Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Order of mention of Commonwealth Realms

I have made edits to put into alphabetical order Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The rest of the list is not in alphabetical order, as the Queen became queen of the abovementioned nations at the same time in 1952. Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, and Saint Kitts and Nevis are mentioned in ascending order by time that she became Queen in each respective Commonwealth Realm. JSIN 12:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I've put all of her realms into alphabetical order. Unless the reader knows why any other order is being used, it looks arbitrary and unprofessional. JackofOz 07:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Instead of editing the list back and forth like we've seen, why not add a sentence to clarify the reason? I don't see any other article even bother to mention how a string of titles is listed in a certain way. It's just the way it is, like most things. Refer to the articles for other royals, their full titles are listed in the order of hierachial importance and NOT alphabetically.

On that note, alphabetical order IS arbitrary because the order would only makes sense in languages that use the alphabet. Even then, the order may appear different among alphabetical language just from spelling differences. The order of her titles should not be different in any language. --Kvasir 08:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this argument is comparing apples with oranges. Personal titles and postnominals have an established order of precedence that has a long and detailed history. However, realms are not titles. All of her realms are equal in the sense that her monarchy of any one realm has no kind of superiority over her monarchy of any other realm. We could choose to list her realms in order of her accession to each crown; or alphabetically. Neither order is more or less correct than the other per se. It's just that, listing them alphabetically does not require any further explanation because it's obvious; whereas, listing them chronologically definitely requires some explanation. Without giving the reader some insight into what the order represents, we make it unnecessarily burdensome for the reader to interpret.

As for the language issue, I would just say that this is English-language Wikipedia, and any alphabetical list would conform to the order of the English alphabet. In a different language version of Wilkipedia, the order would of course be different, but I don't see a problem with that. The alleged principle that "The order of her titles should not be different in any language" is not one I've ever seen enunciated. (But as I said, they're not titles anyway). JackofOz 08:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

As I've had no response to my arguments above, I've taken action. However, as the article is called "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom", I think it makes a lot of sense to mention the UK crown first. The rest follow alphabetically. JackofOz 06:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Your revision of the list of Commonwealth Realms uses the word "also", and this can suggest that she is Queen of the UK first and foremost, and that other Realms are just add-ons, which is incorrect. I don't think that alphabetical order is the best way to present her Realms as it is unconventional. She became queen of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom at the same time, and so I think these should be mentioned on the list before any of the other countries of which she became queen later on. It may make sense to have a vote on this if an agreement cannot be reached. JSIN 12:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

She is Queen of the United Kingdom "first and foremost" — she lives in the UK, it's the country of which she's known internationally as the monarch, and it's the only one of her Realms where she reigns personally and doesn't have a Governor-General representing her. Proteus (Talk) 15:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• It is understood that legally none of her crowns is superior to any other. Maybe "also" was not the best word, and we can come up with a better solution.
• However in a very real sense her UK crown has a degree of pre-eminence. (a) See Proteus's arguments. (b) High Commissioners to Commonwealth countries are accredited in her name, and they represent the interests of the UK. If those interests clash with those of the country to which they are sent, they side with the UK. (c) If the UK ever went to war with another Commonwealth realm, the queen would side with the UK against her other commonwealth subjects.
• The title of our article is "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom", so the decision has already been made that this particular crown gets top billing. It therefore makes little sense to just mention that crown in amongst her other crowns. The alternative solution would be to have separate articles for "Queen Elizabeth II of Australia", "Queen Elizabeth II of Canada'", etc etc. That is not something I would support.
• She may have become queen of all her commonwealth realms at the moment of her accession to the throne, but many of her titles came later. She was certainly the queen of Australia from 1952, but did not become the "Queen of Australia" until 1973 from memory.
• As I've argued previously, if the decision is made that the crowns are listed chronologically, then we must state explicitly that this is the order. Otherwise readers will scratch their heads wondering why they're all over the place. But even so, we end up with showing Australia, Canada and New Zealand as all chronogically superior to the UK, which seems absurd. So we must also explain that crowns to which she acceded on the same date are listed alphabetically. All this explanation is mandatory if you insist on a chronological order; and it can all be obviated by having an alphabetical listing which requires no explanation at all.
• Leaving it the way it as the moment is not an option, because (a) it assumes readers know what the writers of the article know - a contradiction in terms, and (b) later editors will most assuredly change it without knowledge of the reasons for the agreed order. JackofOz 23:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

You're quite correct that no one Realm Crown is superior to any other, but to say that the Queen would "side with the UK" against any other Commonwealth Realm is pure speculation, and therefore should have no bearing on an encyclopaedia article. As well, High Commissioners of Canada are posted to other Commonwealth nations in the name of Elizabeth II as Queen of Canada, not as Queen of the UK (though, it may now be in the name of the Governor General, as it is for ambassadors). That said, this title thing has caused issue probably since this article was created. I agree with you that the title of this article, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, already puts the UK Crown as one superior to the other Realm Crowns (which is completely POV), but the proposal to make Elizabeth II of (insert country) articles was already raised, and defeated. In fact, at one point I created an page titled Elizabeth II of Canada, but, after a lengthy debate 1, it was voted for deletion and all the info was merged with Monarchy in Canada, despite the fact that pages titled Queen of Australia, and Queen of New Zealand already existed, and still do. Given that the powers that be here do not want to tamper with the Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom title, I think alphabetical listing of the Realms is the most un-biased way to go, with the addition of a brief explanation that by the Balfour Declaration and Statute of Westminster no one nation is superior to the other, and perhaps the dates to which she became the sovereign of each nation. --gbambino 00:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Gbabmbino. Yes, I was speculating about whose side the Queen would take in the event of a war between Commonwealth countries (don't know what got over me). I notice you've now put dates against each crown, which sort of suggests you're supporting the chronological option, although you're saying you support the alpha option. Maybe you're just tidying it up as I've recommendedm, pending a final decision. Cheers JackofOz 03:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reorganisation of the Commonwealth Realms. I think this is an acceptable compromise. JSIN 05:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The title gives preference to the UK, because it has been decided that practical reasons dictate that preference needs to be given to one realm, even though this would not ideally be the case. This means it is all the more important to give a more balanced explanation in the opening paragraph. Personally, I do not see what was wrong with the purely alphabetical option. Showing the order of accession to the separate positions is interesting, but but it does mean that the wording has too be more careful. As it is now, it almost looks like she became Queen over more territory as time went on, rather than making it clear that the later dates are the creation of new positions as Queen over newly independent countries.

I agree with this criticism. She was of course queen of all these places from 1952. One by one they changed from colonies to independent nations, but that didn't alter her monarchy of them. Even talking about the dates from which her title as "Queen of (wherever)" applied, doesn't help. As I've pointed out elsewhere, she was queen of Australia from 1952, but did not acquire the title "Queen of Australia" till 1973. And Australia has been an independent nation since 1901. JackofOz 23:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Australia did not become independent at Federation, it was regarded as a Dominion. As far as I know, it was the 1931 Statute of Westminster that effected this change. JSIN

I don't think this is quite the place to debate this issue. Nevertheless I will. Even after Australia adopted the Statue of Westminster (which did not even happen for a decade or more after its promulgation), Britain still represented Australia internationally until well into the 1940s. You might as well argue that Australia did not become truly independent of the UK until 1986 when the Australia Act was passed. Until then, it was still theoretically possible for the UK Parliament to repeal the Australian constitution and return the country to colony status. And if the Australia Act were itself ever to be repealed, that possibility could still return. A number of dates could be debated as to when Australia achieved true independence (and some would argue it never has, having become a vassal of the USA since WW2). I believe 1 January 1901 is the accepted date, even if we all know that in some respects it did not actually occur in practice till years later. JackofOz 10:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding a similar matter, I don't agree with JSIN's change from "countries where she is head of state" to "... of which ...". I don't think that the "where" necessary implies that the countries do not have separate crowns, but "of which" does imply that the crowns are separate, causing problems for dependencies or anyone describing England as a country. JPD (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The way by which she became Queen of each Commonwealth Realm isn't all that relevant to the introduction of the article, in my opinion, and can be left unmentioned. If a reader wants to know more, he/she could click the link to get to the article about that country.

About the use of "of which" instead of "where", my changing of it was only reinstating what had been there for a long time, and had been changed from "of which" to "where". [1]

I think both "where" and "of which" are acceptable, but "of which" is slightly clearer and like you said, has the implication that the crowns are separate. I don't really what you're saying about problems with dependencies or England. It's my understanding that England, as well as any British dependencies (such as Pitcairn Island) are part of the UK Crown and that the Queen is queen over them by the fact that she is Queen of the UK. JSIN 23:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the way in which she became Queen is not relevant to the introduction of the article. I just don't think it's any more or less relevant than the dates, and that having only the dates as it is now seems a bit strange.

I think "where" and "of which" are equally clear, but that "of which" has an implication which is not only possibly not accurate in some cases, but also not relevant to the point being made in that sentence. When talking about the number of people living in her realms, it doesn't matter whether or not they are separate realms. JPD (talk) 10:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't care how you list the countries, but using a bulleted list in the introductory paragraph of a major article is not an option. silsor 16:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Why not? JSIN 05:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Because it looks utterly shit. Minor pedantic points do not take precedence over good style. Morwen - Talk 21:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

In terms of writing style, it's horrifying. Introductions to Wikipedia articles should be easily readable, well-written paragraphs that outline the subject matter for the reader without going into too much depth. It's unfortunate that somebody found it necessary to list the dates as well as the countries, and awful that somebody put it into bulleted list form.

If this doesn't make sense to the editors of this page automatically, they should probably refer to Wikipedia:Introductions. silsor 21:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Intro

I took a stab at it. I based it somewhat on another article about a monarch who reigned over more than one separate nation - James I of England. It's probably far from perfect, but maybe it's a start.

Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor), born 21 April 1926, is (in alphabetical order) Queen of Antigua and Barbuda, Queen of Australia, Queen of The Bahamas, Queen of Barbados, Queen of Belize, Queen of Canada, Queen of Grenada, Queen of Jamaica, Queen of New Zealand, Queen of Papua New Guinea, Queen of Saint Kitts and Nevis, Queen of Saint Lucia, Queen of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Queen of the Solomon Islands, Queen of Tuvalu, and Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

She succeeded to the positions of Queen of Australia, of Canada, of New Zealand and of the United Kingdom on the death of her father, King George VI on 6 February 1952. As other Dominions of the British Commonwealth (now Commonwealth of Nations) attained independence from the UK during her reign she acceded to the newly created thrones as Queen of each respective nation. Thus, she became Queen of Jamaica in 1962, of Barbados in 1966, of The Bahamas and of Grenada in 1973, of Papua New Guinea in 1975, of the Solomon Islands and of Tuvalu in 1978, of Saint Lucia and of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines in 1979, of Antigua and Barbuda and of Belize in 1981, and of Saint Kitts and Nevis in 1983. By the Statute of Westminster 1931 she holds these positions equally; no one nation takes precedence over the other.

In her 54 years on the throne, Elizabeth II has also seen a number of her former territories and realms attain independence and become kingdoms under a different dynasty, or republics. (See Commonwealth Realm - Former Commonwealth Realms.)

Today about 128 million people live in countries of which she is Head of State.

She also holds the positions of Head of the Commonwealth, Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and Lord of Mann.

She is currently the second-longest-serving head of state in the world, after King Bhumibol Adulyadej the Great of Thailand. Her reign of over five decades has seen ten different Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom and numerous Prime Ministers in the other Commonwealth Realms of which she is or was Head of State.

--gbambino 23:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I like it. It's virtually what I proposed on 18 January.

