who isn't). BI is a geographical term not a political one and the discussion should take place at category level. --Snowded TALK 07:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I request that you scratch out "...and GoodDay as ever littering a page with his opinon without bothering to check his data". GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Why would I do that, its an accurate description and can be supported both on the evidence of the referenced contribution and multiple diffs on other pages. Further it is the opinion of several other experienced editors. Solution is in your hands --Snowded TALK 16:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
If you're not capable of complying with my request. Then, so be it. GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with the category either (it's just like saying "Queens in Europe" - Europe is a geographical term too), although someone might be able to suggest a better way of organizing the categories, and like you say, that's a discussion for category level rather than this already overcrowded talk page.--Kotniski (talk) 09:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Europe is fine, it doesn't have the historical issues of British Isles --Snowded TALK 18:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Collapsing off topic discussion per WP:TPG. If you two want to continue flirting, take it to your respective talk pages.
Au contraire, many English people associate "Europe" with invasion and attempts to undermine our way of life, and the imposition of their language, culture and laws on us. Yet we are not so insecure in our identity as to deny that we are, nevertheless, part of the geo-cultural entity known as Europe. ðarkuncoll 00:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh, poor England, poor long-suffering England, who would never, for example, impose its language, culture and laws on, and undermine the way of life of the native peoples of, places like Ireland, Canada, America, India, New Zealand, Australia, Kenya, Jamaica, Sudan, ……. Nah, that would never happen. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 01:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
As I recall there were few complaints about this English cultural imposition.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, Mr Jack of Oz, if you don't like how we imposed our people on Australia, perhaps you should leave it. ðarkuncoll 01:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
What a childish comment. I bring out the stark contrast between how precious the English consider their cultural identity to be and how worthless they consider that of others to be - and you come up with crap like that. No wonder the British are a spent power. As for Australia, the British are the aliens here now - see Sue v Hill. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 22:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
So where did you come from, then? If you honestly think English imperialism was a bad thing, then you should leave Australia and hand it back to the Aborigines. Any other course of action is rank hypocrisy. Biting the parental hand that created you is a very common feature of rebellious teenagers, lacking both maturity and their own independent identity. And when, may I ask, did I ever describe other cultures as "worthless"? ðarkuncoll 00:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Last question: you didn't. But the British did establish their Australian colonies on the basis of terra nullius, i.e. legally, whatever natives happened to be here did not count as human beings. If that's not relegating their culture to worthless, I don't know what would do the trick.
Maybe I'm an aboriginal; did that ever occur to you? I'm not, as it turns out. So, where should I go? And where should the Northern Ireland-born British go? This talk of "rank hypocrisy" is rubbish. Various scientific and medical discoveries were made during the course of the Nazis' abominable treatment of the Jews and other minorities. You, I and millions of others now benefit from these discoveries. Should we say that these discoveries should never have been made, because that treatment should never have occurred? Would you refuse certain life-saving medical treatment to a child of yours because you knew that it had come ultimately from Nazi experimentation 65 years ago? No, I didn't think so.
As for teenagers biting the parental hand: if you see yourself as representative of the parent of the Australian people, then prepare to have a lot more than your hand bitten. Last time I looked, we were feeding you!
I don't want this to get out of hand. I'm just saying that you can't refer to how "many English people associate "Europe" with invasion and attempts to undermine our way of life, and the imposition of their language, culture and laws on us", without it being reflected back to you that invasion, undermining of others' way of life, and the imposition of your language, culture and laws on others, were the hallmarks of the British Empire, the largest Empire in the history of the world. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 02:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Who has benefited in Australia from English imperialism? You have, and all other Australians (except the Aborigines). If you have any problem with English imperialism, you should leave Australia. As for where you do, I don't care. You can't come here though, I'm afraid - not after the Australians stopped allowing British people to go and live there if they wanted to. And we've got all the Australian bar tenders we need, thank you. ðarkuncoll 13:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

All right, so I'm going to readd the article to the category - suggest that someone who thinks the category should go should start a discussion at CfD.--Kotniski (talk) 18:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Kotniski I see NO consensus here for the addition of this pointless category so I suggest that you self revert until a definitive decision is reached. Bjmullan (talk) 00:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Nonsense; the objections here are to the category's existence (which is being discussed elsewhere) - and not to Liz's inclusion in it, to which no-one has provided any reasoned objection.--Kotniski (talk) 07:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Opposition to her inclusion simply doesn't make sense. If people want to attempt to get the category deleted, that's fine, but it is absurd to suggest that, so long as the category does exist, this article doesn't belong in it. Does Elizabeth II reign over the entirety of the British Isles? No, but then neither did Queen Boudica. -Rrius (talk) 05:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Kotniski on this. I know many things about this article produce strong feelings and intense debate—nothing wrong with that—but I truly don't see how the inclusion of this category can possibly be controversial. She is a queen regnant in (not over) the British Isles—that's not in dispute, is it? Alkari (?), 3 March 2011, 06:34 UTC
Agree. If the category exists, Liz belongs in it. Category discussions should be done at WP:CfD. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

BTW: The nomination for deletion of the category-in-question, has been closed as no consensus for deletion. GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

grammatical error in lead

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

"In 1949, George VI became the first Head of the Commonwealth, a "symbol of the free association" of the independent countries comprising the Commonwealth of Nations."

"comprise" means "to be made up of"; the whole comprises the parts, not the other way round. 213.249.135.36 (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Not when used passively - see a dictionary, for example OED 6.e. Johnbod (talk) 02:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Could you please quote it?—not everyone has access to a copy. Also, even incorrect usage is included in dictionaries, and the way it's used does appear to be an incorrect substitution of comprising for composing. -Rrius (talk) 06:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Rhodesia

Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

The Queen was also Queen of Rhodesia from 1965 to 1970. It has been argued that this doesn't count because she herself didn't acknowledge it, but this had as much effect in Rhodesian law as it would in Canadian law if she decided to no longer acknowledge being Queen of Canada, i.e. none at all. ðarkuncoll 13:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It was declared illegal by UN Security Council resolutions 216 and 217.[1] DrKiernan (talk) 13:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Which, again, had no effect on Rhodesian law. ðarkuncoll 13:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Elizabeth never accepted the title. It's also unknown if there was any law that gave her the title "Queen of Rhodesia", or, if there was such a thing, what validity it had having been passed by a council that declared independence illegally and was subsequently legally dismissed by the sitting governor. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Leave it out. The Queen was Queen of many other places too. Namely, Trinidad and Tobago (Independent in '62 and republic in '76), Guyana (Independent in '62 and republic in '70), Nigeria (Independent in '60 and republic in 63'), etc. There are many nations that were 'realms' but are no longer. I feel it will only serve to clutter the article. Plus it is already on Commonwealth_realm#Former_Commonwealth_realms CaribDigita (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

-Rhodesia intended to make herself a commonwealth realm in 1965 with the UDI, and the government was carried out in her name. Therefore, that makes Rhodesia a commonwealth realm, albeit an illegal and an unrecognised one. HOWEVER,like Pakistan 1952-1956, Rhodesia never passed a Royal Titles Act, so Elizabeth's proclaimed title in Rhodesia was 'of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of her other realms and territories, Queen, Defender of the Faith, Head of the Commonwealth' and NOT 'Queen of Rhodesia' JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 01:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

-also, guyana was independent in 1966, not 1962. jUST SAYIN' :)JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 01:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Title of the article

