Talk:Elizabeth II

An event mentioned in this article is a June 2 selected anniversary

---

Archives

This talk page has been archived:

• Archive 1: May - June 2004
• Archive 2: July - December 2004
• Archive 3: December 2004 - May 2005
• Archive 4: May - July 2005
• Archive 5: August 2005 - January 2006
• Archive 6: January - April 2006
• Archive 7: April 2006
• Archive 8: May - June 2006
• Archive 9: July - September 2006
• Archive 10: October - December 2006

Elizabeth II

Just a point on the name. She is only Elizabeth II in England, in most (if not all) other commonwealth relams she is Elizabeth I —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.107.151.4 (talk) 01:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Oh not this again. She is not "Elizabeth II of England" - there is no longer a separate kingdom of England. She is Queen of "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" (plus all the rest). A lot of monarchical numberings carried over when the country formed out of previous countries - for instance the first king of Italy was Victor Emmanuel II. Curiously no-one so far is arguing on that article's talk page that "Victor Emmanuel II" should only apply to Piedmont. Timrollpickering 17:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Muddled structure

'Personality and image' and 'Views and perceptions' seem to me to have a great risk of overlapping. JMcC 18:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Article name

My attention has been drawn to this article following a CfD discussion. Although this ended with a consensus to rename the category Queen Elizabeth II to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, I was reminded that the UK is only one of the realms of which she is Queen. I was wondering, therefore, whether Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth Realms would be a more accurate title, but guess that's already been discussed somewhere within this talk page's archives. If so, I'd appreciate someone pointing me to the crux of the discussion; if not, what do folk think...?  Thanks, David Kernow (talk) 06:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally I feel it should be renamed, but we have discussed it many times in the Page Archives Brian | (Talk) 06:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think I've seen the problem now. Thanks, David (talk) 02:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I am in favour of a name change to reflect the Queen being monarch not just of the United Kingdom, but also of 15 other nations. I am curious to know people's opinions on Paramount Chief of Fiji (specifically side bar), since this seems to be just as valid as having, say, one page for Elizabeth as monarch of the 16 different realms. Lofty 13:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Empress

As part of this, is the Queen an Empress then? She is head of state for several territories, though I understand she chooses not to hold the title of Empress.

I requested a few weeks ago for clarification of this in the main article (as it would be useful for readers), though this was swallowed up by some swift archiving. It may be most helpful for mentions of this in the Constitutional role section. Hope someone can help. Jhamez84 14:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Beginning with Queen Victoria in 1877, British monarchs were also styled "Emperor/Empress of India" and signed themselves that way (e.g., Victoria R. I. = Victoria, Queen and Empress). However, this practice ended when India gained its independence in 1947: George VI was the last Emperor of India, and his consort, the late Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, who died in 2002, was the last Empress. So the present Queen is not an Empress, and it would be inappropriate to refer to her as such now that the British Empire has transformed itself into a voluntary Commonwealth of Nations. Textorus 00:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a perfect response! Thanks - it would be nice if this could be added to the article. Jhamez84 00:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure is! Yes, it would be inappropriate and inaccurate to refer to the Queen as empress.--Gazzster 00:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

George VI was titled as Emperor because he reigned over the Empire of India, not because of the British Empire, which was never an explicit, legal entity. By the time he ascended to the throne in 1936 it was already accepted that, as Elizabeth II now reigns as Queen, he reigned as King in each of the Crown's Dominions separately, though he still only held separate, distinct titles for the UK, Ireland and India. Thus, he was George VI, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India; or: King of Great Britain, King of Ireland, King of the British Dominions, and Emperor of India. So, the current wording of the paragraph in question here is misleading - even if the title of Empress still applied to EIIR, it would not be because of the territories she reigns over around the world, but only because she was still Empress of India. As India became a republic during her father's reign, the information about the shift in title belongs on his article, not here, and is already covered there, though perhaps not in enough detail. --G2bambino 16:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Everything you say is true, G2. Everything I said is true. Have it your way. God save the Queen. Textorus 19:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Everything you say is indeed true, Textorus. But, if anyone disputes the point that information regarding the loss of the title of Emperor should go on the George VI article and not here, by all means, let's discuss it. --G2bambino 21:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

So... do we have any references for this? If so I'd be happy to include this myself if I knew exactly what and where to source. Jhamez84 15:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

oops, sorry you're right! I was wrongFurtive 02:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Queen of Bermuda