Just one comment. It may be a little misleading to say she became "Queen of Australia" on 6 Feb 1952. Of course she was acknowledged our queen from 1952, but I've previously made the point that the title "Queen of Australia" did not legally come into existence until 1973. Until then, she was queen of Australia solely by virtue of being Queen of the UK. JackofOz 23:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Before her Australian title was changed she was Queen of Australia in the same way that she's Queen of Canada now. Her Australian title used to be Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Australia and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. That lists her titles; of the United Kingdom, of Australia, and of the other Realms and territories, Queen. Or, put another way, Queen of the United Kingdom, Queen of Australia, and Queen of her other Realms and territories. So, Queen of Australia was in there. Oz altered the title to make it more clear, and Canada didn't. I wish we would... --gbambino 23:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. The Queen of Canada article talks about the various monarchies that have reigned in Canada (French, UK ..) It suggests that George VI was regarded as King of the UK, but QE2 is regarded as Queen of Canada. Was George not also King of Canada? JackofOz 23:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

He was, but the distinction was less clear. In 1927 George V's title was changed to reflect the changes in the status of the Realms made by the Balfour Declaration, becoming George V by the Grace of God of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India. This subtly made him no longer King of Britain in Ireland and the other Dominions, but King of Ireland, and of the other Dominions. The title changed slightly through George VI's reign, and was altered again in 1953 for Elizabeth II. The articles on the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927 and Royal Style and Titles Act explain it pretty well. As well, at least in relation to Canada, through George VI's reign the laws outlining the succession to the throne were still UK law. Under Elizabeth's reign they've been patriated to Canada, meaning there are now at least two lines, one for the UK Crown and one for the Canadian Crown, though by convention laid out in the Statute of Westminster they're symmetrical. --gbambino 00:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again. JackofOz 01:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I notice in the article the order of countries has been changed a couple of times in recent days. It's now just as much of a mish-mash as it was before. I suppose the editor put Canada before Australia because Canada achieved nationhood before Australia did. Not sure how the uninitiated reader is supposed to make sense of that, though, without any explanation. JackofOz 01:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a slight improvement - but still makes godawful prose, this is supposed to be an introduction - see Wikipedia:Introduction "of the United Kingdom and fifteen other Commonwealth Realms" would do perfectly. There's no need to actually mention them all in the intro - this can be covered later in the article. Morwen - Talk 12:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

It follows the form of intros to other articles about monarchs who reigned over more than one country. "Queen of the United Kingdom and fifteen other Commonwealth Realms" does not suffice as it a) does not make clear that her position as Queen of New Zealand, for example, is completely separate from her position as Queen of the UK; and b) gives an unsubstantiated precedence to the United Kingdom as a "more important" country than all the rest. --gbambino 17:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

All the realms must be mentioned, but having "Queen of" for each one is perhaps going a bit further than necessary. JPD (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

UK more important?

The current intro is absurd. To Gbambino's first objection, there is no need for the intro to make clear that her positions as Queen of New Zealand, etc., are completely separate from her position as Queen of the UK. In the first place, the positions are not completely separate - succession to the throne, for instance, is regulated by the British Act of Settlement, the Queen is queen of the other countries because she is queen of the UK, and so forth. In the second place, the precise constitutional significance of the sixteen different thrones occupied by Queen Elizabeth is not so terribly important that it needs to be discussed in the introduction. A later section, as well as the technical articles on the commonwealth realms in general and the specific crowns in particular, are perfectly adequate to discussion these issues. To Gbambino's second objection, we've been through this before. I could argue that the UK, as by a considerable margin the most populous country, is a "more important" country than the others. It's certainly more important by any reasonable standard than Papua New Guinea and Antigua and Barbuda. I could also argue that, whatever the importance of the countries in general, the title of Queen of the United Kingdom is the Queen's most important title, in that she lives in the UK and it is by a considerable margin her oldest title (going back at least to 1801, and, through the Kingdoms of Great Britain and England, plausibly to the 10th century). The list is awkward looking and completely unnecessary. Saying that "Elizabeth II is Queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other commonwealth realms" would be perfectly correct and NPOV. john k 18:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should be made aware that at least the line of succession to the Canadian throne is governed by the Act of Settlement as a patriated part of the Canadian constitution -- UK law has nothing to do with it. That she was Queen of Canada because the was Queen of the UK may have held true in 1953, but no longer. So, Elizabeth II is indeed Queen of Canada separately from being Queen of the UK. If she were removed as sovereign in Britain, she would continue to reign in Canada, the order of her successors unaffected.

As well, your assertion that the UK is the most prominent country amongst the Commonwealth Realms is, by your own admission, an argument, not a fact. Encyclopaedias deal in facts, not theories.

And lastly, John k, you're one to always cite Wikipedia precedent for the layout of articles, claiming at one point that titling the article Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom was acceptable because articles on other monarchs who were sovereign of multiple countries include only one nation's name in the title. Well, the intro to this article was fashioned using articles on other monarchs who were sovereign of multiple countries as precedent; eg. James I of England, Oscar II of Sweden. That Elizabeth II happens to be monarch of a larger number of countries is of little consequence.

Saying she's Queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other Commonwealth Realms is correct, but misleading due to a lack of clarifying information. That statement leads people to assume that she is the Queen of Britain in the other Realms, not Queen of each realm individually. Otherwise, why not say James I was King of England and two other realms? Why was Oscar II not King of Sweden and one other country? Both are correct and NPOV, but not very clear. --gbambino 20:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

As well, your assertion that the UK is the most prominent country amongst the Commonwealth Realms is, by your own admission, an argument, not a fact. Encyclopaedias deal in facts, not theories.

It is pretty damned close to a fact. It is certainly factual to say that the most prominent of the various roles held by the Queen is that of Queen of the UK, in that a) there is no Governor-General; and b) she lives there. Your second sentence is absurd - encyclopedias most certainly deal in arguments, and they have to. There is no way to determine what to to without argument. john k 05:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the intro to this article was fashioned using articles on other monarchs who were sovereign of multiple countries as precedent; eg. James I of England, Oscar II of Sweden. That Elizabeth II happens to be monarch of a larger number of countries is of little consequence.

It is of enormous consequence. It is not awkward to note that James I was King of England, Scotland and Ireland, or Oscar II of Sweden and Norway. It is incredibly awkward to list the 16 countries Elizabeth is Queen of. By your theory, oughtn't we also to list the dozen or so other countries she used to be Queen of? If not, why not? Oscar II was not King of Norway when he died...other living former monarchs have the countries they used to be monarch of in the intro to their article (c.f. Michael I of Romania, Simeon II of Bulgaria, Constantine II of Greece, Fuad II of Egypt, Norodom Sihanouk). The basic fact is, the number of countries Elizabeth is and has been queen of is so great that it is and would be incredibly awkward to list them all in the intro. We don't list all the titles of Karl I of Austria, either, or of any of the German princes, really, even though in many cases each title represented a separate territory. To call Karl simply "Emperor of Austria" and "King of Hungary" implies that he ruled over countries called "Austria" and "Hungary." But this is not accurate. There was never a country called "Austria" until November 1918. The title "Emperor of Austria" was a purely personal one, meaning "Emperor of the House of Austria." The various non-Hungarian lands of the Dual Monarchy were each technically separate, and Karl ruled each of them by virtue of a separate title - King of Bohemia, Archduke of Upper and Lower Austria, Duke of Salzburg, King of Galicia and Lodomeria, Princely Count of Tyrol, and so forth. The situation is not precisely analogous to that of Elizabeth, but it seems close enough to me - pedantry must take a back seat to readability. The issue of the names of all the commonwealth realms can easily be dealt with elsewhere in the article.

Saying she's Queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other Commonwealth Realms is correct, but misleading due to a lack of clarifying information. That statement leads people to assume that she is the Queen of Britain in the other Realms, not Queen of each realm individually.

I suppose it might lead people to assume this. Or it might just make them think that since she is Queen of 16 countries, it would be awkward to list them all, and that the commonwealth realm article will explain her status in those other countries. At any rate, even if such a misconception is created, it can easily be cleared up later in the article by a more detailed description of her constitutional roles. There is absolutely no reason to burden the introduction with this utterly pedantic point. Basically, you seem to think that the most important thing about this article is that it make sure that everybody know that Elizabeth II is Queen of and not in Canada. This is an important fact, and the Monarchy in Canada article ought to, and does, deal with it in some detail. But it is, in the larger scheme of things, a relatively minor point in an article which should be a biography of a world leader. john k 05:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Looking back at the article, I now notice that, in addition to the list of countries in the first paragraph, the same countries are listed again, in a different way, in the second paragraph, along with a discussion of the constitutional equality of the various crowns. It seems to me that the existence of the second paragraph makes all the detail in the first paragraph entirely unnecessary, and I have changed it to "is Queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other commonwealth realms". If this creates a misconception for the three seconds that it takes before the person gets to the second paragraph, I think that's a perfectly reasonable price to be paid for the much less cluttered first paragraph, and for the lack of repetition. john k 05:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's unacceptable to have the introduction of the article read "the UK and 15 other commonwealth realms". By degrading all but one of the 16 states that have the respective Queens as Sovereign as "other realms", this implies that the UK is legally superior to the other 15 of Her Realms, when they are equal and none of them take precedence over any other. Using the term "other realms" is a real problem, in my opinion, as the styles and titles of the Queen of Australia is "Queen of Australian and Her other Realms" and writing "UK and other realms" makes it seem as if 1) she is Queen of the Commonwealth Realms because she is queen of the UK; 2) the other realms are subordinate to the UK; and 3) she is queen of all the Realms singularly and not through 16 legal personalities.

I propose that we should use: "Queen of each of the Commonwealth Realms respectively, which are [list countries]" OR leave it as it is, naming each country by alphabetical order (although repeatedly writing "Queen of" is a bit too longwinded for my liking) OR list the Commonwealth Realms in the order of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK (alphabetical, since she became Queen of each of those countries respectively on her accession, then each other Realm in chronological order of becoming a Commonwealth Realm. JSIN 06:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I just popped by this page and was quite surprised by the horrendously long and awkward introduction for this article. I really think it should be simplified. It looks really unprofessional and almost scared me away when I first saw it.

Is it really necessary to list the dates that Elizabeth II became queen of each and every realm that she currently reigns over? This is the introduction, it seems really unnecessary to go into such detail here.

Wouldn't it be a lot simpler to use something similar to:

Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor), born 21 April 1926, is (in alphabetical order) Queen of Antigua and Barbuda, Queen of Australia, Queen of The Bahamas, Queen of Barbados, Queen of Belize, Queen of Canada, Queen of Grenada, Queen of Jamaica, Queen of New Zealand, Queen of Papua New Guinea, Queen of Saint Kitts and Nevis, Queen of Saint Lucia, Queen of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Queen of the Solomon Islands, Queen of Tuvalu, and Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. By the Statute of Westminster 1931, she holds these positions equally; no one nation takes precedence over any other. Today about 128 million people live in countries of which she is Head of State. In the past, she has also reigned over eighteen other states at one point or another (see Commonwealth Realm - Former Commonwealth Realms).

She also holds the positions of Head of the Commonwealth, Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and Lord of Mann.

She is currently the second-longest-serving head of state in the world, after King Bhumibol Adulyadej the Great of Thailand. Her reign of over five decades has seen ten different Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom and numerous Prime Ministers in the other Commonwealth Realms of which she is or was Head of State.

I am also willing to support John's suggestion. However, my main issue with all of this is that the introduction shouldn't be this long. Any unnecessary details should go into the article body, not the introduction. 青い(Aoi) 10:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Does this sound OK?

Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor), born 21 April 1926, is Queen of each of the Commonwealth Realms respectively, which are Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The order of the Realms can be varied, if needed. I would like comment on this suggestion, please. JSIN 11:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Definitely a huge improvement over the current lead sentence. 青い(Aoi) 20:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a legal document. Saying "the United Kingdom and 15 other commonwealth realms" implies nothing about the legal status, because there is no reason to expect that wikipedia is involved with explaining precise legal meanings. All it implies is the completely true fact that, in practice, her role as Queen of the UK is most important. Which is completely indisputable, and, as Adam says below, it is completely ridiculous to pretend otherwise. The legal issues can be, and are, discussed later in the article. john k 19:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

UK more important? (cont.1)

Wikipedia is not a legal document, but it is meant to put forward factual information in a clear and unbiased manner. Saying "of the United Kingdom and 15 other Commonwealth Realms" implies much, and thus causes confusion - something this encyclopaedia is not about. In practice her role as Queen of the UK is no more important than elsewhere - that is laid out in legal documents, and therefore that is fact. Everything else is pure speculation. So, if her countries are to be listed in the second paragraph, the opening one, if it is to be truncated, should state simply "...Queen of sixteen Commonwealth Realms". It's bad enough that the UK is given supremacy in the article title - let's not let this continue throughout the rest of the page. --gbambino 19:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

In practice, her role as Queen of the UK is considerably more important than elsewhere. Among other things, the Queen rules directly in the UK, without a Governor-General, she lives in the UK, she gives her own Speech from the Throne in the UK, she herself appoints the prime ministers of the UK, she has regular meetings with the prime ministers of the UK, she has considerable crown prerogatives in the UK which she does not have in any of the commonwealth realms, she is an enormous property-holder in the UK, and she receives a civil list from the British government. With the exception of Papua New Guinea, which was a colony of Australia, every Commonwealth realm was formerly a British colony (or several British colonies, in the case of Australia and Canada), and the Commonwealth itself (until 1949, the British Commonwealth) was founded as a kind of continuation of the British Empire. Until quite recently, the monarch did rule the Commonwealth realms (or Dominions) by virtue of her status as Queen of the UK. The British Privy Council is the highest court of appeal for several of the Commonwealth Realms. The 1701 Act of Settlement, an act of the English parliament, has been accepted (in whatever way) as the basis for succession to the throne in the Commonwealth Realms. All of this is also fact, and seems to me quite sufficient to establish a pretty clear primacy of the British throne over the other 15 commonwealth realms. All I'm proposing here is that we call a spade a spade. Gbambino would have us pretend that it is merely happenstance that the Queen of Tuvalu is also the Queen of the United Kingdom, as though the people of small pacific island nations are in the general habit of making white women from Berkshire their Queen, and it is only coincidence that she happens also to be the British queen. This game is old and tiresome. john k 21:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not happenstance that the Queen of the UK is also the Queen of Tuvalu - the Tuvaluan (?) government, elected by the people of a small Pacific island, made a clear choice when patriating their constitution to make a white woman from Berkshire their Queen. So did every other current Commonwealth Realm. And despite where she lives, the premise that every Realm is "equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown" 1 still stands today. So, you can argue 'till your face is blue, but the point remains that her position as Queen of the UK is not above her position as Queen of any other country. Where she lives, and why she lives there, is what is happenstance, and has nothing to do with legal realities.

Anyway, I'm not sure what we're arguing about anymore. Nobody's proposing to rename the article (at least not at this point), only that we stop referring time and time again to the UK primarily and relegating every other Realm to the back of the closet as though they are nothing more than useless remnants of some dusty colonial past. --gbambino 21:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The citizens of the UK are the only ones who foot the bill for the queen, so I think they should be listed first. Imagine if the other commonwealth countries were expected to contribute to the civil list? The problem of multiple listings in encyclopedias would evaporate. TharkunColl 21:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

That's not true - citizens of every Realm pay for the Queen when she is acting at the request of their government. They also pay to maintain official government houses which in reality are for the Queen, pay for a Governor General to act on the Queen's behalf, etc. None of that overrides the fact that in the relationship between the Realms the UK is not dominant over any other. --gbambino 21:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[after edit conflict with Tharkun and Gbambino] So, you are in fact arguing that it's a complete coincidence that the white woman from Berkshire whom the Tuvaluans decided to make their Queen is also the queen of the country of which Tuvalu used to be a colony. Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds? And did you even read the numerous legal distinctions I made between her role in the UK and her role elsewhere? At any rate, the legal realities, as you put it, are, once again, not the primary point here. The historical realities are just as important, and the historical reality is that the reason Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada and Australia and Tuvalu and Jamaica and so forth is because she is Queen of the UK, and all of those places used to be British colonies. I am perfectly happy to have this article discuss the commonwealth realms and the queen's role there in a reasonable way, but what you are demanding is absurd POV-mongering - you are demanding, essentially, that in any place where we cannot talk about all of the commonwealth realms, we can't talk about Britain specifically, because that implies that Britain is different from the others. But the basic fact which any study of the history of the last hundred and fifty years reveals is that Britain is quite distinctly different from the others. (I discussed above various specific ways in which Britain is different, which you continue to choose to ignore because the Statute of Westminster is apparently the only criterion which we're allowed to judge this stuff based on. john k 21:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

So, you are in fact arguing that it's a complete coincidence that the white woman from Berkshire whom the Tuvaluans decided to make their Queen is also the queen of the country of which Tuvalu used to be a colony.

No, not coincidence. I said she is Queen of Tuvalu by their choice. They could have established a new monarchy, they could have become a republic, but they didn't. Therefore today they are a kingdom that happens to share its monarch with the UK, but is not subservient to the UK because of it.

The historical realities are just as important, and the historical reality is that the reason Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada and Australia and Tuvalu and Jamaica and so forth is because she is Queen of the UK, and all of those places used to be British colonies.

Elizabeth is no longer Queen of Canada, Australia, Tuvalu, Jamaica, and so forth, because she is Queen of the UK. That may have been the case in the past but that is no longer the situation. Besides, how does that affect the relationship today; post Balfour Declaration, post Statute of Westminster, and post patriation of the constitutions of every Realm? Historical reality is important, but so is modern reality! Why favour the former at the risk of causing confusion about the latter?

I don't understand your point. The reason the British monarch is monarch of all these other countries is because those other countries were British colonies. That Elizabeth's status as monarch of these other countries is no longer legally dependent on her status as British monarch is immaterial. And, as I have noted, there is little risk of confusion when the "modern reality," as you term it (ignoring, of course, the numerous "modern realities" that show the far greater importance of her role in Britain) is discussed in the very next paragraph. john k 23:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Shes the Queen shes on our coins and plus when we were going to have and election Martic was going to ask her NOT the Govenor General to dissolve parliament because it was Saskachewans centiall but they waited till she was gone the Govenor General is for when she's not there and Canada at least stll has a Queen but the UK's power over us s gone Jamhaw 16:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)jamhaw

...what you are demanding is absurd POV-mongering.

One can easily argue the same for you. At least I am providing sources from documents that are central to the structure of the Commonwealth Realms under the Crown as it stands today and not using the past to argue in favour of some opined perception that the UK is more important than 15 other modern, sovereign nations.

I have not said the UK is more important than the 15 other countries (well, it kind of is, but that's beside the point). What I have said, and what you have repeatedly ignored, is that Elizabeth's role in the UK is more important than her role in the 15 other countries. The existence of Governors-General alone makes this the case. john k 23:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

...you are demanding, essentially, that in any place where we cannot talk about all of the commonwealth realms, we can't talk about Britain specifically, because that implies that Britain is different from the others.

If one isn't speaking about Britain specifically, then why single it out at all? There are points where Elizabeth's actions are directly and only associated with the UK. However, there are also many aspects about her role as Queen which touch all Realms equally. In those instances there is no need to single out the UK specially, or any other Realm for that matter.

Every Realm is different in a way from the others, but they're all still equal. It's an easy concept to grasp, and one I can't understand why you're fighting against. --gbambino 22:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• I especially like the way some people have the image captions of the Queen in various articles saying "Queen Elizabeth II, pictured as Queen of Canada", as if she is some sort of actress playing a role! Astrotrain 22:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha, I love that observation! -- Greaser 09:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

She is. --gbambino 22:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Consider this thought experiment. If Australia becomes a republic, would it affect the queen's role in the UK or anywhere else? No, not in the slightest. If the UK becomes a republic, would the queen's role survive anywhere else? Even to ask the question shows it's absurdity. Without the UK, there would be no queen. TharkunColl 00:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The Queen's role would indeed survive "anywhere else" - Canada for instance would remain a kingdom under the House of Windsor regardless if the UK went republic or not. --gbambino 01:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Theoretically, the Queen's role would survive in her other realms. However, I think TharkunColl was trying to address the point that if the British voted out their monarchy, most of the other states where Elizabeth II is Queen would be faced with a crisis which would likely end with the other states following the UK's lead in voting out the monarchy.

I disagree with this point. While Australia seems moving towards a republic, New Zealand and Canada would at least remain having a monarchy due to public opinion. The fact that the reigning monarch would visit the country or reside in the country more often would, infact, actually result in a resurgence of popularity for the monarchy. The exception to this would be however, Quebec. -- Greaser 09:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that sums up their arguments quite clearly (correct me if I'm mistaken). I don't dispute the fact that no one state takes precedence over the others among the Commonwealth Realms, but the Queen has much more "influence," so to speak, in the United Kingdom. For example, does the Queen interact one on one on an daily basis with Canadian or Australian government officials?

That's a different question, and the answer remains only speculation. As for your other points, I somewhat addressed them in a response to John k below. --gbambino 02:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you please use colons to indent your responses? It makes conversations on talk pages a lot easier to read. 青い(Aoi) 05:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

UK more important? (cont.2)

This isn't to say that gbambino and others don't bring up good points. There's room for compromise here and we should all calm down and be willing to mediate. 青い(Aoi) 02:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

TharkunColl, thanks for your opinion. However, what you're saying is pure speculation. I agree with Gbambino. The article is named "of the United Kingdom", for the sake of convenience, and it already disregards the equality of the 16 Commonwealth Realms. There's no reason not to be more correct in the article, and I think my proposed introduction is appropriate, since it is clear, legally precise (makes the point of separate crowns), does not give precedence to any of the Realms and is not long and unwieldy. JSIN 05:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see TharkunColl has come up with the same thought experiment that I did. I'll just add that it is most certainly "long and unwieldy" for the intro to list 16 countries, of which a good 12 are among the most insignificant countries in the world, rather than following every other encyclopaedia in the world and just mentioning Britain (or mentioning Britain and the realms in general, as I favor). john k 06:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

For more than a year, versions of this article have had all 16 Commonwealth Realms named in the introduction, and I don't think it was long and unwieldy at all. [2] We shouldn't sacrifice factual accuracy and NPOV for simplicity. JSIN 07:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

"Factual accuracy" is not at issue here. It is equally factual to say "Elizabeth II is the Queen of the United Kingdom and sixteen other commonwealth realms" and to say "Elizabeth II is the Queen of Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, and the United Kingdom." It may not be equally NPOV. john k 16:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It is also equally accurate to say "Elizabeth II is Queen of the 16 Commonwealth Realms." It is accurate to say "Elizabeth II is Queen of Jamaica and fifteen other Commonwealth Realms." The difference is the former acknowledges the extra fact that all the Realms are equal, the latter erroneously singles out Jamaica as though it is somehow superior to the others. Purely in terms of the relationship of the Realms under the Crown, which an Ontario judge described as one of "symmetry" (ie. equal in all respects), Jamaica is not superior as equally as the UK is not. So it's just as misleading to say "Jamaica and the other Commonwealth Realms" as it is to say "the UK and the other Commonwealth Realms." --gbambino 17:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is misleading not to single out the UK, as if she really were of equal status in all those countries. To say that she is is a legal fiction, and it must be our job to relate facts, not fictions. TharkunColl 17:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

She is Queen of each country equally. That is not legal fiction. It is our job to relate facts, therefore the UK should not be singled out when listing the countries of which she is Queen. --gbambino 17:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

She is certainly queen of all those countries, but to say that her status is equal in those countries is a legal fiction. Could she decide to move to Australia, sack the governor-general, and assume the status of monarch in person? I don't think so... TharkunColl 19:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not a legal fiction. Each Realm is equal under the Crown; that is established fact in law, cited in many sources. Therefore it follows that Elizabeth II is Queen equally of each Realm. That means her status as Queen of Canada is no greater nor less than her status as Queen of the UK or of New Zealand. Does she live for the most part in the UK? Yes. But it's irrelevant to the fact that she reigns over all her Realms equally, all of her Realm ministers have equal access to her council, laws in her Realms are passed in her name equally, her acts as Queen of the UK in no way override any of her acts as Queen of any other Realm, whether carried out by the Governor General on her behalf or not. In a symmetrical relationship no one takes precedence over any other, and thus, in terms of that relationship, singling out the UK as more important is nothing more than a misleading point of view.