Latest comment: 13 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

The articles about Liz's predecessors are titled "George VI of the United Kingdom", "Edward VII of the United Kingdom", and so on. Most of the articles on English monarchs seem to include "of England", "of Great Britain", or "of the United Kingdom" in their titles. Why isn't this "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom"? Just wondering.... PurpleChez (talk) 03:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth II is equally Queen of Canada, Queen of Australia etc, it would be problematic to include of the United Kingdom. Also it simply is not needed, there is only one Queen Elizabeth II in this world, "of England" or "Of UK" should only be used if there is a real need for it. Queen Victoria for example is fine without it. I do think it would be helpful if this article made reference somewhere to the fact that she is not actually "Queen of England", a mistake made by so many. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Understood, but couldn't the same be said about, for instance, Edward VIII? There don't appear to be any other monarchs or others named Edward VIII. Also, please note that I did not say that Liz should be called "Queen of England"--I understand that she is Queen of the United Kingdom, so on and so forth. I also understand the bit about her also reigning over the commonwealth realms, but so did her father. I'll admit that I'm not much interested in the politics involved...I have nothing personal against Mrs. Windsor but really have no interest in the monarchy whatsoever...I'm just unconvinced as to why different articles represent significantly different situations.PurpleChez (talk) 14:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
It was also proposed some time ago that the immediate predecessors have their article titles changed as well - most people were in favour, and I think the arguments were strong, but there was sufficient opposition that the administrator who closed the discussion didn't consider the consensus strong enough to make a change to the status quo. Considering that some of those predecessors didn't even have "of the United Kingdom" as part of their official title, I think the case for changing those titles is in some ways even stronger than it was for Liz.--Kotniski (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the info!!! PurpleChez (talk) 14:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
As I said, I don't give a rat's bum about the monarchy...one of my favorite news photos of recnet months was Chaz and Camilla's limo doused with paint...but I'm still fascinated by all of the history and procedure and tradition, etc., etc., that goes into some of these discussions, such as how these titles work and the bit, cited above, that some of these folks didn't actually have "of this or that" as part of their titles. PurpleChez (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
The title should be moved back to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 16:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
No, it shouldn't. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Additionally, I think WP:COMMONNAME would result in the current title. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Current lead needs changing

Latest comment: 13 years ago25 comments8 people in discussion

Sorry but i really do have a problem with the current introduction. No where in it does it make clear which countries she is Queen of, a note is not enough, nor is depending on a hidden list in the infobox. The list of nations should be restored to the introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand how a change happened in the first place. A month ago there was a vote... Support current lead: 15 Support change: 9 Support compromise: 1 Support current lead or compromise: 1 Why has the majority position being ignored. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It concerns the anal argument over which realm should be mentioned first.It is bizarre that lead does not say she is Queen of the UK. But that's Wikipedia for you: consensus before ccommonsense.Gazzster (talk) 10:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Population size or alphabetical order are fine with me, but it should atleast list the actual countries. If the introduction is meant to sum up the article youd think what countries shes actually head of state of would be pretty relevant. Its does defy commonsense. :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 10:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
The lead includes the infobox, which lists the countries, and a footnote which lists the countries. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
But its not good enough, and it blatantly goes against a previous vote where 15 said keep the status quo (far more than were involved in the latest debate to change it). We would not put the fact President Obama is president of the USA in a note or just leave it for the infobox. The infobox list is simply not good enough. For a start it is hidden, and secondly it is a complete list of nations including ones she is no longer Queen of. If the intro was huge i could understand wanting to remove a list, but its not exactly overflowing. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with BW here. It is utterly perverse and uninformative not to include a reference to the UK in the introduction. What definition of the lead "includes the infobox"? To most readers, the lead does not "include the infobox", the content of that part of which is, in any case, hidden by default. Reopen the debate and let's come to a more sensible conclusion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
It's in the introduction three times. Twice as "British monarch", and once as "queen of...the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand...". DrKiernan (talk) 12:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
the point where it says Queen of the UK, Canada, Australia and NZ is no good because it is talking about the fact she became Queen of these nations in the past. The last sentence of the paragraph goes on to say that many of her realms have become republics. It leaves room to doubt which ones remain her realms and which are former realms. and a tiny list in the infobox with dates does not help. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The earlier RfC was on whether or not the UK should be singled out in the lead as special. The majority were against. That conclusion didn't rule out condensing the list down to "sixteen independent sovereign states known as the Commonwealth realms"; the UK is not singled out. Discussion on that idea took place during the RfC, but was raised again here; few people participated, only two objected... to the result of the earlier RfC. Someone was bold and went ahead and made the edit.

Personally, I'm fine with it the way it is now. But, I can also live with the list. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I think perhaps the list should be re-introduced for two reasons: One, because I am certain that many readers will not notice the drop-down list, and two, because no real discussion was held nor consensus achieved amongst editors of this article for the change. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 13:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, people did have a week to participate in the earlier discussion on the idea. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Until it's agreed to have it at the correct wording, "...of the United Kingdom and 15 other commonwealth realms", the complaints won't go away. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
It certainly won't go away so long as you keep bringing it up again, and again, and again, and again. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Certain editors have got to let go of their non-British monarchists pride & stop trying to hide the UK's uniqueness among the 16 realms. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be only one editor here who needs to let something go. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
It's as though you're working for the Canadian Monarchist League & promoting their position. Honestly, give up this sad agenda you've been on these last few years. The international community (books, television, newspapers) consider her the British monarch. Billy & Kate's wedding isn't taking place in Ottawa or Sydney or Auckland etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
The opening sentences of this article are amongst the most heavily analysed and debated on Wikipedia. The matter you've raised, yet again, without reason, yet again, has been discussed multiple times and, on each of at least the last three occasions (my memory doesn't stretch back any farther than that), the last being only a couple of months ago, the majority was in favour of not highlighting the UK as "special". Hence this discussion is only about whether to list all the realms or simply refer to them by their collective name. Please focus on that and give the "UK first" argument, and the rest of us, a break. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
If memory serves me correctly, the 'pedia is not a democracy. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
And RfC isn't a vote. But, allow me to address your semantic critique: at the end of the last three debates on the matter you've raised, there was no consensus in favour of highlighting the UK, with the majority against the idea.
Regardless, you're deflecting from the point: your interjection was repetetive and unrelated to the focus of this discussion; it could only serve to reignite a dispute that was only just settled. You're already well aware of how irritating other users find that habit. Count me amongst them. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
The lead is a joke, pandering to non-British PoV. GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
By the way i oppose simply saying United Kingdom and other commonwealth realms. All realms should be listed in the first paragraph of this article. The old version should at least be restored which more people had voted in favour of than this current wording which missing out important information. Better for there to be a dispute about the order of the names than for vital information to be left out. ;\ BritishWatcher (talk) 18:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
This is just wrong. It makes a mockery of Wikipedia's reputation to not refer to Elizabeth II as primarily the Queen of the United Kingdom. She is the British Monarch paid for by the British State. When she goes on state visits to other countries, she visits them as Queen of the United Kingdom. Does she undertake state visits for any other country? No. I can understand the irritation that this ongoing saga causes but we really shouldn't let it lie because the lead is a joke. What other sources refers to Elizabeth II in this way? Has anyone actually contacted Buckingham Palace for its opinion on this? I am happy to contact it for clarification, or are primary sources not considered?? Ats71 (talk) 03.59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Ats71, good luck. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The original wording should be restored. There was no consensus for the current change which has removed any mention of the UK and other realms from the first part of the introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You've either not looked at the article, or are looking at a cached revision. DrKiernan (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

George VI

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Northern Ireland was part of the United Kingdom, and the Irish Free State was, at least nominally (yes, I know it's arguable), a Dominion. So, if "United Kingdom" is used instead of "Great Britain", then I think "Ireland" should be cut. Personally, I would marginally prefer "United Kingdom" over "Great Britain, Ireland" because of the arguable nature of the "Ireland" part, and because it is shorter. As I said in an edit summary, we don't have to use the full style and title, just a succinct, correct phrase that encapsulates what he was. DrKiernan (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


Age and Length of Reign

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This should be added to the biography: To date Elizabeth II is the third longest reigning and the longest living monarch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.114.69.2 (talk) 17:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The article already specifically says "She is the longest-lived and third-longest-reigning monarch". DrKiernan (talk) 17:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Arms

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

How come she didn't impale her arms with her husband, when a princess? 98.206.155.53 (talk) 06:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Because she outranked her husband. Bbombbardier (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Offspring

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Under the section headed MARRIAGE, it only lists 2 of her children, Charles and Anne - all four of them are mentioned in the 2nd paragraph of the first section.