There is a mistake in this article: Queen Elizabeth II is not the Queen of Bermuda because Bermuda is not an independent country but remains an overseas colony of the United Kingdom. Reference to Bermuda should be stricken from the 2nd paragraph (by whomever can do this); otherwise Queen Elizabeth would be the queen of 17 countries (the 16 listed plus the UK), instead of the 16 which is the correct answer. --[email removed]

Fixed it. --Joshua Chiew 08:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There is reference to the Queen of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands in a UK court case:

In those circumstances, to maintain the strict separation between Her Majesty as Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Her Majesty as Queen of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands does indeed, as the Court of Appeal said, look like the "abject surrender of substance to form [1] Astrotrain 09:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. That might be akin to the situation in Canada where the Queen is legally separated between the provinces and the federal government, and thus in court cases the Queen in Right of Manitoba and the Queen in Right of Canada can both be named as defendants, or the Queen in Right of Manitoba can file a suit against the Queen in Right of Canada. This occurs even though there is no Queen of Ontario, just a Queen of Canada. --G2bambino 16:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Duke of Normandy (introduction)

I agree that the title of 'Duke of Lancaster' is held merely out of tradition, but the same is not true of the Duchy of Normandy. It's only because HM the Queen is Duke of Normandy that Jersey and Guernsey are Crown Dependencies, and it is in that capacity (and not in the capacity as Queen of the United Kingdom) that HM reigns in the Channel Islands. Bastin 11:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Source ? Astrotrain 12:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia, the Royal Family, the States of Jersey, in Hansard, etc. Bastin 12:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The queen's predecessor Henry III gave up the title of Duke of Normandy in 1259, but was still recognized as ruler of the Channel Islands. Although the Channel Islands are a relic of the old Duchy of Normandy, and are, indeed, not part of the UK, they do not in themselves confer upon the Queen the dignity of Duchess (or Duke) of Normandy, a title explicitly renounced by her ancestor and never explicitly reclaimed. john k 21:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

And in any case, if the title was still used after 1259, wouldn't it have been dropped when George III renounced the title King of France? Still, the question is interesing. I'd like to know if the crown itself makes any formal use of the title. If not, perhaps a note should be made to the article.--Gazzster 23:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Dress

"Conservative in dress, she is well known for her solid-colour overcoats and decorative hats which allow her to be seen easily in a crowd." How can dressing "conservatively" make someone easily seen in a crowd? Lfh 00:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Dressing conservatively doesn't necessarily aid in seeing her, but wearing bright solid colors and hats make her easily seen from afar. --Ibagli (Talk) 00:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like she dresses very conservatively at all then. If anybody else dressed like that they'd be called a "maverick". Lfh 13:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that they are trying to say that the style of her dresses is conservative, not the colors. Prsgoddess187 14:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is her style of dress which is usually described as conservative. The Queen is often described as dressing quintessentially British. If she wore something chic, she would be French, if she wore something modern she'd be American. The Queen is British to the core. Crowdes 21:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Heir

"However, due to his wife Wallis Simpson's reproductive issues, Edward was destined not to have any legitimate heirs." - I think this sentence may need a little work not to be confusing. I think that while it is technically correct, it assumes that the reader is familiar with the abdication and the issues surrounding it. The sentence could be construed as correct only if Edward had been permitted to marry Wallis Simpson and remain King or if the act had been worded differently, however the act of abdication that he signed expressly disqualified any children he might have from holding a place in the line of succession, and therefore Ms. Simpson's reproductive abilities wouldn't have come into the matter. Crowdes 21:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The whole paragraph is pointless anyway. If Edward had remained king, he would almost certainly have had kids of his own, whether with Wallis as his wife or someone else entirely. The act of abdication did indeed disqualify any of his offspring from the succession, but he must have thought it expedient not to have any anyway. A king, on the other hand, is under a great deal of pressure to produce an heir. TharkunColl 16:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Almost certainly? Even if he'd married Wallis, who was probably incapable of having children? On what basis can you say that? The man was 42 years old when he became king, and still unmarried. Obviously the pressure to produce an heir hadn't had much of an effect on him as PoW. My understanding is that by 1936 it was already thought likely that Elizabeth would one day become Queen. And it's not as though monarchs always have children. Among 19th and 20th century monarchs who never had any legitimate children are Emperor Ferdinand of Austria, King Ludwig II of Bavaria, King Otto of Bavaria, King Frederik VII of Denmark, King Louis XVIII of France, King Otto of Greece, King George II of Greece, King Charles Felix of Sardinia, King Louis of Portugal, King Manuel II of Portugal (although he was deposed before his marriage), King Friedrich Wilhelm IV of Prussia, King Friedrich August II of Saxony, King Albrecht of Saxony, and King Karl of Württemberg. That's a sizeable number. john k 17:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