And, by the way, she already has the status of Monarch in Australia, in person. Could she decide to move to Australia? That's an interesting question as I'm not sure if there's any laws in the UK dictating where the monarch can and cannot live. Could she abolish the position of Governor-General? No, that would take an ammendment to the Australian constitution. But, it's plausable that she could live in Australia and continue to be represented by the Australian Governor-General.

What that has to do with the debate though, I'm not entirely sure. --gbambino 20:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Every law and every bill is passed with her name on it, or done by the Crown's Ministers/ Her Majesty's Ministers Considering her role and legal standing superceedes that of the Governor Generals she could do what you just said if she wanted to. Infact she could dismiss parliaments et cetera. She probably should have in apartheid South Africa when she had the chance. I digress. Take home message: Yes, she could. -- Greaser 09:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The very fact that Australia (and the others) have a governor-general as part of their constitution proves my point. Even if the queen lived in Canberra full time she would have no power over the Australian government because all those powers are exercised by the governor-general - in her name, to be sure, but in practice not by her at all. Reading through all this debate I'm beginning to think that our colonial cousins in the commonwealth don't really understand the extent to which the queen really is involved in the day to day - or more accurately week to week running of the UK. To them she must seem like some remote figurehead who never impinges on their lives at all, and perhaps they are under the misapprehension that this is the case in Britain as well. Yes, I agree that under law the crowns have equal status - but this article is not about law, it's about the queen as a person. Under law is not the same as saying in practice, which is why I called it a legal fiction. Use whatever form of words you want, but the fact remains that the queen has more power in the UK, and is far, far more closely associated with the UK, than anywhere else. TharkunColl 08:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

She is more closely associated with the UK; I think I've brought that up about four times now. However, she does not hold more power in the UK. In each Realm the powers are hers in totality and only exercised by the Governor General on her behalf. There will, of course, be far more historical instances where the UK crops up in her biography than any other Realm, but that doesn't alter the fact that she's Queen of each country equally. Law must affect the contents of this article because it is only by law that she is Queen. It is by law that she is Queen of the Realms symmetrically, regardless of where she is more closely involved in practice. I've submitted a proposal at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom#RFC. --gbambino 16:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

You are once again arguing in terms of legal fictions. The basic fact remains that she exercises her powers herself in the UK, while in the commonwealth realms they are exercised by a governor-general. I find it utterly incomprehensible how this does not translate to "holding more power in the UK." john k 20:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Head of State

Gbambino, re your latest edit. I can't speak for other countries, but the Queen is certainly Head of State of Australia. Well, that's my view, although there is some debate even here about whether it's the Queen or the Governor-General. JackofOz 20:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I edited it in the manner I did to remove the erroneous implication that the various Commonwealth Realms recognise the British Monarch as head of state. The British Monarch is only head of state of Britain - the Australian Monarch is head of state of Australia, the Canadian Monarch head of state of Canada, and so on. I know of the Queen vs. the GG as head of state debate in Australia. The funny thing is, as far as I understand it, the term head of state was coined in the US to distinguish between their one president's two roles as head of state and head of government. Technically it doesn't apply to monarchies as the sovereign is the embodiment of the state, so calling them head of state is akin to saying they're head of themselves. It's doubly wrong when applied to positions like a governor general - the representative of the monarch can't be head of the monarch! But, despite it's inaccuracy it's become the commonly accepted term to apply to someone who wields executive power in a country and/or represents that country internationally. --gbambino 20:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. And that is why QE2 appears in our lists of heads of state, and similar lists elsewhere. The term may not technically apply to monarchs, but that seems to be a distinction that is too fine for most people. It certainly was beyond my comprehension till now. JackofOz 01:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually it does. The idea that a monarch is the state is no longer accepted in law. The Crown can't be head of state, but a monarch in a constitutional monarchy is by definition a head of state. Re the nonsense about the Queen of Australia not being head of state, while some argue that she isn't, I know of few credible legal and constitutional experts who suggest that she isn't and the governor-general is. For a start it is a constitutional impossibility for a head of state to swear constitutional allegiance to another figure, as by definition the head of state is the highest ranking constitutional office-holder. Nor can a head of state be appointed by a constitutionally inferior office-holder. For the Governor-General to be head of state one would have to tear hundreds of years of constitutional theory to shreds and reduce the Australian headship of state to some bizarre level of figure appointed by, and swearing allegiance to, a lower constitutional figure. By definition the appointer, not the appointee, is constitutionally dominant, and so if one of them is head of state it has to be the former, not the latter. A governor-general is at most a de-facto head of state who acts like a head of state but isn't actually one. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Once again I am in complete agreement. It's beyond me why Sir David Smith, former Official Secretary to about 5 G-G's, argues so vehemently against this position. JackofOz 01:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Is the monarch no longer seen as the embodiment of the State? I was under the impression that laws outlining oaths (citizenship, parliamentary, military, etc.) require allegiance to be given to the Queen with the idea that through her you are giving allegiance to the State, not the political and transitory government. As well, the Canadian Constitution vests executive authority, ie. all laws creating the State, specifically in the Queen, not the Crown (as it's worded). But, perhaps I've been misled, or I have misinterpreted.

As for whether the Governor General or the Queen is head of state, I think Australian monarchists are now arguing there are no laws that specifically outline what a head of state is; instead its simply a descriptive title, who's use is governed by international convention, that doesn't affect the relationship between the Governor General and the Monarch. So, given that a governor general does have the authority to wield executive power, and does represent the nation internationally, he or she could be seen as the Australian head of state while the Queen is the Sovereign. It's an interesting theory that may be plausible, but I think it's ineffective with those who don't fully understand the constitutional structure of their nation. For most people whomever is called head of state is the top of the pyramid, and that's certainly what been seen here in Canada as our government has tried to promote the Governor General as the Canadian head of state. When Letters of Credence and Recall are addressed specifically to the Governor General, when the GG takes precedence over the Queen at ceremonies, when the Governor General reads the Speech from the Throne while the Queen is in the country, Canadians start to see the GG as more important than the Queen herself. --gbambino 19:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

What ceremonies does the GG take precedence? Astrotrain 11:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The GG is never supposed to take precedence, but at the D-Day 60th anniversary ceremony in France, in 2004, where both the Queen and GG were in attendance, the GG inspected the guard, neither the GG nor the PM greeted the Queen on her eventual arrival, the Queen's personal standard wasn't flown, no equerry was provided for HM, and the media noted the Queen was to lay a wreath on behalf of the Commonwealth - not Canada, the GG did that. As well, when announcing that the stage party would descend to meet veterans, the Queen was placed third after Clarkson and her husband; and it was in that order they left the dais. All in all it appeared that the GG was placed above the Queen as Canada's head of state, and was there merely for historical, but useless, reasons. In fact, Rideau Hall, in response to a number of letters demanding an explanation for what went on in France, replied by saying Elizabeth was there as Queen of England! Pretty pathetic, all in all. --gbambino 16:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Religion

I read: In Scotland the Church of Scotland (with a Presbyterian system of church government) is recognised in law as the "national church" in which the Queen is an ordinary member. and I wonder: does the Queen ever attend an Anglican church in Scotland and is her status as an ordinary member of the Church of Scotland one that may be assumed by any member of the Church of England? Laurel Bush 12:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC).

The Church of Scotland article says:

"The British monarch (when in Scotland) is simply a member of the Church (she is not, as in England, its "Supreme Governor"). The monarch’s coronation oath includes a promise to "defend the security" of the Church of Scotland. She is formally represented at the annual General Assembly by a Lord High Commissioner (unless she chooses to attend in person). The role is purely formal."

But surely this is contradictory. If she is an ordinary member of the Church, in what capacity is she represented at the annual General Assembly by a Lord High Commissioner? Adam 05:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It is by the way utterly ridiculous that this article begins: "Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor), born 21 April 1926, is (in alphabetical order) Queen of Antigua and Barbuda..." Adam 06:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Adam, have you read the long debate on this topic, above (Order of Mention of Commonwealth Realms)? JackofOz 09:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and I still think it is absurd. The article should begun by saying she is Queen of the United Kingdom by hereditary right, heir to a throne which has existed for a thousand years, and has subsequently and very recently been made queen of a variety of former British colonies by virtue of their constitutions. These are paper titles in countries which are not genuine monarchies, and are clearly historically and politically inferior titles, whatever their legal status may be. The opening paragraph should reflect these realities and not blindly repeat polite legal fictions. Adam 10:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Not genuine monarchies? What precicely is a genuine monarchy as compared to Australia, Canada, etc.? --gbambino 22:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Her Prime Ministers

We mention her 10 UK PMs and give a link to them; the rest of her Commonwealth PMs are all bundled together with vague wording and no links. Doesn't this go against the notion that no one of her crowns is superior to any other? JackofOz 19:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It does, but one step at a time ;) --gbambino 19:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

So, what, are you saying we have to either take out the perfectly useful British information, or else include that she was also queen for 12 Canadian Prime Ministers, 10 Australian Prime Ministers, 14 New Zealand Prime Ministers, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.? Should we then mention also the number of Governors-General she's gone through in each of the commonwealth realms? This is getting absurd. john k 21:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

How about: "Her reign of over five decades has seen 141 different Prime Ministers throughout the Commonwealth Realms of which she is or was Head of State." --gbambino 21:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I like that. Lord Bob 21:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Where is that number derived from? I'll add that I don't like the fact that we are removing useful information about the number of British PMs. john k 21:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The number comes from the article that lists Elizabeth's Prime Ministers: Prime Ministers of Queen Elizabeth II. I'd also like to ask: why is it, John k, that you are so adamantly Anglo-centric? --gbambino 21:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

John K, those were your words, not mine. The info about the 10 UK PMs is, I agree, "perfectly useful". But her UK PM is relevant only to her British crown. Her Canadian PM is the relevant PM in relation to her Canadian crown, etc for all the others. We can't on the one hand say that none of her 16 crowns is more superior than any other, then on the other hand provide a direct link to only the UK PMs, without running the risk of, in Gbambino's words, seeming "Anglo-centric". Given the history of the UK monarchy, it is probably OK to be a little Anglo-centric - but not this much. JackofOz 22:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

As I have said before, I do not think that "none of her 16 crowns is more superior than any other." I have no especial fear of being "Anglo-centric," because, shockingly enough, the British monarchy is "anglo-centric". john k 22:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

And that is the precise point I am making. She is the queen of the British monarchy. She is also the queen of the Jamaican monarchy. She is also queen of the Kenyan monarchy. She is also queen of the New Zealand monarchy. Etcetera, etc. She wears many different hats, and she has a different Prime Minister for each one. We can't just talk about her British PM as if that were the only one that mattered. JackofOz 22:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Kenya is a republic. Adam 00:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Oops. Ta. JackofOz 00:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