They're mentioned later on because they were born after her accession. DrKiernan (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Relevant

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Adding "Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark, of the House of Glücksburg" makes the sentence somewhat cumbersome. I'd prefer to remove it, from this article, as the important point that he was part of the Danish royal house is already made. DrKiernan (talk) 11:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the sentence is perfectly adequate, but I'd be happy to discuss other solutions. Her husband's house must be mentioned appropriately in the article, especially considering the fact that she belonged to her husband's house until 1952 even by British standards (i.e. by George V's 1917 royal proclamation), and considering the fact that there is an article on Philip's family (customary practice is to include references to even the most obscure fifth cousin twice removed American politicians). The House of Glücksburg/Oldenburg is, arguably, the world's most prominent family in existence today. I also note that the Windsor nationalist name (adopted by George V as the name of his male line descendants amid hysterical Anti-German sentiment) is mentioned 20 times in the article, whereas Glücksburg is only mentioned once (in the marriage section), and now with an unjustified relevance tag. Interestingly, the article includes a full quote by Philip ("I am the only man in the country not allowed to give his name to his own children") in this regard. Garn Svend (talk) 11:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

British queens do not join their husband's houses. Anne was in the House of Stuart, not her husband's. Victoria was in the House of Hanover, not her husband's. Similarly, Elizabeth II is and was in the House of Windsor. Philip's comment relates to his children, who typically would be in their father's rather than mother's house, not to his wife. As you rightly point out, the switch of the children from Mountbatten to Windsor is already covered quite extensively in the article, including a quote from Philip himself about his unhappiness with it. DrKiernan (talk) 12:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
She was not the queen when she married. She ceased being a member of the house of Windsor (as defined by George V's proclamation) in 1947, only becoming a member of a (new) house of Windsor in 1952 by her own proclamation. The article already states that the house name was expected to become House of Mountbatten.
This is an extremely lengthy article. When there is a separate article on the family of her husband, it's only appropriate that it's mentioned and linked to in this article, especially when the family in question is an extremely prominent family, and when the 1917/1952 adopted name of Windsor is mentioned no less than 20 times.
Victoria was already queen when she married, and there was no similar royal proclamation in effect at that time. Garn Svend (talk) 12:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC) 
I don't see how it's relevant at all. It appears more to be a push of a particular pov, than anything else. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Signature?

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Where did the signature go? There used to be an autograph of Elizabeth II in the article. Where is it? The file has obviously been deleted. Who was so foolish as to do that?? --Krawunsel (talk) 05:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The file was deleted, and the redlink was removed on Boxing Day last year. Since you have no idea why the image was deleted, it's unclear why you think the deletion was foolish. Do you have any constructive contribution to make or should we consider the matter as closed? -Rrius (talk) 06:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I was asking for a sensible answer but you seem to be deliberately unhelpful. Are you unable to give a sensible answer or just unwilling? --Krawunsel (talk) 07:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I think Rrius might be trying to say that someone took away the image file and so the link on the article went red. But I'm blowed if I can guess why the image file was taken away. Why was that done, Rrius? Eddaido (talk) 08:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Commons only hosts images that are public domain in both the United States and the country of origin. See here for an explanation. DrKiernan (talk) 08:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Lead

Latest comment: 13 years ago40 comments10 people in discussion

User:Rubywine seems to think that the Queen's moving from third to second longest-reigning monarch is so important that it not only needs to be in the lead, but needs to be in a paragraph of its own, creating a fifth, when WP:LEAD says four. Is consensus in fact that this achievement is so important that it warrants the extra line break? -Rrius (talk) 07:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It's important enough to be mentioned in the text - and, when it happens, para 3 of the lead can be updated a little - but we don't need it added to para 4 and, obviously, don't need it as a standalone para. I've taken it out. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
The lead already says she's one of the longest reigning monarchs. The lead shouldn't repeat points unnecessarily. I suggest that we amend the article on Saturday by changing "one of the longest reigning" to "the second-longest reigning". I'm not convinced the date of 12 May is correct. If she's reigned for 59 years and 93 days today, as the article says, then doesn't she match George III on 13 May 2011 and exceed him on 14 May, not 12 May? DrKiernan (talk) 07:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
No doubt there will be publicity on "the day" - whichever day that is. We can and should wait to see what reliable sources say then, rather than trying to calculate it here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
This topic is under discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_British_Royalty#Elizabeth_II_-_question_about_notability_of_length_of_reign. Rubywine (talk) 08:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I see where the discrepancy lies. Elizabeth II has reigned on fifteen February 29ths, whereas George III reigned through 13. That explains why her 59 years are 2 days longer than George's. DrKiernan (talk) 08:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
This discussion topic is obscurely titled and it seeks to trivialise the issue, which is actually about the notability of the relative length of the Queen's reign, within the historical context of the monarchy. I do not think this is a trivial issue and I want to broaden the discussion to a wider community of editors; that is why I opened a discussion topic on the WikiProject page. Contrary to what DrKiernan says above, the lead does not mention that Elizabeth is one of the longest reigning monarchs; which is why I added that information, only for it to be repeatedly deleted. A statistic indicating the length of the Queen's reign relative to other British monarchs is entirely appropriate for the introduction; it does need a better source, but I have no doubt one is forthcoming shortly. Re concerns about length, I think the introduction is far too large and full of material that doesn't belong there. Most of the second paragraph belongs under Early Life, and the fourth paragraph on the annus horribilis belongs under 1990s. The several sentences on George VI also belong elsewhere. Rubywine (talk) 09:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
It specifically says "..her reign, which at 59 years is one of the longest for a British monarch..". That's why I suggested that we could change it to "..her reign, which at 59 years is the second-longest for a British monarch..", or similar, at the end of this week.
The lead is supposed to be a summary of the entire article; it won't be an adequate summary if her early life, annus horribilis and Diana's death are removed. DrKiernan (talk) 09:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
On your first point, my mistake. It's there, but buried in the text, so that I didn't see it even after looking for it prior to my initial edit. Which illustrates my point that it warrants its own paragraph; or at least the opening sentence of a relevant paragraph. On your second point, while I think that it is impossible to summarise this entire article in four paragraphs, the introduction contains far too much minutiae for a summary. Also, the fourth paragraph contains unsourced commentary and interpretation; at the very least, some references should be added. Rubywine (talk) 09:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The easiest way to calculate reign length is to use {{age in years and days}}. According to that, George III reigned for 59 years, 96 days, so Elizabeth II ties George III for second-longest reigning British monarch when she reaches 59 years, 96 days on 13 May, which is Friday.

Looking at the lead, there is definitely way too much about George VI there. Let me offer this rewriting of paragraphs 2–4 of the lead that not only (hopefully) addresses all concerns expressed above, but also offers more thematic cohesion in each paragraph, with a paragraph on her life up to coronation, a paragraph on her reign and its length/jubilees, and a paragraph on her family (plus this cuts about three lines of unnecessary text/wordiness):

For reference, here's what the text as of 12:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC) says:


OCNative (talk) 12:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks OCNative, that's a huge improvement, and I'd like to see it go live. It's a much better piece of writing all round. You've addressed virtually all of my concerns, although I still think that the final sentence on the Queen's personal popularity needs support from a secondary source. Rubywine (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
The only problem I have with it is the way Diana is introduced into the lead without an explanation as if we are supposed to know that she was Charles's wife. I much prefer to keep "eldest son Charles's marriage continued, and he divorced in 1996. The following year, her former daughter-in-law Diana, Princess of Wales..." Otherwise, you'll have to use the formula "Charles and his wife Diana".
Generally, citations are unnecessary in the lead when they are given in the text. In this case, there are four for the rebound and three for recent popularity. DrKiernan (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I've just remembered why it says India in the lead. It's to avoid the inevitable India-Pakistan to-and-froing that results when we just have Pakistan there. That could be a problem. DrKiernan (talk) 13:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
If India absolutely must be mentioned it could say "After the war and Indian independence, and her father's death in 1952, Elizabeth became Head of the Commonwealth...". I strongly prefer OCNative's new wording on Charles and Diana. Rubywine (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I've given a reason for my preference. Children don't know who Diana is. She died before they were born. She needs to be introduced. DrKiernan (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Good work (OCNative) - I agree we need Diana to be introduced otherwise the sentence would be puzzling to those few humans on the planet who do not know the story. On the George VI/India thing I am less certain - why does partition have to come into it if we do not mention the Empire bit at all? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I introduced India to the lead because repairs like this [2] indicate that without it, misunderstandings arise. DrKiernan (talk) 19:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
The bit I've bolded provides all the explanatory context needed: "Revelations on the state of Charles and Diana's marriage continued, and they divorced in 1996." There is no need to say that she is the Queen's daughter-in-law because it has already been stated that Charles is the Queen's son. Let's not clutter up this excellent rewrite with unnecessary verbiage. Rubywine (talk) 21:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Regarding my rationale on Charles and Diana, I actually changed it because the old wording failed to introduce Diana (it only calls her Elizabeth's "former daughter-in-law"), so for all we know she could have been Andrew's wife. How about: "Revelations on the state of Charles's marriage to Diana, Princess of Wales continued, and they divorced in 1996."
Regarding the India-Pakistan issue, does it happen with great regularity or just once in a while? I've only edited Elizabeth II once before (to fix a link to Prince William), so I haven't been around enough to know if the India-Pakistan thing is a major issue or a minor issue. I will defer to others, but if it is a major issue, then how about changing "When her father died in 1952..." to "After India became a republic in 1950 and George VI died in 1952..." OCNative (talk) 01:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm perfectly happy with those suggestions. Rubywine (talk) 04:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Fine, you can leave out India and see if anyone adds it later. On grammar and syntax, I would like a comma after "Duke of Edinburgh" and to switch the word order of your suggestion to read "Revelations continued on the state of Charles's marriage to Diana, Princess of Wales, and.." DrKiernan (talk) 07:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Clarification: The British monarchy has existed for only 304 years. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Not according to the British monarchy's own website, which states 1603 as the date of merger, which was, in fact, much more important than the technical events of 1707. ðarkuncoll 00:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
May 1, 1707 is the date. GoodDay (talk) 01:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Why not wait until 12 May has actually passed before adding the information? Although I don't think being second longest reign is all that noteworthy. Wait till she outreigns Victoria in in 2014. Now that would be noteworthy.Gazzster (talk) 02:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, we're crystal-balling that she'll still be alive by then. GoodDay (talk) 03:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Always with the pleasant remarks GD. I don't know why there's an attempt to argue about the complexities of the "start point" for the British monarchy since it is already fully elucidated in the linked article. On the Pakistan/India issue, looking back in the article history it doesn't seem to come up a great deal but perhaps the battle was farther back than the few months I checked out? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 06:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
The linked article is erroneously named. It should be List of longest-reigning monarchs of the British Isles. GoodDay (talk) 12:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I reverted your recent change to that so it can be subject to consensus; it's pretty clear that the above and below gives a consensus to the agreed version - especially given that you recently stated you are neither a "deletist" nor an "addist" on the BI issue. I suggest you obtain agreement before another edit. Given the lengthy ANI debates not so long ago about your driveby editing conduct, consider yourself warned. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe this newest version reflects the discussion above (it also continues to not mention when the British monarchy started):