As I read it, the paragraph is correct, but I have to agree that as written it sounds fairly pointless. A reference for the fact that it was already thought likely that she would be Queen would be more helpful. JPD (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"However, due to his wife Wallis Simpson's reproductive issues" is simply false. By the time Wallis' marriage to Edward VIII was decided, it was a foregone conclusion that the government was not going to permit her to be the mother of any heirs to the throne. She could have been thirty years old and the end result would be the same. The Abdication Act removed Edward and any progeny out of the succession.

A king, on the other hand, is under a great deal of pressure to produce an heir. True, but I'd like to clarify something. Although the preference is for a direct heir, it's actually wasn't necessary for him to produce children. There were so many people in line behind him that it's not an issue in that respect. Even today, if William doesn't marry, it's not a cause for concern. Just thought I would add that if anyone is interested. --Mdieke 21:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's fair to call it "simply false" - the paragraph makes the point that Elizabeth becoming Queen did not depend on the Abdication Act, so saying that Abdication Act removed Edward's progeny does not shed any light on it. The paragraph does not make much sense without the reproductive issues clause. However, with the clause, it is fairly speculative, and probably should be deleted altogether. JPD (talk) 14:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

That's true but only because Edward had no children. Had he had some, Elizabeth could only have become queen if Edward had abdicated not only for himself but also excluded his children from the succession. In that sense, Elizabeth's accession was very much dependent on the Abdication Act. JackofOz 09:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That's the whole point! The statement that she would have become Queen with or without the abdication is only true because he "was destined" to not have children anyway since his wife had reproductive problems. Without explaining the reason, the paragraph is even more confusing, and it really ought to be deleted. The only point it serves is to make some quirky point that even if he had been allowed to marry Wallis Simpson and remain King, Elizabeth would probably be the Queen today. True or not, this point doesn't need to be made, and the paragraph just seems to confuse people anyway. JPD (talk) 10:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ellizabeth II's crown

Image:Queen of canada wob.jpg

Ive noticed that the Queen wears a particular crown in nearly all of her official Golden Jubilee portraits, and also during all of her Golden Jubilee appearances. She is wearing this crown in the photos provided on the Golden Jubilee of Elizabeth II page.

What is this crown? I saw a documentary on History International about the last Russian royal family, and it was mentioned that many of the last Russian Empress's jewels eventually found their way to the U.K. monarchy's private collection - they showed a photo of Queen Elizabeth II wearing this crown, then they showed a photo of the last Russian Empress wearing this exact same crown some time around 1909.

I have not been able to find any info on the web about this crown....what is this crown?

The crown used in the actual coronation ceremony is supposed to be the crown of King St. Edward the Confessor (reigned 1042-1066), who is the patron saint of the British royal family (as far as England is concerned).

--Mrlopez2681 10:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It is known as the Grand Duchess Vladimir Tiara. The tiara can be worn with either the pearl drops, emerald drops or nothing in the loops. For more information, check here. Prsgoddess187 12:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so very much! I have long wnated to known where she got this corwn!!

Mrlopez2681 19:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Queen of... links

Just to let you know, I altered the first paragraph to show the Queen as "Queen of Canada", "Queen of Australia" etc - to directly link it with the relevant specific pages (the Monarchy in Canada, the Monarchy in Australia etc).

I guess we'd better get to work fleshing out the "Queen of Tuvalu" page, eh guys?

---Oz.

I don't think this is really helpful. Even if having links to [[Monarchy in Canada], etc. were helpful, the sentence should not be so clumsy. I think those links are best (as they are) in the see also section. JPD (talk) 11:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Union with France