And my point is that the British throne is by an enormous margin more important than the other fifteen. Please continue to ignore it and say the same thing over and over again. john k 23:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not a question of ignoring anything. Your assertion that "the British throne is by an enormous margin more important than the other fifteen" is very debatable, and I'm debating it. To the British, her British throne is the only one that matters, and all the others are irrelevant. To the Canadians, her Canadian throne is the only one that matters, and all the others are irrelevant. And so on. That was the whole point of the Statute of Westminster, wasn't it? It was intended to establish the absolute sovereignty of each throne. The very notion of comparing one with another is inappropriate. JackofOz 00:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm American, not British, I will note, so this is not a matter of me being parochial. What support do you have for your claim that "to the Canadians, her Canadian throne is the only one that matters?" Here's a thought experiment. What would be the reaction of the fifteen other commonwealth realms to a successful republican movement in Tuvalu? I think it's fair to say that this would not be even a slightly important issue in any of the other commonwealth realms. What would be the reaction of the fifteen other commonwealth realms to a successful republican movement in Australi? This would be the cause of some comment, I should think, but would essentially be an issue of foreign news, and basically unimportant. What would be the reaction of the other fifteen commonwealth realms to a successful republican movement in the United Kingdom? It would, without a doubt, create a constitutional crisis in every single commonwealth realm. How would they deal with the issue of the monarchy if the British abolished theirs? At the very least, considerable soul-searching in each commonwealth realm would occur. I would guess that all fifteen would become republics within months, although obviously that's a hypothetical, but certainly it would be much more important for Canada if Britain became a republic than if Australia did. Or do you dispute that, as well? john k 06:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Taking your last question first: If I don't admit the possibility of being influenced by the views of others, how could I ever expect others to be influenced by my views? If talk pages are not for discussing matters about which there is lack of agreement, what are they for? The point is to get to see the other person's point of view, consider it, and hopefully meet somewhere in the middle.
• Re my Canadian claim: The Queen of the UK is as legally irrelevant to the people of Canada as the King of Sweden is. Canada has its own separate monarchy. At the moment, and for the forseeable future, the monarch of the UK and the monarch of Canada are the same natural person. But since we're getting into the area of hypothetical speculation, at law they are separate entities and theoretically there could be a monarch of Canada who is a different person than the monarch of the UK. Canada (and Australia, NZ and all the other realms) could, theoretically, have rules of succession that diverge from those obtaining in the UK, and from each other. Their parliaments could certainly enact such laws, and their monarch would have no option but to give Royal Assent. This obviously has implications for the notion that there is one Head of the Commonwealth, but I don't want to go there right now.
• We would never really know unless it were to happen, but let us agree that a republic in the UK would grab a lot more attention than a republic in Tuvalu, and have far wider repercussions. Maybe a republican Britain would lead inevitably to republics throughout the rest of the Commonwealth (whereas a republican Tuvalu would not). But that would not happen overnight, and in the meantime Elizabeth Windsor would still be Queen Elizabeth II of Australia, NZ etc.
• Does the assumed inevitability of that outcome make the monarchy of the UK more "important" than the monarchy of Tuvalu? In practical terms, yes. In legal terms, no. Since monarchies are virtually legal fictions these days, their legal basis is just about all we have to go on. The Queen dishes out a few honours within her personal gift, but does virtually nothing of significance that is not sanctioned by one of her 16 Prime Ministers. She cannot even abdicate unilaterally - that requires an act of parliament, and not just in the UK but in all 16 parliaments. What if she did indicate her desire to abdicate, and 15 realms passed an abdication law, but the Australian PM for example refused to permit her to do so, or there was some crisis here whereby the government's legislation was thwarted in the Senate (and yes, there are plenty of precedents). Then, for a while at least, Charles would be King of 15 realms and his mother Elizabeth would remain as Queen of Australia. Fantastic? Absurd? Of course. If Charles were to die a week after becoming king, William V would become king of 15 realms and Elizabeth would still be Queen of Australia until our parliament sorted itself out. Then we'd need a different abdication act, one that enabled her to abdicate in favour not of her son but of her grandson. Constitutional implications? God knows. JackofOz 08:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Does this encyclopedia have to report all legal fictions as if they were fact? Was the German Democratic Republic democratic? I suggest that the queen's role in Canada, Australia, and NZ is of no practical constitutional significance whatsoever, since they have resident governor-generals appointed by themselves. Her role in the UK, however, whilst largely ceremonial, is by no means exclusivly so. She prevented Winston Churchill creating a deputy prime minister, she personally intervened in the devolution debate of the 1970s, she and Margaret Thatcher were almost always at loggerheads over policy - the list could go on. Minor points perhaps, and not widely reported. Her social influence is immense, and she still retains powers of patronage for those who can be influenced by such things. Members of her family, especially Charles, head large scale funds and charities such as the prince's trust that have done fairly significant work in training, education, and poverty relief in inner city areas. The prime minister has an audience with the queen every week, and she is famous for reading all state papers, which must be one of the most thankless tasks imaginable. When she goes abroad on state visits (i.e. to non commonwealth countries) she represents UK interests, not those of Canada, Australia, or NZ. She is one of the largest landowners in the UK, her lavish living expenses are provided by UK citizens in taxation, all of her homes are in the UK. Once, when interviewed, Dimbleby said to Charles "one day you will be king of England." Charles replied "And Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland". No mention of Canada, Australia, NZ, etc. To give equal weight to her role in other countries is to perpetuate a legal fiction, and surely that is not the purpose of this encyclopedia. TharkunColl 09:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

they have resident governor-generals appointed by themselves

Read this and then come join the conversation again. Also know that the Queen reads state papers from Canada, represents Canadian intrests abroad when the Canadian gov't asks her to (and has), and the official residences of the Governors-General, Governors, and Lieutenant-Governors of all the Realms are actually the Queen's residences. So, what were you saying about fiction? --gbambino 17:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Very well said. Adam 09:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, and I agree with just about all of it. Question: What, then, do we say about the Statute of Westminster? That it was a nice token agreement whose purpose was to placate the former colonies but to change nothing in reality? Surely not. The G-Gs no longer represent the British Government, they represent the monarch alone. Her 16 PMs have the right to advise her directly on matters about their countries, without having to go through the filter of the UK PM. Nobody is disputing the importance of her role in the UK, which is a natural consequence of the fact that she lives there. Of course the UK PM meets with her directly, since there is no need for a British Governor-General. Yes, she takes an active interest in political affairs, but I suspect that is a personal attribute not shared by most of her predecessors. In relation to the Commonwealth, Maggie Thatcher ruffled so many feathers over sanctions for Zimbabwe that at one stage there was talk of the UK being expelled and the remaining Realms going it alone. Of course, that was merely political rhetoric - but the possibility, however remote, could only have been alluded to if such a possibility existed. So, sure, the UK has a special association with the Queen and deserves some prominence. Let's not consign the 15 other realms to a lower status than they deserve. JackofOz 12:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing the importance of her role in the UK, which is a natural consequence of the fact that she lives there. You may not be disputing it, but gbambino, jsin, and so forth are most certainly disputing it, by saying it is illegitimate to have the article say anything which implies that the Queen's role in the UK is in any way more important than her role in the other commonwealth realms. I'm not arguing, and I don't think Tharkun or Adam is arguing, that we should ignore the issue of the other commonwealth realms, or say in the article things like "the State of Westminster was a nice token agreement." I agree with your last two sentences entirely. But I think the implication of that is that it's okay to say things like "Elizabeth II is Queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other commonwealth realms." Especially if we then immediately go on to have a paragraph specifically about the constitutional issues. I think it's fine to note specifically the number of British PMs she has had. And so forth. I don't think any of this would suggest anything about the commonwealth realms' legal status at all. (BTW, I think pretty much every British monarch from Victoria on, with the exception of Edward VIII, has been fairly diligent in their commitment to their state duties, and pretty much all of them, at one time or another, played fairly significant political roles.) john k

Um.. No, that's not true, John k, and if you'd been reading what I was actually saying you'd know that; especially from my response to you last night in the Other Encyclopaedias section below. Let me repeat myself: I'm not saying that the historical moments and events where HM was directly and only involved with the UK shouldn't be mentioned, and the fact that these will outnumber examples of her direct involvement in the other Realms will alone demonstrate that she is more personally associated with the UK. But, on the other hand, those events where she was involved in the other Realms should not be ignored either, and those points where her role as Queen touches all Realms equally need to be documented with that truth in mind. Giving the UK supremacy in the list of countries of which she is Queen does not acknowledge that truth, nor does making her UK Prime Ministers seem more important. Understand? I tried a compromise edit yesterday:

Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor), born 21 April 1926, is Queen of each of the sixteen Commonwealth Realms. Though she principally resides in her oldest Realm, the United Kingdom, and by extention is personally involvd more closely with her UK government (a Governor-General typically exercising Royal Prerogative on her behalf in her other Realms), by the Statute of Westminster 1931 she holds these Crowns equally; no one nation takes precedence over any other.

But, it was removed. --gbambino 17:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I must concurr with John K on this. The British monarchy is anglo-centric. Where does Elizabeth reside? Where was she proclaimed Queen? Where was she crowned? Were there coronations in Antigue and Jamaica? No, she is first and foremost Queen of the UK of GB and NI, though I'd prefer to title the page "Elizabeth II of Great Britain (and Northern Ireland)", as no monarch is given as "King of the Kingdom", e.g. "Henry IV of the Kingdom" (of France). Str1977 22:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

And this all has its repercussions on the Prime Minister issue. Str1977 22:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

That's all true of "the British monarchy", Str1977. I could quibble and say she is not just the British monarch, but the Australian monarch and the Canadian monarch etc ... but I won't. And yes, StuRat, this whole page is discussing issues that are somewhat interconnected, so some rationalisation is probably called for. JackofOz 22:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

True. But no one here is denying the existence of other realms - the issue is whether is is okay to put her UK of GB and NI first. (Note, that in Canada she is called Queen of the UK as well: [3]. Currently the opening is rather muddled with its "each Commonwealth Realm respectively". Str1977 22:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, when she is in Canada, she is referred to and refers to herself as "Queen of Canada." In the media, she is typically referred to as "the Queen" (i.e., the Canadian Queen). The title and introduction of this articel have been troubling me for quite some time. Surely the important factor here is her legal status, not where she lives. Governors General exercise the royal prerogatives as if the Queen herself was resident in the given realm. Hence, Rideau Hall is the Queen's official residence in her realm of Canada. In a nutshell, this issue is not yet settled. No realm takes a back seat to any other with regard to the status of the crown as personified by Elizabeth II. The title should simply read Elizabeth II, or, to avoid confusion with any other Elizabrth the Seconds out there, Elizabeth II (of Windsor). The introduction should list her realms alphabetically - or chronologically by when she was proclaimed Queen of them, and then alphabetically. Perhaps we should seek mediation on this matter? Fishhead64 17:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The current listing is the result of a compromise reached some time ago. My own position was this: the queen's role in the UK - regadless of legal technicalities - is qualitively different from her role in any of the other Commonwealth realms. She has no governor-general in the UK and exercises her powers, such as they are, in person. She has no power whatsoever in any of the other countries, because all these powers are exercised by someone else, in her name. She resides in the UK, and her income is provided by UK taxpayers and no one else. She and her ancestors have been heads of state in the UK for over a thousand years, and the UK is her primary sphere of interest. Please remember that this is an article about the human being known as Elizabeth II, and is not a constitutional treatise. TharkunColl 17:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

"...Including the United Kingdom."

My one and only question is: why is the UK singled out? --gbambino 21:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

We've already been through this. I'm not going to repeat myself again. john k 21:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's an unconvincing argument for the move. --gbambino 21:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Response to RfC

All. Simply put, Wikipedia is not British focused. This article is. The coins for instance - could someone add other Commonwealth realm coins? Also, the PMs should be all there. --GeLuxe 22:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• I suggest an internal Wikilink from the term "Commonwealth countries" to a later part of the article that lists them all. A list of sixteen anything makes for an awkward introduction. Durova 05:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Other Encyclopedias

• Columbia: "Elizabeth II, queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 1926–, queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1952–), elder daughter and successor of George VI." The other realms are not mentioned at all.
• Britannica [subscriber only]: "Elizabeth II, in full Elizabeth Alexandra Mary , officially Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of her other realms and territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith born April 21, 1926, London, England" Once again, the Commonwealth realms are never mentioned in the article
• Encarta: "Elizabeth II, born in 1926, queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." Yet again, no mention of the other crowns.