OCNative (talk) 09:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

That looks fine to me, and I agree it's an improvement on the current version. DrKiernan (talk) 11:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
It's still inaccurate, as the article linked to includes English, Irish & Scottish monarchs etc. The British monarchy began in 1707. GoodDay (talk) 12:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
The article covers the direct line of monarchs that led the countries which would later merge to form what is today Britain, it'd be highly artificial to create large separations. Anyway, that's a problem for that article. This lead is fine. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Big thumbs up from me. Well done. Rubywine (talk) 16:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Elizabeth is a British monarch. Victoria was a British monarch. Elizabeth has already reigned in Britain longer than any monarch who reigned solely in England and any monarch who reigned solely in Scotland. Using the 1603 date of the Union of the Crowns or the 1707 date of the Acts of Union, either way, at the end of this week, Elizabeth will have reigned longer than any British monarch other than Victoria (who reigned from 1837 to 1901), therefore it is correct to say she is the second-longest reigning British monarch. Any debate about when that monarchy began belongs at Talk:List of longest-reigning British monarchs, not at this page of Elizabeth II, who has reigned since 1952. OCNative (talk) 23:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I strongly endorse the revised lead—many thanks to OCNative for doing this work. My only concern is that "Married to Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, since 1947, they have four children..." is ungrammatical; this seems to be saying that Elizabeth and Philip have been married to Philip since 1947. To address this, might I suggest "...she has four children..." instead? Alkari (?), 12 May 2011, 00:28 UTC
Or "She has been married to Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, since 1947; they have four children..." -Rrius (talk) 00:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
My concern with Alkari's suggested wording is that it doesn't make it clear that all her children were with Philip. I think either Rrius's suggested wording or this wording: "In 1947, she married Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, with whom she has four children..." would work. OCNative (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Go with whichever flows better with the surrounding text. -Rrius (talk) 01:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Since this was quiet for 24 hours, and five other users signed off on it (including all the major contributors of this discussion), I have placed the new lead in the article. OCNative (talk) 01:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

At the GA review, the comment is made that the first sentence of the second paragraph "She was educated.." is too abrupt. Any objections to expanding the first two sentences to: Elizabeth was born in London, and educated privately at home. Her father, George VI, became King-Emperor of the British Empire in 1936 on the abdication of his brother Edward VIII. DrKiernan (talk) 14:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Johnykhan, 4 June 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please change Elizabeth became Head of the Commonwealth and queen of seven independent Commonwealth countries: the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon. Her coronation service in 1953 was the first to be televised to Elizabeth became Head of the Commonwealth and queen of seven independent Commonwealth countries: the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Ceylon. Her coronation service in 1953 was the first to be televised because Pakistan became an independent sovereign state in 1947 with a head of the state and the government on its own Johnykhan (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Pakistan was an independent sovereign state from 1947, true, but it remained a Dominion with Elizabeth II as queen until 1956. I advise that this change not be made. Alkari (?), 5 June 2011, 00:22 UTC
The text is correct as given in the article. DrKiernan (talk) 09:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

Latest comment: 2 years ago26 comments4 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Elizabeth II/GA4. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk • message • contribs • count • logs • email) 19:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

This is quite an article, and, obviously, quite a topic. I'd love to see a good article on the queen, but, obviously, it's an article worth getting right. I am going to start by taking a look back at previous good article reviews. J Milburn (talk) 19:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I've left some initial notes on the prose below. There are a number of other issues I want to check- the sourcing, categories and images, obviously, and I'd also like to see how some other encyclopedias tackle the article. J Milburn (talk) 21:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Lead

  • I note that there have been repeated discussions about the need for the list of countries of which Elizabeth is monarch in the first sentence. I have my own opinion about the issue, but it's not really my place as a GA reviewer to express them. The current discussion on the issue does not look like it will conclude in any change.
  • The second paragraph of the lead is rather choppy, with short sentences. Also, the note about education seems rather odd when compared with the end of the previous paragraph. Perhaps it should open with a mention of her position on birth (IE, not in direct line for the throne?)
  • Expanded very slightly.
  • "she married Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh" Unless I'm mistaken, this is incorrect, as he was not D of E until she married him? I see that I was mistaken.

Early life

  • "house: 17 Bruton Street, Mayfair;" The use of a colon followed by a semi-colon is rather odd
  • Semi-colon removed.
  • What was the name of her maternal grandmother?
  • Cecilia. Rather than add this incidental point, I've added "paternal" to "Mary after her paternal grandmother".
  • Have you considered mentioning that the baptism was C of E? The religion of the monarch is obviously, historically, of great importance
  • Added "Anglican archbishop..."
  • "George V cherished his granddaughter, and during his serious illness in 1929 her regular visits raised his spirits and were credited with aiding his recovery." This line is perhaps not the most neutral. Are these his own words?
  • Two new sources added and re-phrased. On the first clause, Pimlott calls him "a doting old man" and quotes Mabell Airlie saying "Lilibet came first in his affections ... and loved to have her with him". Lacey says "he felt a special affection" for Elizabeth.
  • "Elizabeth's only sibling was Princess Margaret, born four years after Elizabeth" Clumsy phrase

Heiress presumptive

  • "Elizabeth's father became king, and she became heiress presumptive, with the style Her Royal Highness The Princess Elizabeth." Reference?
  • Added.
  • "Vice-Provost" Do we have an article on this? It's hardly the most familiar term.
  • Added link to list of provosts.
  • What precisely was her role in the Women's Auxiliary Territorial Service?
  • It was just honorary, but the training was real. She completed her training just two weeks before the end of the war in Europe.
  • "The idea was supported by Home Secretary Herbert Morrison but rejected by the King because he felt such a title belonged solely to the wife of a Prince of Wales" Comma after "Morrison"?
  • Added.
  • "fell in love with Philip" Again, whose words are these? This seems to be quite a declaration to make.
  • Do we know anything about the public reaction to the marriage? A line about that would be a welcome addition to the paragraph starting "The marriage was not without controversy"
  • Quote from Crawford added.
  • "Ronald Storrs claimed that another notable absentee, Elizabeth's aunt, Mary, Princess Royal, refused to attend because her brother Edward, the former king, was not invited; she gave ill health as the official reason for not attending." The fact Edward was not invited is surely worth more of a mention than that subclause?
  • Switched the order so he comes first.
  • "a royal and princely status to which they otherwise would not have been entitled" Why not?
  • Reason added.
  • "A second child, Princess Anne, was born in 1950." I know it's obvious, but... Reference?