The BBC reports that the French PM did propose a merger between the two states in 1956, but there is no indication of what form this union would take, online or in other reports. Saying France would have been a "commonwealth realm" is guessing. When this proposal was rejected, he suggested joining the Commonwealth, which isn't necessarily becoming a commonwealth realm, either. I don't think we should mention the phrase in relation to France. In fact, I don't think this proposal is particularly relevant to this article, which should be focussing on the Queen, not consitutional arrangements that didn't happen. JPD (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You're probably right on the Realm part, but this is relevant to Elizabeth because it was she whom the French PM said could become Queen of France. I thought I'd left out most of the other info that wasn't specifically related to this article. --G2bambino 18:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say that she is relevant to the story, rather than the story is important enough to be relevant to a biographical article. On a related note, apparently Churchill suggested something similar in 1940. JPD (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The media has misrepresented the term 'headship', which (I have been told) was used in the released document. In this case, it may mean (nay, probably means) 'Head of the Commonwealth', rather than 'Head of State'; since the 1949 London Declaration, the two have been separate statuses, which is a distinction completely lost on the media, most of whom still insist on calling the Commonwealth of Nations the 'British Commonwealth'. Bastin 19:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a possibility - though, if France and the UK were to align in a union, as it seems they were looking at various options to that end, then HM would be the French head of state, one way or another. According to the article in The Guardian, it was only after proposals for an outright union were dismissed that they looked at the possibility of France becoming a Commonwealth member. If indeed true, I would suspect that it would be relatively important for a biographical article that the subject of said article was once considered for the headship of France. --G2bambino 19:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination

Hello everyone. This article is very good and the amount of work that has gone into it is superb. However, there are several ^{citation needed} tags especially around the first half of the article; the facts need to have references to back them up or else I will be forced to fail the article. Other than that, I'd say it was ready for good article status. I'll take another look seven days from now, on the 25th of January. If I forget, please could somebody leave me a message. Thanks! Wikiwoohoo 22:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there are too many citations needed, and I'll try and add what I can within a week. However, a lot of this section seems like original research, to me at least. Does anyone care to re-write it and remove the stuff that can't be sourced? Or should the section be removed and have the legitimate parts be placed elsewhere in the article? --Calaschysm 22:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is this up for GA anyway? The GA criteria clearly state that FA status is more appropriate for articles longer than 25kB. At 85kB, therefore, this should be peer reviewed, then nominated for FA (if given the right references), not nominated for GA. Bastin 15:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Its not a hard and fast rule. There are 100's of GA's that are well over 25kB. Once this article is peer reviewed and trimmed down a bit, it will be fine for GA. RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 19:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It depends on what the nominator wishes to do. I am happy to continue reviewing the article after the 25th of January unless the nominator would prefer to put the article up for peer review and then go on to nominate for featured article status. Wikiwoohoo 22:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have had to fail this article for good article status due to the presence of the ^{citation needed} tags dotted around it. Other than that, the article is in very good shape and once fully referenced, it could be worth putting this up for peer review and later featured article status for a second time. As said, the article is good, it addresses the subject with plenty of very detailed information. I wish you the best of luck with any future nominations, keep up the good work! Wikiwoohoo 18:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Role in international affairs

An anon user added a section to the article diff, which I believe is untrue, and I have removed it. The text are as follow:

Elizabeth plays a major role in international affairs.

She holds a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council for her British realm. Periodically, some of her other realms also hold seats; in 2000, she held three seats on the Council – for the UK, Canada and Jamiacia. She has never excerised her right to attend the Council in person (as all heads of state may), therefore it is unclear what would happen if she attended a meeting to represent more than one state.

Elizabeth is also the only Head of State to have diplomatic relations with both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China (Taiwan). She sends ambassadors in her name to Beijing for the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamacia, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, and Papua New Guinea, whislt sending ambassadors from Belize, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Saint Kitts and Nevis to Taipei.

In Antarctica, Elizabeth claims almost three quarters of the land mass, dividing it between the UK, Australia and New Zealand. She recongises the claims of France and those of the King of Norway, a distant cousin.

IMO, the Queen, as a ceremonial Head of State which has a ceremonial role, does not perform any of the "major roles" above. International affairs are the responsibilities of the elected governments in the 16 countries that have the Queen as Head of State. Although all governments' actions are carried out legally in her name, the Queen does not herself hold a permanent seat in the UN Security Council, send ambassadors to another country, or claims and recognizes other claims in Antarctica. --Joshua Chiew 14:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not it is possible to justify that paragraph by looking at the legal technicalities in a certain way, it doesn't really fit well where it was placed. The article in general, and that section in particular, focus on her personal role, the things she personally has done, not simply things done in her name. JPD (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

As head of state, technically she does personally hold a seat on the Security Council, appoint ambasadors, etc. She may almost always act on her ministers' advice, but she is not "ceremonially" sovereign. None-the-less, I agree with JPD that the subject matter doesn't really pertain to this article in particular. --G2bambino 17:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It is a country who holds a seat in the UN etc- not a head of state. The China/Tiawan situation is interesting I suppose. Astrotrain 22:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course the Queen is not "ceremonially" Head of State; she is the Head of State but has a ceremonial role. I will reword my comments above. --Joshua Chiew 07:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

She is technically not ceremonial in that there are few laws to restrict her powers, however for the past century or two the monarch has never against the will of the elected government. In theory she's not ceremonial, but in practice convention forces her to be so. One former UK Prime Minister, James Callaghan, once mentioned that he asked her advice on an issue, and she refused to give any advice on the grounds that it wasn't her job to run the government. I doubt the Queen has any real say on UK foreign policy.