I am not suggesting that we imitate these other encyclopedias in ignoring the commonwealth realms altogether, but it is essentially a deeply minor element of an article. Since it seems to be so important to some people, I'm perfectly happy to compromise and give the issue fairly prominent treatment. But demanding that we write the article as though her British role is not actually more significant than her other roles is ridiculous. john k 00:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This shouldn't be a matter of something being given prominent treatment. What this is about is factual accuracy, and the point that Elizabeth II is equally but separately Queen of 16 countries is hardly a minor element of her role as Sovereign - despite what other encyclopaedias say.

Was the British Crown the superior one in the past? Yes; in the past it was, in reality, the only Crown - and the article British Monarchy deals with that and its evolution. But, is the British Crown today more important than any of the other fifteen that Elizabeth II "wears"? No. Now, I'm not saying that the historical moments and events where HM was directly and only involved with the UK shouldn't be mentioned, and the fact that these will outnumber examples of her personal involvement in the other Realms will alone demonstrate that she is more personally associated with the UK. But, on the other hand, those events where she was involved in the other Realms should not be ignored either, and those points where her role as Queen touches all Realms equally need to be documented with that truth in mind. Giving the UK supremacy in the list of countries of which she is Queen does not acknowledge that truth, nor does making her UK Prime Ministers seem more important.

I currently have little issue with the opening paragraph as it is. I think more info re. her role and events in which she participated in the other Realms may need some work, but that can be dealt with in time. --gbambino 01:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I think all 16 Realms should be noted in the introduction, as the situation was for around a year. I'll make edits to this effect. JSIN 10:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

JSIN is right. The old version was fine, the only question was the ordering of the realms. The problem with the other encyclopedias is that they are not NPOV. Using the Queen's British title is only one POV. Even if most people outside the Commonwealth Realms think of her that way, it's not NPOV to present it that simply. There is nothing wrong with listing 16 realms in the intro - there is somethign wrong with giving dates for all of them. As for the rest of the article, I have felt it was too UK-centric for a while. It is a biographical article. Whenever it speaks of theoretical powers of the Queen, it should mention all realms equally. Wherever it speaks of personal interactions, it is appropriate to give a bit more prominence to Britain. JPD (talk) 10:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistent alphabetising of countries

The list should be either:

1. Australia
2. Canada
3. Great Britain and Northern Ireland
4. New Zealand

Or it should be:

1. Commonwealth of Australia
2. Dominion of Canada
3. Dominion of New Zealand
4. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The point being that the terms Commonwealth, Dominion, and United Kingdom are descriptive modifiers of the actual proper noun that describes the country. And yes, I know that "dominion" has gone out of fashion, but has it officially been dropped? If so, then we have a third potential list:

1. Canada
2. Commonwealth of Australia
3. New Zealand
4. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

And doesn't New Zealand have an official Maori name or something anyway? TharkunColl 00:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, what's so special about alphabetisation anyway? If we list these countries by dates of independence, then we get UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, which correspends to their relative importance in the world so is surely the sensible option anyway. TharkunColl 00:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

So when are we going to move this article to Elizabeth II of Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu and the United Kingdom? This must be the logical consequence of the line some people here are taking. Adam 00:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it would make the most sense to move it to Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth. -Arctic.gnome 11:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The internationally accepted short form of the name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the "United Kingdom," not "Great Britain and Northern Ireland." But I agree that listing in order of independence would make the most sense. john k 06:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no one date on which Australia became independent. It was a gradual process lasting from 1901 to 1986. Furthermore, the Queen did not become Queen of Australia in 1952 (the title was not created until 1973), nor was a separate "throne of Australia" created by the Statute of Westminster of 1931 - such an idea would have horrified Australians at that time. These points serve to illustrate the immense complexity of the constitutional history involved in this matter. My view is that this article should describe the Queen as hereditary Queen of the United Kingdom, and note that she is also queen of various other places by virtue of provisions of their constitutions. The reader should then be refered to Queen of Australia and analogous articles for other countries, in which the exact constitutional position of the Queen in those countries is explained. This is not something that can be done here, at what is supposed to be essentially a biographical article. Adam 07:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Adam, the idea that the title Queen of Australia was created in 1973 is ridiculous, a fiction that is only arrived at by abusing the English language. If that is the case, she is still not "Queen of Canada", as Canada uses the form of title that was used in Australia before 1973. Having said that, I mainly agree with your point. Maybe part of the problem is that this article spends much too much time detailing the position of the Monarch in the UK, rather than being a biographical article. This information also belongs in a different article. JPD (talk) 10:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree with JPD's comments here. An article on Elizabeth II has no particular need to go into a great deal of detail about the precise constitutional status of the Queen. It ought to be a biographical article about an individual. I've already pointed out that other encyclopedias don't even discuss the constitutional status issue at all. It ought to be noted that all of this information already is to be found in a number of different articles, most notably commonwealth realm. john k 16:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

note. New Zealand's full name is New Zealand. It is not the Dominion of New Zealand (that was dropped in 1947). --GeLuxe 22:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

What's the queen's surname?

Her personal name is given as Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor, but surely this is wrong. Upon marrage to Philip Mountbatten she hyphenated her name as Windsor-Mountbatten. This is the surname Charles used when he signed his marriage certificate (or was it Mountbatten-Windsor?). Note: The dynastic name is still Windsor, and will remain so under Charles - this was determined early in her reign under pressure from Churchill, who disliked the Mountbattens. But I'm referring to her actual, personal name. TharkunColl 12:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The issue is more complicated. I would personally prefer if we just avoid the surname question entirely - HRH's (and HM's) don't necessarily have surnames in the way we do. john k 16:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I remember reading on Queen Victoria's page, that a female member of a house (royal or noble) would keep her house affiliation, and her children would belong to their father's house. In Victoria's case, she was a member of the House of Hanover, Albert and her children were of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Would this case be the same as that? Prsgoddess187 16:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

To my understanding, her children adopted the hyphen as a courtesy to their father. Unless I'm mistaken, they're still Windsors in the strictest sense. Durova 17:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

To my knowledge, the hyphenated version is not a courtesy to Philip but to Elizabeth. Normally, the children would all be simply Mountbattens. As far as I know, Charles retains Windsor, while his younger siblings are Windsor-Mountbattens (or is it Mountbatten-Windsor?). Str1977 22:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

From the official British Monarchy website, a question asked in September 2003 gained this response:

"[...] The Queen is the fourth Sovereign of the House of Windsor (adopted as the Royal Family's official name in 1917), but she does not have a surname as such. In 1960, The Queen declared that those of her descendants not entitled to the style of Royal Highness, and female descendants who married, would in future use the surname Mountbatten-Windsor (before their marriage, The Duke of Edinburgh was known as Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten). This decision linked the surname of her husband with their descendants, without changing the name of the royal house."

Hope this helps. (LOL) Noisy | Talk 17:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

South Africa

The queen also succeeded to the throne of South Africa in 1952. Why is that not mentioned? I've just added it anyway. Whereas the first paragraph describes her current titles, the second refers to what she inherited in 1952, therefore South Africa must be included for the sake of consistency. TharkunColl 12:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

She was also the sovereign of Pakistan until 1956, although I don't think the title of "Queen of Pakistan" was in use. john k 16:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

RFC

Hi there! Came in through WP:RFC/P to see what i can do. First off, let me say that the first paragraph has become totally unreadable by listing all the realms. It seems to me that this can (partly) be solved by switching the first and the second paragraph. This puts the entire list a bit lower, and mentions her most prominent titels first. Secondly, while it's obvious that the crowns are in no particular order, surely everybody agrees that she is most well-known as the Queen of the UK (usually even only the Q of E!). Simply mentioning this, and then pointing out that there is more to it would do nicely for th article as well. "She is often simply referred to as the Q of UK, but she also holds the crown over blah blah blah" or something of the sorts. Is this an idea? The Minister of War ^(Peace) 21:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. A couple of days ago, I voiced the same concerns above, but apparently they went completely ignored as now the introduction has gotten even worse. The intro tries to give more information than what is really necessary for an introduction.

I like your suggestion. How about an introduction like this?

Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor), born 21 April 1926, is the Queen of each of the states (presently sixteen) in the Commonwealth Realm. While she is best known in her role as the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, she also reigns separately over each of the following states as Queen: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, and Saint Kitts and Nevis. By the Statute of Westminster 1931 she holds these positions equally; no one nation takes precedence over any other. About 128 million people live in countries of which she is Head of State. She has also previously been Queen of eighteen other other states. (See Commonwealth Realm - Former Commonwealth Realms.)

She also holds the positions of Head of the Commonwealth, Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and Lord of Mann.

She is currently the second-longest-serving head of state in the world, after King Bhumibol Adulyadej the Great of Thailand. Her reign of over five decades has seen ten different Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom and numerous Prime Ministers in the other Commonwealth Realms of which she is or was Head of State.

I realize the above suggestion probably doesn't flow as well as what would be considered ideal and may not be as clear as some would like it. So please try to improve it as you see fit. My main point is that the current introduction simply will not do--I find it too long and confusing. 青い(Aoi) 06:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The idea is right, but as you say, the flow is somewhat strange. Also, reading TharkunColl's last remark, I must say I am inclined to agree with him, meaning it is important to mention the fact that, while she may be head of state in Zillion realms, and there may be no legal difference between the, she doesnt hold actual power in most of them. The Minister of War ^(Peace) 08:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The biggest problem with Aoi's version is that the first sentence is nonsense. The whole point of the this discussion is that the 16 states are not "states in the Commonwealth Realm", they are all individual "Commonwealth Realms", not that that term is used much outside Wikipedia. I don't see why the Minister says that the first paragraph has become unreadable through the listing of all the realms - it has listed all the realms for a long time before this discussion broke out, and was quite readable. As for the differences in actual power, I'd say that the chance that she will use any of her theoretically powers in any of the realms is incredibly small. JPD (talk) 10:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

She has no powers, even theoretical, in the commonwealth "realms" other than the UK - all such powers are vested, by their own constitutions, in the governor-generals (who, be it noted, are appointed by their own governments, not the queen herself). In the UK, however, the situation is fundamentally different. It's true that most of the queen's reserve powers are exercised by government ministers, but not all. In 1974, when Ted Heath refused to resign as prime minister even though he lost the general election, he had to be told to step down by the queen. At the beginning of her reign she refused to allow Chruchill to appoint a deputy PM. She argued with Thatcher over the latter's more extreme policies. The list could go on. All these things are relatively minor, and don't really affect the fact that real power belongs to the PM and his majority in the Commons, but it should never be assumed that the British monarch is a mere cypher. TharkunColl 12:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The above statement about Edward Heath is incorrect. Heath was perfectly entitled to remain in office after the February 1974 general election while he tried to form a coalition with a majority in the House of Commons, and in fact could have remained in office longer and presented a Queen's Speech and waited to be defeated. David | Talk 12:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

By remaining in power Heath stretched constitutional convention to breaking point and beyond. The queen didn't actually sack him, she advised him to go. If he hadn't, she could have sacked him. TharkunColl 12:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Not so. The result of the election was unclear and Heath was perfectly in order to remain in office until defeated. Your statement that the Queen advised him to resign is not supported by any history I have seen, and I have read the Cabinet minutes in which it is recorded that Heath decided to resign on the Monday evening before he had seen the Queen. David | Talk 12:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe so then, but it doesn't alter my point that in the UK, the queen really does have an influence on government, but definitely not so in Australia etc. I imagine the Australians would be horrified at the very thought of it. TharkunColl 12:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not Australians would be horrified is completely irrelevant. The Australian Governor-General is indeed chosen by the government (actually, the prime minister), but is appointed by the Queen. You are right that situation is not exactly the same as in the UK, but the fact remains that the Queen is just as able to disallow an Australian law as she is to withould assent from a UK bill (s59), and equally unlikely to actually do either. Arguing with the PM hardly counts as having actual power - what difference should it make to the article that she has theoretical power in one realm and theoretical less direct power in another? JPD (talk) 13:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Because whatever the law might state, in actual fact the queen is first and foremost queen of the UK. Equality under law does not mean equality of practice. This article is not a description of legal status (that's a different one), it's a biography of the quuen. The queen lives in the UK and has influence (however limited) over UK governments. She represents UK interests when visiting non-commonwealth countries. You never, for example, hear of the queen visiting the USA in order to promote Canadian trade. Her legal rights, such as they are, are exercised in Australia etc. by the governor-generals, not the queen in person. And nor does she have any informal influence in those countries. Her status there is all legal theory, and no practice. TharkunColl 13:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this article is not about legal status, which is why we shouldn't spend so much time talking about it. The intro can state that she is Queen of blah blah blah, and then rest of the article details information about her life, which will obviously contain mostly British content. By the way, the Queen has been to the USA representing Canada, and I don't think we are in a position to comment on her informal influence. JPD (talk) 13:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Has she really been to the USA representing Canada? First I've heard of it, anyway, and even if true, would be highly unusual. Her informal influence is well documented, and is part of her constitutional role in the UK. I would suggest that the intro states that she is queen of the UK, and then goes on to state that she is also queen of various other places. TharkunColl 14:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, she visited the US as Queen of Canada in 1957. She's also been to France as Queen of Canada on a number of occasions. She has exercised her power as Queen of Canada - the most public being her creation of four new Senate seats on the advice of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, and it has been documented that she discussed Canadian constitutional affairs with Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau before the patriation of the Constitution in 1982. She's opened the Canadian parliament twice, signed Canadian bills into law, and personally issued Proclamations as Queen of Canada. Need I go on?