Reign

  • Again, sorry- "In 1960, she married Antony Armstrong-Jones, 1st Earl of Snowdon. They were divorced in 1978. She did not remarry." Reference?
  • Added.
  • "Instead, Parliament was opened by Royal Commission, and the Lord Chancellor delivered the speech from the throne." Ref?
  • Cut.
  • "and was alarmed by high unemployment, a series of riots, the violence of a miners' strike," We must have some articles to link to here?
  • Two links added.
  • "Intense media interest in the opinions and private lives of the royal family during the 1980s led to a series of sensational stories in the press,[98] not all of which were entirely true." Some examples?
  • "The Queen was reportedly worried that British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's economic policies fostered social divisions, and was alarmed by high unemployment, a series of riots, the violence of a miners' strike, and Thatcher's refusal to apply sanctions against the apartheid regime in South Africa.[fn 4] Thatcher reputedly said the Queen would vote for the Social Democratic Party—Thatcher's political opponents.[102] Despite such speculation, Thatcher later conveyed her personal admiration for the Queen on film[103] and in her memoirs.[104] Further belying reports of acrimony between them, after Thatcher's replacement by John Major, the Queen gave two honours in her personal gift to Thatcher: the Order of Merit and the Order of the Garter.[105] She also attended Thatcher's 70th and 80th birthday parties.[106]" These paragraphs do not seem to give any credence to the view that the Thatcher/Elizabeth relationship was less than friendly.
  • Well, there's your example of not entirely true reporting! Seriously though, I'm reluctant to add an example because there's a danger the paragraph will become bloated by claims and counterclaims. There is a source saying some of the reports were false and no source saying all the reports were true, so the statement "not all of which were entirely true" is representative of the sources. As soon as you start saying "Edward wasn't gay" or "Koo Stark didn't steal from Buckingham Palace", someone else resourceful enough can come along and provide a source (the original reports) that implies he was or that states she did.
  • Maybe my own view of the matter is skewed, then- I'm more than happy to defer to you. Are you saying, then, that the overwhelming consensus among historians/analysts is that the Thatcher/Elizabeth relationship was as strong as any PM/monarch relationship? J Milburn (talk) 12:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I would say that the overwhelming consensus is that she has always been scrupiously impartial, and never exceeded constitutional boundaries. I'm not saying either way that their relationship was cold or warm; and the sources do not assist in deciding. We can only say what is reported, what is speculated, what is denied and what their public actions were.
  • "to patch up their differences." Colloquial
  • Changed to "reconcile".
  • Sometimes you italicise "annus horribilis", sometimes you do not
  • Corrected, apart from a title that isn't italicized.
  • "The year ended with a lawsuit as the Queen sued The Sun newspaper for breach of copyright when it published the text of her annual Christmas message two days before its broadcast. The newspaper was forced to pay her legal fees, and donated £200,000 to charity.[119]" I did not know that. I'm learning. :)
  • "media speculated whether the Jubilee would be a success or a failure." I think that should be "as to whether...".
  • Added.
  • "Though Elizabeth has enjoyed good health throughout her life" Had?
  • Shortened as part of the chop back below.
  • I get the distinct impression that the queen's relationship with Tony Blair is barely mentioned
  • It's considerably more than many of the other 150 prime ministers she's had. I think it'd be undue weight to expand much further, and to be honest, is there much more to be said?
  • "The last visit by a British monarch was in 1911, before Irish independence in 1922." Reference?
  • Removed as part of the chop back below.
  • "Elizabeth plans to celebrate her Diamond Jubilee in 2012, marking 60 years as Queen. She could become the longest-reigning monarch in the history of any of her realms and the longest-reigning queen regnant in world history (surpassing Queen Victoria, who celebrated her Diamond Jubilee in 1897) if she reigns for another 1471 days, until 10 September 2015." Unreferenced paragraphs don't look good
  • Removed as part of the chop back below.
  • I worry that the article is suffering from a degree of recentism. The section on the 2000s is approaching twice the length of the section on the 1990s which, what with the death of Diana and such, is surely of greater significance.
  • Definitely an improvement. Now, I'll leave this up to you, but, looking at "UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon ... victims of the 11 September attacks.[142][143]", I'd be inclined to say that the Ireland visit is more important. This is all comparatively standard stuff for the queen- Canada, compliments and remembrance- but the first state visit to Ireland (in the wake of years of near-enemity) seems to be something of an enormous event. Obviously, it's very hard for us to judge its lasting significance due to its incredibly recent nature, but it just seems to be far more important. J Milburn (talk) 12:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Public perception and character

  • There is a degree to which this section just feels like a repetition of the more carefully written sections previous.
  • We usually end the royal articles with a "Legacy" section of how the monarch is perceived by biographers and history. This is our attempt to do a similar thing here.
  • "Under pressure from public opinion, she began to pay income tax for the first time" This implies it was her choice- earlier in the article, you imply that she was forced to.
  • She wasn't forced into it, but there was public pressure. In the earlier section, we say "planned for at least a year" to imply that it was a long-term plan not just something that came as a result of Diana's death.
  • "referendums" referenda?
  • Changed.
  • "– are owned by the Sovereign in trust for the nation, and cannot be sold or owned by Elizabeth in a private capacity." Ref? Is there any similar land in other states?
  • Added a ref, but I'm not keen on adding information about Crown land. I think we're moving away from a biography in the "Finances" section.
@DrKiernan 190.46.80.76 (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
@DrKiernan 190.46.80.76 (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "Elizabeth has received honours and awards from countries around the world, and has held honorary military positions throughout the Commonwealth, both before and after her accession." Ref? An inline link to the list would be good here.
  • Personally, I'd say it was a style she is known by, rather than an actual title. At the time of William the Conqueror, titles were not hereditary by primogeniture in the way they are now: power could be acquired by conquest or passed to younger or illegitimate sons instead of the eldest. DrKiernan (talk) 08:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Other encyclopedias

I'm taking a look at other encyclopedia entries on Elizabeth, the logic being that, as shorter articles written by professional writers, anything they include should be included here. Take it or leave it, I'm just leaving some thoughts. It goes without saying that this article is far superior to theirs. (I can provide the citations if you want to reference these pages in particular.) J Milburn (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The Columbia Encyclopedia
  • "At age 18 she was made a State Counsellor, a confidante of the king."
  • Added.
  • Describes her as "formal and unemotional" in public.
  • Points out the fact that '92 was her 40th year on the throne
  • That's in the article already.
  • Apparently was the richest woman in England
  • I think there's sufficient coverage of her wealth, and the disputed estimates.
The Palgrave Macmillan Dictionary of Women's Biography
  • In education, "She particularly enjoyed history, languages and music"
  • Mentions how "her ‘walkabouts’ have become a traditional part of such occasions" referring to her tours
  • Added.
  • "She takes a particular interest in Commonwealth Affairs, and intervened directly (an extremely unusual step) in the aftermath of the coup in Fiji in 1987." This point isn't mentioned in this article at all- seems to be something of an omission.
  • I've added in Fiji as I've thought about adding it for some time. I don't think it's that unusual though: she did the same (i.e. support the legal executive power) for Rhodesia. DrKiernan (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Chambers Biographical Dictionary
  • "The Queen has aimed to modernize the monarchy and make it more informal, introducing luncheon parties for distinguished individuals and pioneering royal walkabouts" Again, this seems to be an element missed
The Hutchinson Unabridged Encyclopedia with Atlas and Weather guide
  • Also mentions the State Counsellor thing- "and by an amendment to the Regency Act she became a state counsellor on her 18th birthday."
The Penguin Biographical Dictionary of Women
  • Opens with the claim that "Elizabeth II has set out to continue and strengthen the reputation for royal dignity and sense of responsibility established so successfully by her father. She has continued his efforts to adapt Victorian ideas of monarchy to fit the expectations of modern times."
  • Again, "developed a liking for history, languages, and music"
A Dictionary of Contemporary History - 1945 to the present
  • "Elizabeth had a close relationship with her father, who prepared her for the succession by making her a State Counsellor at the age of 18"
  • "The queen appeared to meet Bagehot's requirements in The English Constitution (1865) for a monarch who was an exemplar of family life, a moral example and also a religious figurehead (she was head of the Church of England). Yet Prince Charles, the heir to the throne, said in an interview with Jonathan Dimbleby that he grew up feeling 'emotionally estranged' from his mother, craving affection which she seemed 'unable or unwilling to offer'."
Marquis Who's Who in the World
  • "Awards: Named one of The World's Most Influential People, TIME mag., 2007, 100 Most Powerful Women, Forbes mag., 2007—09 Achievements: Achievements include fluent speaker of French"

That's all for now. I checked a few others, but they didn't have anything that wasn't already covered. I also intend to check Britannica, but I do not currently have access. J Milburn (talk) 17:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Source review

  • First of all, there are an awful lot of unwarranted italics. Article titles do not need to be italicised like book titles- instead, they should be in speech marks.
  • Removed.
  • "Daily Mail, 15 March 1929" Can we have a little more than this? Author? Title? Page number?
  • Replaced.
  • "Quoted in Brandreth, p. 105; Lacey, p. 81 and Shawcross, pp. 21–22" Format seems inconsistent
  • Changed.
  • "Assheton, Ralph (18 December 1936), The Times: 10" Again, article title?
  • Added.
  • "Official website of the British Monarchy" versus "Royal Household"
  • Made consistent.
  • "Archive:Children's Hour: Princess Elizabeth, BBC, 13 October 1940, retrieved 22 July 2009" I don't see why "Archive" is italicised
  • Changed.
  • "London Gazette: (Supplement) no. 36973. p. 1315. 6 March 1945. Retrieved 5 June 2010." Why not format this like other newspaper articles? Again, title of the article would be good
  • "London Gazette: (Supplement) no. 37205. p. 3972. 31 July 1945. Retrieved 5 June 2010." Again
  • "London Gazette: no. 38128. p. 5495. 21 November 1947. Retrieved 27 June 2010." Again. There may be others, but I won't list them.
  • All three retained but formatting of other cites changed to match.
  • "Davies, Caroline (20 April 2006), Philip, the one constant through her life, London: Telegraph Media Group, retrieved 23 September 2009" Seems very odd to mention the Telegraph Media Group but not the newspaper.
  • Changed.
  • Books in footnotes are formatted inconsistently with the books in the bibliography. Examples: "Bradford, Sarah (1989), King George VI, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, p. 424, ISBN 0297796674" and "Petropoulos, Jonathan (2006), Royals and the Reich: the princes von Hessen in Nazi Germany, Oxford University Press, p. 363, ISBN 0195161335", but there are others. The way you format the books in the bibliography is much neater.
  • Changed.
  • "Briggs, Asa (1995), The History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom, 4, Oxford University Press, pp. 420 ff., " What's going on there?
  • Changed.
  • ""Elizabeth II touring India". Amritt. Retrieved 22 May 2011." What is Amritt, and why is it reliable? Also, be consistent with whether full stops are given after retrieval dates.
  • Removed.
  • "Heinricks, Geoff (29 September 2000), "Trudeau: A drawer monarchist", National Post: B12" This is an example of how newspaper articles would be best cited
  • Be consistent as to whether you give publisher locations for books/newspapers. Also, consistency as to whether publishers of newspapers are listed (and how) would be good. I wouldn't bother with newspaper publishers- if people really care, they can check the article on the paper.
  • Publishers removed.
  • "Thatcher to Brian Walden quoted in Neil, Andrew (1996), Full Disclosure, London: Macmillan, p. 207, ISBN 0333646827
  • Andrew Neil quoted in Woodrow Wyatt's diary of 26 October 1990 (Wyatt, Woodrow; Edited by Sarah Curtis (1999), The Journals of Woodrow Wyatt: Volume II, London: Macmillan, p. 372, ISBN 0333774051)" Check that- there seem to be a couple of minor problems
  • Both checked.
  • "Bridcut, John (Producer) (2002), Queen and Country (Documentary), BBC" Could this citation be expanded a little? No chance of referencing the material elsewhere? Also, "(Documentary)" needn't have an uppcase d, nor be italicised
  • Cut.
  • "Whittaker, Thomas (14 December 2006), "Corgi put the queen in plaster", The Sun (London), retrieved 18 August 2011" Must you reference The Sun?
  • "Address to the United Nations General Assembly, 6 July 2010, retrieved 6 July 2010" Publisher?
  • Added.
  • Be consistent as to whether you list publishers as the Mail Online or the Daily Mail. I'd go for the latter. If the former, italics aren't needed.
  • Done.
  • "UK CPI inflation numbers based on data available from Lawrence H. Officer (2010) "What Were the UK Earnings and Prices Then?" MeasuringWorth." Accessdate?
  • "The Times, 9 July 1971. Colville was her former private secretary and a director of her bank, Coutts (Pimlott, p. 401)." Again, could the newspaper citation be expanded?

Another look through

This article's really shaping up. Unless I see something striking very soon, I am fairly sure I will be promoting it.

  • Queen Mary is mentioned in para 2 of "Succession", but she's introduced in para 4.
  • Thanks. Amended.
  • I still think the sections in the '90s-00s need touching up a little, with regards to ensuring that important details are included, while more trivial details are not. I'm happy with them for the purposes of GAC, but I think they will need revisiting before any future FAC.
  • I'm not sure I've got the courage to take this to FAC just yet.
  • A thought about references- again, not something about which I am concerned here, but something which may be worth thinking about for FAC. Sometimes, you group multiple references into a single footnote- other times, you have multiple footnotes grouped together
  • I've tried bundling those together.

This is about there, I think. I still wonder about including some of the details from other encyclopedias (perhaps something to revisit before any future FAC) but I'm happy to go with your judgement for now. J Milburn (talk) 15:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

  • I'm promoting the article now- brilliant work. I hope, firstly, you can keep such a highly-viewed article in such a good state, and, secondly, that this will someday be ready for FAC again. Good luck, and well done! J Milburn (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

1990s

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'd like to solicit comments on a proposed addition of two sentences to the 1990s section. Where it currently says:

In the ensuing years, public revelations on the state of Charles and Diana's marriage continued.[6] In consultation with ...

What are people's thoughts on adding in:

In the ensuing years, public revelations on the state of Charles and Diana's marriage continued.[ref 1] Even though support for a British republic seemed higher than at any time in living memory, republicanism remained a minority viewpoint and Elizabeth herself had high approval ratings.[ref 2] Criticism was focused on the institution of monarchy itself and the Queen's wider family rather than the Queen's own behaviour and actions.[ref 3] In consultation with ..."
  1. ^ Brandreth, p. 356; Pimlott, pp. 572–577; Roberts, p. 94; Shawcross, p. 168
  2. ^ MORI poll for The Independent newspaper, March 1996, quoted in Pimlott, p. 578 and O'Sullivan, Jack (5 March 1996). "Watch out, the Roundheads are back". The Independent. Retrieved 17 September 2011.
  3. ^ Pimlott, p. 578

Is this fair? The actual quote from Pimlott is "In mid-1996, there were more British republicans, and more monarchist critics of the Royal Family, than at any time in the twentieth century...Yet there was a paradox: a pilloried Family, a much criticized institution, even a widely questioned role – and yet, a valued incumbent. As the Independent pointed out, the Queen's seventy-three per cent approval rating might be below its peak: but it was still one many elected presidents would be delighted to enjoy at any time, let alone after forty-four years in office." DrKiernan (talk) 09:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Surely we can re-add the signature

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Would it not be perfectly acceptable to make a vector of the Queen's signature on the proclamation bringing into force the Constitution Act, 1982 (Canada)? Surely an image of that is in the public domain, or at least able to be used fairly under Crown Copyright. Jagislaqroo (talk) 01:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Her signature is hers not the Crown's, so it isn't clear that the copyright rests with the Crown. Besides, Crown copyright lasts for 50 years, and there's no reason to include the signature, so fair use doesn't apply. DrKiernan (talk) 08:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Bloated Lead

Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

Honestly folks, do we have to have all 16 commonwealth realms shown in the opening paragaph? GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

My feeling is that we should: she's notable for being a queen, so we ought to prominently indicate what she's queen of. If, as I presume, you want to omit them (or some of them), could you explain why that's desirable? Alkari (?), 28 September 2011, 21:46 UTC
A shortening to ...of the United Kingdom and the 15 other commonwealth realms, would be one solution. But, it'll likely 'again' be rejected. GoodDay (talk) 02:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Then why bring it up?... Again. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Because of the PoV reasons this article's title was moved, its intro was changed & its infobox section heading was altered. GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
And you want them undone for your own POV reasons. It's just that your POV has been repeatedly found to be unacceptable as the sole parameter guiding the composition of this article. The lead of this article may not be the most elegant piece of writing ever produced; but it is a compromise, between the Britannicentric "of the United Kingdom and 15 other Commonwealth realms" and the less detailed and, thus, less communicative "of 16 countries known as the Commonwealth realms". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
The lead's too bloated. GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
So, "of 16 independent states known as the Commonwealth realms" is a condensation acceptable to you? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah it's acceptable, though not my first choice. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

First coronation broadcasted on TV?