As for her holding no power outside of the UK, read III.9 of the Canadian Constitution Act 1867 and you might just find the following: "The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen." VI.91: "It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada." Even in the 1947 Letters Patent allowing the Governor General to exercise almost all the powers of the Queen on her behalf, it's stated: "II. And We do hereby authorize and empower Our Governor General, with the advice of Our Privy Council for Canada or of any members thereof or individually, as the case requires, to exercise all powers and authorities lawfully belonging to Us [italics mine] in respect of Canada." So, given that, the Governor General is only a representative of the Queen who is actually the holder of all executive powers, making her the Canadian head of state. To say that her role as head of state of Canada is somehow inferior to her role as head of state of the UK is both incorrect, and somewhat of an insult to Canadians (implying that Canada is a subservient nation). As JackofOz said, this was one of the central purposes of the Balfour Declaration and the Statute of Westminster: put all former Dominions of the British Empire on an equal footing, leading to the creation of the Commonwealth of Nations; the United Kingdom and the Dominions "are autonomous Communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs." It's also why the 1927 Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act was passed to alter the King's title, effectively ending his role as King of Britain in each Dominion to King of each Dominion separately. The point that the Queen is Sovereign of each realm equally is not a fantasy - it's a fact accepted by constitutional experts, parliamentarians and judges.

What is wrong with:

Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor), born 21 April 1926, is separately but equally Queen of each of the sixteen Commonwealth Realms, though she principally resides in her oldest Realm, the United Kingdom.

She became Queen of Australia, of Canada, of New Zealand and of the United Kingdom on the death of her father, King George VI on 6 February 1952. As other colonies of the British Commonwealth (now Commonwealth of Nations) attained independence from the UK during her reign she acceded to the newly created thrones as Queen of each respective realm. Thus, for her current Realms, she became Queen of Jamaica in 1962, of Barbados in 1966, of the Bahamas and of Grenada in 1973, of Papua New Guinea in 1975, of the Solomon Islands and of Tuvalu in 1978, of Saint Lucia and of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines in 1979, of Antigua and Barbuda and of Belize in 1981, and of Saint Kitts and Nevis in 1983.

In her 54 years on the throne, Elizabeth II has also seen a number of her former territories and Realms attain independence and become monarchies under a different dynasty, or republics. (See Commonwealth Realm - Former Commonwealth Realms.)

Today about 128 million people live in countries of which she is Head of State.

--gbambino 16:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

All of your references to the queen's actions in Canada only serve to emphasise how unusual they are. She exercises similar functions in the UK every week at her meetings with the PM. I am in no way suggesting that Canada etc. are inferior to the UK. What I'm saying is that the queen's role in government still has practical reality only in the UK, whereas elsewhere it is exercised by other people. Nor am I disputing the legal equality of the crowns, but rather their practical equality, which should also be reflected in the article. You make it sound like the queen is only more involved with the UK because she happens to live there, without asking why she lives there. She lives there because she and her ancestors have been heads of state there for the past thousand years or so. She has no governor-general to exercise her functions in the UK but instead exercises them herself, which is surely an enormous fundamental difference. Your proposed wording seems to imply that the UK is just one realm among many of which she is queen, whereas surely it would reflect reality far better to single it out first. TharkunColl 17:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

So the Queen is more involved with the UK on a daily basis. I think everyone here accepts that (in fact, I'm not sure who denied it). But that doesn't negate the fact that she is Queen of Canada by Canadian constitutional law as equally as she is Queen of the UK by UK constitutional law, and so on for every other Realm throughout the Commonwealth. In reality the Statute of Westminster did make the UK just one of many countries under the Crown, depite the fact that the monarch principally lives there. What is stated about her position as Queen of each Realm in the opening paragraph should reflect that legal reality, because it is only by law that she holds the position of Queen in all of her Realms, including the UK. Now, the Queen has to live somewhere, and she currently lives in the UK because it is currently her oldest Realm; that has everything to do with why she is more directly involved with her UK government. I have no problem mentioning that either; it deals with the practical reality of the situation. Actually, I thought my proposal addressed both issues: she is by law Queen of each nation equally, and titled, by law, accordingly, but she resides primarily in her oldest Realm. Seems simple enough to me.

James I's article states, correctly, that he was King of Scotland, King of Ireland and King of England - all three of his Realms listed, no one singled out. If that's the case for him then I think it's prudent for Elizabeth II, who, like James did, reigns over multiple nations as one person but separate monarchs, to, if not list every country for which she is distinctly Queen, at least say she is "separately but equally Queen of each of the sixteen Commonwealth Realms" and then point out that she spends most of her time in the UK and thus is more directly involved with it's government. --gbambino 17:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Though it probably will rejected as anglo-centric I want to propose the following wording;

Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor), born 21 April 1926, is Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and her other realms within the Commonwealth. These are Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, and Saint Kitts and Nevis.

Str1977 18:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm currently willing to support Str1977's proposed introduction, as they are much more clear than the unreadable mass of text that was up previously. 青い(Aoi)

Yes, I'm happy with that wording, as it's a fair compromise between reality and legality. As for James I, mentioned earlier, to list him as king of Scotland, England, and Ireland is rather misleading (though technically true of course). Scotland was a completely independent state, whereas Ireland was a dependency of England. Furthermore, just to confuse matters, he adopted the title king of Great Britain in 1604, instead of England and Scotland. Perhaps that article needs some work. TharkunColl 20:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It is to be added that James's title of "King of Great Britain" had no legal force, as the Kingdoms of England and Scotland continued to exist separately...I agree, though, that Str's wording seems basically good - although I'd say that the link to commonwealth realm should be over "realm" and that "Commonwealth" should link to Commonwealth of Nations... john k 20:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't approve of that wording. It puts the UK first and relegates her other "Queenships" to secondary status again. We may as well just say she's "Queen of the UK and her other Dominions beyond the seas", for all it's worth. As I keep saying, though she may be more personally involved as Queen of the UK, that's only due to the fact that she lives there, not because the UK holds any real status as a nation superior to the other Realms. To word it otherwise is completely misleading. Either say:

Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor), born 21 April 1926, is Queen of Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Canada, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Tuvalu, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; all known as the Commonwealth Realms. She principally resides in her oldest Realm, the United Kingdom, the nation with which she is most commonly personally involved.

In her 54 years on the throne, Elizabeth II has seen almost every former dominion and colony of the past British Empire become independent states, all of those now being either Commonwealth Realms, kingdoms under a different dynasty, or republics. (See Commonwealth Realm - Former Commonwealth Realms.)

Today about 128 million people live in countries of which she is Head of State.

Or:

Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor), born 21 April 1926, is Queen of each of the sixteen Commonwealth Realms. She principally resides in her oldest Realm, the United Kingdom, the nation with which she is most commonly personally involved.

Of her current Realms, she became Queen of Australia, of Canada, of New Zealand and of the United Kingdom on the death of her father, King George VI on 6 February, 1952. As other colonies of the British Commonwealth (now Commonwealth of Nations) attained independence from the UK during her reign she acceded to the newly created thrones as Queen of each respective realm. Thus, she became Queen of Jamaica in 1962, of Barbados in 1966, of the Bahamas and of Grenada in 1973, of Papua New Guinea in 1975, of the Solomon Islands and of Tuvalu in 1978, of Saint Lucia and of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines in 1979, of Antigua and Barbuda and of Belize in 1981, and of Saint Kitts and Nevis in 1983.

In her 54 years on the throne, Elizabeth II has also seen a number of her former territories and realms attain independence and become kingdoms under a different dynasty, or republics. (See Commonwealth Realm - Former Commonwealth Realms.)

Today about 128 million people live in countries of which she is Head of State.

Personally, I prefer the latter as the first paragraph is fair, succinct and precice, while the second gives the accension dates, which is not documented anywhere else besides in each individual article about the relevant country.

For this article, the title, as well as the contents, are sufficient to demonstrate that Elizabeth II is more closely associated with the UK. We need not bury the fact that she's equally Queen of each Realm any further than that. --gbambino 21:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

If all those other places with the queen as their head of state are so completely devoid of any connection with the UK, then why do they call her Elizabeth the Second? Those countries hadn't even been invented when Elizabeth I was on the throne. The current queen even discreetly avoids using "II" when in Scotland. TharkunColl 23:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It was decided (I read somewhere) that monarchs of the UK and the Commonwealth Realms would take their regnal numbers from the highest number of all their Realms. Elizabeth II remains the Second even when in Scotland.

I have never heard that this decision had anything to do with the commonwealth realms, but rather with the United Kingdom taking the higher numbering between the English and Scottish numbering. Thus, a King James would be James VIII, not James III; a King Robert would be Robert IV, not Robert I, but a King Henry would be Henry IX... john k 06:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed, the decision was a purely British one and was made early in the reign of the current queen, and the only countries it referred to were England and Scotland, with no reference to the "commonwealth realms" at all. It was brought about, I believe, by a legal challenge made in a Scottish court by a Scottish nationalist. Even so, whereas in England (and Wales) one will see the initials E.II.R on all sorts of things such as pillar boxes, in Scotland the numeral is discreetly left out. Her official title, of course, remains Elizabeth II for the whole of the UK, but it could be argued that for Scotland-specific purposes she uses the name Elizabeth with no modifier - at the state opening of the new Scottish parliament in 1999 David Steel addressed her as "Elizabeth Queen of Scots". So why on earth, for all their much vaunted complete independence from the British crown, do Australia etc, call her Elizabeth II ? What's good enough for Scotland - not even an independent state - is surely good enough for them? TharkunColl 07:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Apologies if what I said was not correct, I was not sure. JSIN 09:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The Realms other than the UK can title her whatever they want - though I'd imagine they'd practice the same courtesy she's afforded in the UK and use whatever name she wishes to be known by. I think the only thing that must be common amongst her Realm titles, as laid out by the Commonwealth governments in 1953, is that they contain "...and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth." --gbambino 15:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I have taken a bold and probably unpopular move to try to end the stalemate on this issue.