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

The first TV broadcasted coronation was of King George VI in 1937. Here is some off-air footage of that event. --Alex:D (talk) 06:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hers was the first service or coronation ceremony to be televised, though her father's procession had been. DrKiernan (talk) 09:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Maybe this should be specified, just for clarity? The article about the Coronation states: The coronation of the Queen was the first ever to be televised (although the BBC Television Service had covered part of the procession from Westminster Abbey after her father's coronation in 1937). --Alex:D (talk) 09:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
It is specified as "coronation service" and "the entire ceremony". If George VI's coronation has to be mentioned, then I think it's misleading to say the service was not televised, as it implies that it wasn't shown at all. It would also need to be said that it was filmed and shown in cinemas. Given that two qualifying explanations are required as a minimum, I would prefer not to complicate the claim by adding the extra details. DrKiernan (talk) 09:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
One possibility, that doesn't involve any additional material, is to change the sentences to read: Despite the death of Queen Mary on 24 March 1953, the coronation went ahead on 2 June 1953. Before she died, Mary had asked that the coronation not be delayed. The ceremony in Westminster Abbey, except the anointing and communion, was televised for the first time,. It's actually one word less than before. DrKiernan (talk) 12:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I think it's better. --Alex:D (talk) 11:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 26 October 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

|Wealth "$500 Million (as at May 2011)" http://www.therichest.org/most-influential/queen-elizabeth-net-worth User:Petermcelwee (talk) 12:13, 26 October 2011

If you follow that link, it says "Source: Forbes" at the bottom. The source at Forbes is this story: http://www.forbes.com/sites/luisakroll/2011/04/22/just-how-rich-is-queen-elizabeth-and-her-family/ which includes a credit to wikipedia. That story itself links to "the most recent rankings" which lists her at $450 million. I don't think we should change the material as the source is self-contradictory, and possibly tainted by a circular reference back to us. DrKiernan (talk) 12:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Not done, per DrKiernan. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Queen regnant

Latest comment: 13 years ago21 comments6 people in discussion

It's alright to use King & Queen regnant in the other European monarch bio article intros, yet it's not alright here. Why is that? It's time the constitutional monarch term was correctly replaced with Queen regnant; come on folks? GoodDay (talk) 01:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

It's called usage. Rothorpe (talk) 03:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
"Correctly replaced"? There's nothing wrong with constitutional monarch. As it is both more familiar to readers and more explanatory, I think it should be retained. DrKiernan (talk) 10:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Agree - current terminology is fine, "regnant" is unnecessary and quite obscure. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Queen regnant is educational. Again - why is this monarch being singled out? GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
My guess is that because she is currently in power. Just a guess, but I wouldn't be opposed to adding it either. See no logical reason not to.--JOJ Hutton 14:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Margaret II of Denmark, Beatrix of the Netherlands, Harald V of Norway, Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden (for examples), are current monarchs. We're not using constitutional monarch in their intros. GoodDay (talk) 14:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I'll go to bat and side with GoodDay on this. He's right. No logical reason this page should be different than the others.--JOJ Hutton 14:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Albert II of Belgium, uses both. GoodDay (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
This article is a good article, and those are not, for a reason. It is because this article is better written. We don't need an obscure term in the first sentence when a standard term is fine. DrKiernan (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I'll have to disagree. Constitutional monarch being used, isn't the difference betwee GA & not GA. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
(Edit Conflict) Yes its a Good Article for a reason, but are you suggesting that its because of this? Really? It couldn't be for any other reason? Maybe because this article gets more edits than those others, because she is more popular or well known, so editors are more inclined to improve the article and work for GA status. That comment actually made me shake my head in disbelief.--JOJ Hutton 15:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Is this disingenuous sarcasm or did you really miss my point? Making a good article consistent with bad ones is the wrong way about. You should be trying to improve those articles, not making this one worse. DrKiernan (talk) 15:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Gee, I must have missed your point then. What I inferred from your statement is that adding "Queen Regnant" to this article not worthy of GA. Am I correct in assuming that? How so then? Because I see that argument at an Informal fallacy, with no proof whatsoever that that would be the case.--JOJ Hutton 15:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I doubt Queen Regnant and Constitutional Monarch make or break a GA either way, and I don't see anyone suggesting either. Can I suggest a compromise here? Leave constitutional monarch (which explains itself and is fine), but in the second paragraph change "Elizabeth became Head of the Commonwealth and queen of seven independent Commonwealth countries" to "Elizabeth became Head of the Commonwealth and queen regnant of seven independent Commonwealth countries". That hopefully clarifies the type of queen for those who want regnant in, and doesn't exactly cause any issues (as far as I can see). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Good suggestion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Ditto.--JOJ Hutton 16:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Done. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
In the first paragraph, we should have Queen regnant along with Constitutional monarch, just like at Albert II of Belgium. You'd have the title & the description. GoodDay (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Where would that fit, prose-wise? The Albert II article is sadly badly written, not a good comparison. At any rate, her status as queen regnant is implied in calling her the monarch is it not, while constitutional monarch also gives information on the type of governments she presides over. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I rather replace Constitutional monarch with Queen regnant, but atleast we've now got 'queen regnant' in there. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

List of Currencies

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Queen Elizabeth is (and has been in the past) featured on a number of currencies in the commonwealths, but not all of them (Papua New Guinea is one instance). It would be cool to see a list of the currencies that she has been on since her coronation in 1953. It would not be worth making the edit myself if it would be delted if I don't have support to adding this to her article. Thoughts? Questions? Stidmatt (talk) 00:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It is inappropriate material for this article, but could form a new one. DrKiernan (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The order of the commonwealth nations

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm wondering why the list of Commonwealth nations are listed as such: "Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis." What standards were used to order the countries? There is no rank in the Commonwealth. Thus, why aren't they listed by alphabetical order? It should be "Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea......" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.129.132 (talk) 00:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I presume this is in the order of independence (with all the usual fudges for Canada, Australia, New Zealand and, on the wider Commonwealth list, South Africa). This is the usual order used in ceremonial events - e.g. at the Remembrance Day ceremonies the High Commissioners lay wreathes at the Cenotaph in this order. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 January 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, this is my first attempt at doing this so I hope I'm doing ok. The edit request concerns the title Elizabeth II.

Please add,

In 2002 Winnie Ewing, president of The Scottish National Party (SNP) wrote to the Queen asking her to correct the anomaly of the Elizabeth II title. The anomaly occurs because the English Elizabethan period predates the 1603 Union of the Crowns. Consequently, the SNP president considered that Scotland, never having had an Elizabeth I, should not have an Elizabeth II.

The BBC News Scotland reference link is, Queen urged to change title, 22 may, 2002, BBC News Scotland http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2002596.stm

There would be internal Wikipedia links from Winnie Ewing, SNP, and Union of the Crowns

(There appears to have been a Scottish legal challenge to the Elizabeth II title in 1953 and I'll try to find out more about this. I don't think there's currently a page about this)

Graeme Arnott (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I've added this material to the relevant paragraph of List of titles and honours of Queen Elizabeth II. DrKiernan (talk) 07:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Diamond Jubilee

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi guys, I haven't been very active in editing this article, but I've watched it go from being poorly written to becoming a Good Article. I think you've all done a great job. Does anyone think that it would be a possibility to get this up to Featured status to coincide with the Queen's Diamond Jubilee on February 6? I'd be happy to help. Rockhead126 (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You could always nominate it and see what comments come out. I think FA reviewers will dislike the first paragraph of the lead because of the long list of realms (expect comments like "boring", "too long", "sea of blue links") and inclusion of Supreme Governor (relatively trivial for the first paragraph). We have not yet come up with a solution for the first paragraph acceptable to everyone. DrKiernan (talk) 08:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

First paragraph

Latest comment: 12 years ago17 comments7 people in discussion

The first paragraph states that Elizabeth II is the monarch of 16 realms known as the Commonwealth realms and then proceeds to list them, when they are in fact listed on the Commonwealth realm's own page. Therefore, is the listing in the first paragraph on this page really necessary?. Burbridge92 (talk) 14:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

This was discussed before at Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 25#Queen of the UK ? Queen of the world !? and Talk:Elizabeth_II/Archive 26#Current lead needs changing. There was no clear consensus for change, and so the status quo was retained. DrKiernan (talk) 14:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. I can understand why the status quo was retained, the information is correct regardless of whether it is replicated elsewhere or not. Burbridge92 (talk) 16:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
My feeling is that, as she's most notable for being a queen, it's desirable to mention prominently in her article the countries of which she's queen. However, since they're also listed in the infobox and at Commonwealth realm, I wouldn't object too strenuously if people wanted them removed from the lead. Alkari (?), 22 July 2011, 04:33 UTC
I feel that would be the most logical thing to do, and that was the reason for me posting this conversation. After all, there is a link to the Commonwealth realms page which shows exactly what realms she is the monarch of. However, as DrKienan has pointed out, the discussion has already been held and a consensus has already been made. Had I been aware of this I wouldn't have posted this topic anyway, as it's not a serious issue. Regards, Burbridge92 (talk) 11:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm obviously no expert on the monarchy, but shouldn't Elizabeth's role as queen of the UK be somewhat distinct from her role as queen of the other Commonwealth countries? (i.e., "Elizabeth II is the queen of the United Kingdom and fifteen other sovereign countries collectively known as the Commonwealth realms:...") I understand that legally all the nations ruled by ERII are equal and sovereign, blah blah blah, but she is only queen of all of them by virtue of her role as the British monarch, yes? --SchutteGod (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

No, that is incorrect. She is monarch of each by virtue of each realm's parliament and constitution. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
That's not strictly true. Whilst each realm's constitution allows her to continue on the throne with regards to that realm, if it wasn't for the fact that she was the British monarch she wouldn't be the monarch of the other realms. The monarchy is only present in the other Commonwealth realms due to their colonial past when Britain controlled them, resulting in them adopting the British monarchy when they originally gained independence. If a country decides to remain with the Commonwealth, then it is their constitution which maintains the monarchy, but that doesn't change the fact that the ties to the monarchy are the result of it being the monarchy of the UK. Furthermore, the monarchy holds two crowns, that of England and that of Scotland, both countries within the UK, there is no "crown of Canada" or "crown of Australia" or "crown of New Zealand", and thus if the monarchy were abolished in the UK it would be highly unlikely to continue elsewhere. Therefore Queen Elizabeth II's primary role is "Queen of the UK", without that position she wouldn't hold the others, and it's clear to see from her residency and actions with regards to the UK as opposed to the other Commonwealth realms. Burbridge92 (talk) 09:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
It's up to each country to have whomever they please on their respective throne, or to have no throne at all; the ex-colonies didn't have to keep the same royal house and person as sovereign upon independence and, in fact, most ex-colonies - i.e. present Commonwealth members - didn't. Of those that did, the continuity of that royal house and lineage didn't mean a continuity of the same British monarchy over that country; the opposite goes entirely against the very notion of independence. Except for its own, Britain has no control over any of the realms' laws, including those relating to their respective monarchies. Elizabeth thus occupies the throne of Australia, of Jamaica, of New Zealand, of Tuvalu, etc., not because Britain says so, or because it must be so in order for a country to remain in the Commonwealth, or even because those countries used to be British colonies, but because those countries' legislatures say so. In Canada, there isn't any law that even implies the king or queen must be the same person as the monarch of the UK; if the UK altered its line of succession, there would be no effect on Canada; if the UK became a republic, Canada would remain, without question, the same constitutional monarchy it is now, with the same queen and the same succession. That counters completely not only the claim that Elizabeth is Queen of Canada because she's Queen of the UK, but also the spurious notion that there is no Canadian Crown; as if tons of material, printed by that very Crown-in-Council and others, didn't already affirm it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Firstly, most of your argument here is just a regurgitation of what I'd already said...the choice of independent nations to maintain the monarchy, Britain has no control over other nations, etc, etc, etc...but you're still missing the point. Elizabeth II is the Queen of Canada BECAUSE she's the Queen of the UK, not because it's enforced, but because the only reason Canada has chosen Elizabeth II (as she is "whomever the country pleases", as you so put it), is because of the colonial past. Yes, Canada did choose to maintain the House of Windsor as it's own of the people's own free will, but they didn't put the names of all the monarchs in the world into a hat and just so happen to pull out Elizabeth's. IF Canada hadn't been colonised then Elizabeth wouldn't be your monarch to this day. So while you are correct in saying that the monarchy is tied to Canada through Canada's own choice, it is the history that has led us to this point, and the history was very much tied with Britain. Now onto your point about their being a Canadian Crown: Is this specific Crown (which didn't exist back when the crown's of England and Scotland were united and was not what I was referring to) strong enough to maintain a complete upheavel of the House of Windsor from the UK into Canada? All of the current possessions connected with the monarchy in the UK: the land, the palaces, the crown jewels, etc, belongs to the state in the UK. Upon the abolishment of the monarchy, in the republic of the UK which you mentioned, the royal family would lose their home and everything associated with their position. Would Canada be able to afford their migration to your shores? Set them up with new palaces? Give them plenty of land which previously they didn't have? Give them a new set of crown jewels? And, at the end of it all, would it be as iconic? Because that's what the united crowns over here are, that's what's special about them and what brings the tourists in. I wouldn't know. It's very possible you can manage that, but would the people of Canada want to cover all those costs? Because, it would be your responsibility, and democratically it should be up to the people to decide, right? OK, what if they chose to move to Australia and set up their normal daily routine there, instead of Canada? Would that have an effect? Do the people of the current Commonwealth realms really want the monarchy, because most of them haven't had the choice to have their say and the ones that I know have had a warped replacement system planned. Burbridge92 (talk) 22:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid you're still incorrect. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
This debate has already taken place to no avail. The current phrasing (mentioning the UK first) seems like a reasonable middle ground between singling out the UK and, for example, listing the Commonwealth Realms in alphabetical order. Both sides have legitimate points but this has been debated to no avail in the past, and it seems inadvisable to continue to do so. Swarm u | t 03:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC) Swarm u | t 03:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Have you left out the Cayman Islands from the Commonwealth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpfisk (talk • contribs) 09:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

As a British Overseas Territory, the Cayman Islands is not an independent sovereign state within the Commonwealth, or a Commonwealth realm. The lead does exclude territories, dependencies, and associated states as a result of a discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 18#Dependent territories and subsequent sections. DrKiernan (talk) 11:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I've also restored "independent" before "Commonwealth realms" just to emphasize the point, which otherwise seems to get lost in the reading. DrKiernan (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not quite the first paragraph but in the third this is very oddly worded: "she became queen of 25 other Commonwealth countries as they gained independence". It sounds like her ascendance to queen happened at the same moment they gained independence. Perhaps it could be changed (I cannot change as this is locked) to "she oversaw 25 other countries that subsequently became republics" or something along those lines? Thanks. 98.206.241.221 (talk) 15:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I have attempted to address that [4]. DrKiernan (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

A minimally changed new version to address the criticism that the relationship of the realms to the Commonwealth is unclear[5]:

Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926[note 1]) is the constitutional monarch of 16 out of the 54 sovereign states within the Commonwealth of Nations, and Head of the Commonwealth. In order of foundation, the 16 Commonwealth realms are the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis. As the British monarch, she is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

It's all the same content, merely re-arranged, with the removal of "figurehead". DrKiernan (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ See also Queen's Official Birthday.
  2. ^ 50 facts about The Queen's Coronation, Royal Household, 25 May 2003, retrieved 14 April 2011
  3. ^ London Declaration, 26 April 1949, Commonwealth Secretariat, retrieved 16 February 2011
  4. ^ 50 facts about The Queen's Coronation, Royal Household, 25 May 2003, retrieved 14 April 2011
  5. ^ 50 facts about The Queen's Coronation, Royal Household, 25 May 2003, retrieved 14 April 2011
  6. ^ Brandreth, p. 356; Pimlott, pp. 572–577; Roberts, p. 94; Shawcross, p. 168
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_II/Archive_26&oldid=1136339306"