The main reason is readability, but also historical accuracy. The intro makes it clear in the following paragraphs that she holds her different royal positions equally. Str1977 09:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

A form was agreed to a few days ago in the section below. --gbambino 16:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me that's missing out on this agreement? I can't see it in the section below. Str1977 17:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

So no reply and back to the stalemate of a horridly worded intro. Str1977 09:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It's in the section below this one - near the end. TharkunColl's proposal was used with some objection by JSIN, and then a compromise by TharkunColl. Nobody objected further, so the opening paragraph was suitably changed. --gbambino 20:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Legal powers of the queen

An earlier poster proposed that since the queen's position and powers are derived purely from law, that is the only thing we can use to describe them. But this, I would argue, is not the case. The succession to the throne is certainly governed by stature law (Act of Succession, 1701) and a number of other acts, such as the Bill of Rights, and Magna Carta, mention certain aspects of the monarch's powers. Interestingly, however, all these acts serve to limit the monarch's power, not grant it. The monarch holds her powers mainly by common law and unwritten convention, and these have been gradually eroded over the centuries. The powers she still retains are not codified by law, but are those that have not been specifically removed from her by law. It must always be remembered that the UK has no written constitution, and is largely governed by convention. The contrast with the former colonies could not be more marked. These have constitutions that not only describe the powers of the monarch, but even state that these powers will be exerised not by the monarch herself, but by the governor-general. TharkunColl 10:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

We could have a long discussion about the subtleties of this, but really it's getting a bit silly. Let me note what I think are the key points:

• The different realms have equal legal status, even though they are ruled by one Queen.
• The reason for the shared monarch is a common historical link with the United Kingdom, reflected in the Queen's place of residence, use of II, etc.
• The UK will naturally get more prominence in this biographical article, as the Queen lives there.
• Giving the UK prominence is not suggesting that other countries are inferior, simply that they are less relevant to the Queen's biography. It is probably fair to say that in practical terms, her role in the UK is more relevant than in Aus, Can, etc.
• However, when describing her position, it may be misleading to single out the UK too much. It is true that most people in the world think of her as "Queen of England", but that is not a reason to describe her that way or as simple of the UK, especially since many of these people interpret the fact that she is also Queen of other places to mean that they are not independent.

My personal view is that the dates of independence are not particularly relevant to the relationship between the Queen and the nations involved. They had more effect on the relationship with the British government. In fact they are less relevant than the date other nations became republics. I also think that a list in the form of "Queen of ... , Queen of ..." is more cumbersome than it is worth. JPD (talk) 12:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

We need a compromise between reality, legality, and brevity for the opening paragraph. This is my proposed very slight variant on the one suggested earlier:

Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor), born 21 April 1926, is Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; plus the Commonwealth Realms of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand; and also Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, and Saint Kitts and Nevis.

This sorts the nations into three groups, depending on when their independent monarchy was founded. The UK has always had an independent monarchy, Canada, Australia, and NZ were granted an independent monarchy in 1931, and the others have only gained it during the present queen's reign. TharkunColl 13:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm over it. Anything half-way reasonable is OK by me, and this fits the bill. Just one thing: why do we include the surname Windsor? (a) She is not known by any surname, and (b) even expert royal watchers can't be sure what her and her family members' surnames are. This might be a nice thing to discuss if we were angels on pinheads, but since it has no bearing on how she is known to the world, what is the value of including it? We could have a link to the House of Windsor, where that matter should reside. JackofOz 15:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Two points:

• The UK is a Commonwealth Realm - saying the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; plus the Commonwealth Realms... reads as though it is not.
• Jamaica, Barbados, etc., are also all Commonwealth Realms - saying the Commonwealth Realms of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand; and also Jamaica, Barbados...[et. all] reads as though Canada, Oz & NZ are the only Commonwealth Realms, the rest are something else.

Can we try:

• Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor), born 21 April 1926, is Queen of each of the sixteen Commonwealth Realms, including the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as well as Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, the Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu.

As for the comment about the Queen, her Royal Prerogative and the constitutions of the Realms - Canada operates just as the UK does; in fact, the Constitution Act, 1867 specifically states in its preamble that the provinces of Canada are united under the Crown with "with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom." All the documents that form the Canadian Constitution as a whole, including the Act of Settlement and Bill of Rights, limit the Monarch's powers, just as those in the UK do. Nowhere is there a mention of what the Canadian monarch can do - that too is governed by convention and common law - the only real mention of anything of the sort being in the Letters Patent, 1947 constituting the office of the Governor General, which speak of "those powers lawfully belonging to Us..." The powers of the Australian monarch similarly aren't codified anywhere in their constitution. This was a major stumbling block for republicans who claimed all that had to be done for Australia to become a republic was to replace the words "Queen" and "Governor-General" with "President" throughout the relevant documents. The problem was that common law and convention would continue to gave an elected president all the reserve prerogative powers of the former monarch - something that made many constitutionalists very uncomfortable. Paul Keating said in 1995 that codification is probably "impossible," concluding that they could not write down or codify those powers in a way that would be accepted by the general community and cover every possible contingency.--gbambino 16:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Another way would be to inset the word "other" before Commonwealth Realms, as follows:

Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor), born 21 April 1926, is Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; plus the other Commonwealth Realms of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand; and also Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, and Saint Kitts and Nevis.

I have no fundamental objection to yours, however, except that it still seems rather clunky linguistically to mention the commonwealth first, rather than the UK, and appears to place the wrong emphasis on what she primarily is as a day-to-day person, i.e. queen of the UK. And to be fair to Canada, Australia, and NZ, they should perhaps be listed before all those other more recent ones, which I had done. Still, we're getting into stylistic arguments here. TharkunColl 17:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I object to the use of the word "plus" to mean "in addition to" or "also". I don't have a problem with the UK being mentioned first, but I don't think a distinction should be made in the way it is named, such as saying "UK plus whatever" and using the three groups and semicolons etc, since it might lead readers to think that the legal position is different and that all the 16 Realms are not equal in standing. Saying something like "Queen respectively of the Commonwealth Realms of the UK, Australia, Canada, NZ, etc." is acceptable, I think. JSIN 03:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, okay, fair enough. I'm still not sure that mentioning the Commonwealth first is the best idea, but shall compromise. Can somebody change the article accordingly now then? On the subject of Commonwealth Realms, however, I've just been reading the relevant article and noticed a glaring contradiction. A realm is a country with a monarch, right? Then what about Brunei, Lesotho, Malaysia, Swaziland, and Tonga? Commonwealth members, with monarchs, but monarchs that are not Elizabeth II, but somebody else. If the monarchies of Australia etc. really are completely and legally separate from that of the UK, then surely there is no difference in status between them, and countries such as the ones I just mentioned. Why are they not "Commonwealth Realms" too? TharkunColl 10:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Well... I think they are Realms, and members of the Commonwealth of Nations, but not Commonwealth Realms, per se. "Commonwealth Realm" is a separate term in itself, in my opinion. JSIN 12:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Hence my suggestions " ... and her other realms within the Commonwealth ..." Str1977 11:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

According to the official website of the British Monarchy, "Commonwealth Realm" has a meaning that isn't "a realm within the Commonwealth", a "a country which has the Queen as Sovereign". This is not the only time two English words are used together to give a meanign that isn't obvious from the meanings of the obvious words, so that shouldn't be a problem. In other words, the use of the word "Commonwealth Realm" is not meant to be directly referring to the Commonwealth first, simply drawing attention to the fact that she is Queen of more than one realm before mentioning any of them. Having said that, the fact that the term "Commonwealth Realm" is hardly used outside the Queen's website and Wikipedia probably is a reason not to rely on it. JPD (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Personality and image

Concerning the 3 people who have been known to touch the Queen well I remember watching something on ITV1 called 'It Shouldn't Happen to a Royal Reporter' and there was a clip of a Black woman in Belize embracing the Queen. She also fed her some kind of rat.

Are you sure it wasn't Princess Margaret with a suntan? Fishhead64 05:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Under the title Personality and image, 24.68.182.5 has added the folowing text marked in bold:

Always a popular figure in the United Kingdom, not to mention other countries, opinion polls have almost always shown that she has an excellent approval rating, often higher than that of her elected Prime Ministers. Although the case could be made that as she rarely has to exercise her powers it gives the public very little to disapprove of.

This has been reverted twice by myself.

I disagree with this statement for the following reasons:

• There are many examples of individuals with little than symbolic power having poor approval ratings (viz. Prince Charles in the 1990s, Queen Elizabeth II in Quebec)
• The converse is true, many individuals exercise great powers yet have high approval ratings.
  • (i.e. the case could be made that as she rarely has to exercise her powers it gives the public very little to approve of also)
• The Queen's activities are not restricted to her "powers" and approval ratings may be related to other activities that HM may choose to participate in

I have no comment on the POV of the earlier part of the text, but I think the text in boldface adds unnecessary POV to the article.

I have reverted, and warned the anon of the Three Revert Rule.

Samir ∙ ^T_C 07:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

God I'm not even going to bother. As I have a life I'm not going to bother debating with some sort of hardcore wikipedian monarchist who has time to kill on this stuff. Have fun with this page, it'll be sweet the day I get to edit out "Canada" from the list of the realms she "rules". --24.68.182.5 07:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack! Well played! -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 07:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Typical of republicans. Anyway, I agree with your edit. One does not have to exercise powers to depend on or be concerned with approval ratings. The Queen doesn't always use her Royal Prerogative, but she does need to appear to the public as a unifying and diligent Monarch when performing her ceremonial duties as well as aiding charities, and the like. --gbambino 00:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Should she be reigning...

The "if she lives until" section should be removed. WP:NOT a crystal ball. - Sikon 07:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I see this becoming a main target for vandalism. "If she is reigning in 2098 she will be ...", and it will be ridiculous. Once EII reaches these milestones, they can of course be included, but some of the more far off ones should be removed. Prsgoddess187 12:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

She farted

I want to point out how the article states she has "farted" 54 times... or something to that effect. I brought this article to attention because I'm sure there is supposed to be something else there. This is CLEARLY vandalism. .68.72.166.118 20:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you just happened to visit the page five minutes after it was vandalised - sorry about that. It's been cleaned up now (although two of us reverted at the same time, myself to a former version, and I'm not sure whether that edit that I missed was useful). Maybe someone more familiar with the article could take a look? Cormaggio ^@ 20:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Related to all royal families?

She is related to all ruling monarchs of Europe... according to the article!

Where is the proof? Is she related to the royal family of Luxembourg and Liechenstein? Maltesedog

• According to the Line of succession to the British Throne, Henri, Grand Duke of Luxembourg would be placed somewhere around 1120 (give or take) if he were not Catholic. He is in the line through his mother, Princess Josephine-Charlotte of Belgium (her brother Albert II of Belgium would be around 1100 (+/-). Not sure about Liechtenstein, although one of Henri's sisters married into the princely family of Liechtenstein. Prsgoddess187 13:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this. JSIN 05:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

According to the static succession list, there are Liechtenstein's at about the 1120th mark (Henri's sister's children) and then there are more at approx. 500 intervals from there until about 4400 (although they're not included for being Catholic). I don't think HM is related to Hans-Adam and if she is, it's by marriage only - the Liechs on the static list must be a lesser line of the family or something? Craigy (talk) 13:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The Queen is a third cousin once removed of Henri of Luxembourg (through their descent from Christian IX of Denmark) and a seventh cousin once removed of Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein (through their descent from Johan Willem Friso, Prince of Orange). Proteus (Talk) 13:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean once removed!! Is she related to Hans-Adam or not? Otherwise I would replace the word all with most Maltesedog

Once removed refers to generations. So your cousin once removed is the child of your first cousin. See the cousin chart for more details. Astrotrain 19:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems the word "all" has been previously removed. Too many updates to keep up with !! Well which ruling monarchs aren't related then? Maltesedog 19:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I found a possible contradiction in the same paragraph

"she is related to the heads of most other ruling European royal houses"

and

"She is related to all ruling hereditary monarchs of Europe."

Which is correct Maltesedog 19:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you just change it to, "most, if not all" if you're really not sure? --Q Canuck 20:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

ALL current European royal families and most former European royal families are descended from Prince Johann Willem Friso of Orange-Nassau, Stadtholder of the Netherlands (b. 1687). That being a fact, Her Majesty is related to all reigning royal families. Charles 01:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok so should it be rephrased? see above Maltesedog 18:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)