However, UK monarchs DO play a real role in sorting out national disputes between parties in the case of a constitutional crisis. For example, an elected Liberal government tried to limit the power of the unelected House of Lords, but the Conservative opposition blocked all reforms by using their built-in majority in the Lords. The Liberal Prime Minister went to the King of the time, explained the problem, and the King agreed that if reforms were rejected again, he would make enough Liberal lords to force the bill through. The Conservatives relented, and the UK constitution became a bit more democratic thanks to the intervention of the King. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.146.47.250 (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Picture concerns

About Image:Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom.jpg aka commons:Image:Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom.jpg. Just a couple.

First of all, the description on the flickr page states quite clearly, "Photo taken by Adrian Sturgess." Yet the image page names Richard Gifford as the author, as do at least two Wikipedia articles I've seen, including this one. (BTW, I believe that referencing the author right under the image is not necessary for cc-by, just on the image page.) Second, while the original picture was quite clearly a crop from the flickr picture, the current one, uploaded a month later, definitely is not a crop or an edit of the original picture, though it is more than likely taken on the same occassion. There is no source specified for the second image. Should something be done? --74.109.173.23 02:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Misguided comment

This fine woman is NOT the Queen of Canada. There is no Queen of Canada. She is not on the money anymore. No more God Save the Queen in schools. Keep up with the times people, that was years ago!! Sheen Warp2hype 15:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I moved this comment from the top of the page. This comment is obviously wrong, and doesn't really warrant rebuttal. Cleduc 15:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• The Queen is featured on all Canadian coinage (save the loonies and toonies), obviously someone who is not English or Canadian... Eleigh33 20:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe she's on the loonies and toonies too. --Ibagli (Talk) 03:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Not only is she on ALL the money, her picture hangs in every school, most post offices and city halls. Though the official anthem is now "O Canada," God save the queen is played when the queen is in Canada. She certainly remains Canada Monarch.--Sicamous 15:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

In any case, whether a person is a country's monarch is not determined by whether or not they're on the currency. JackofOz 09:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

My recent edits

I've just finished a minor revamp of the article, for the most part shifting existing sections around for better flow and consistency; it also removed some repetition. What I also did, however, was remove a large section of the "Government role" element, as that information was not particular to Elizabeth II, instead being more associated with the role of all British/Canadian/Australian/New Zealand/etc. monarchs. The same applied to the "Religious role" section, which pertained to the Sovereign's role within the realms as opposed to Elizabeth's particular beliefs, etc. This also cut down the size of the article substantially.

I hope these moves are acceptable.--G2bambino 21:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Her children?

I tried to find who her children are, and except for mentioning Charles as her first son, and saying (see below) in the same paragraph, I can not find who her other children are. And I'm not Brittish, so I realy do not know.

-- AdriaanRenting 15 febr 2007

They are under issue (see wiktionary:issue for a definition). mattbr³⁰ 12:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Lillibet versus Lilibet

Under the section "Early Life", it says: As a child her close family knew her as "Lillibet".[2] I read the archive at Talk:Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_4#Lilybet_versus_Lilibet which mentions it should be Lilibet (not Lillibet). I have just read The Little Princesses a book by Marion Crawford, her nanny/governess. All throughout the book, reference is made to Lilibet (no double L). Should the main article be corrected to remove the extra "l"? Linnah 17:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It probably should be corrected. It appears that 'Lilibet' is the way she herself spells it, as well. [2] [3] [4] --Ibagli (Talk) 20:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Queen in popular culture

A section of the Queen's prtrayal in popular culture could be added. For instance, a mention of the Sex Pistols classic single "God Save the Queen" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.241.213.108 (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

A very good idea, although it would have to be done extremely selectively. This might spiral out of control, considering the sheer quantity of cultural material that references her in some way. For example GSTQ was arguably more of a general anti-government anti-establishment song than about Elizabeth II personally, if it had been another monarch on the throne the song would have probably still been the same. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.146.47.250 (talk) 22:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

WWII service: Driver / Mechanic?

In the film The Queen (film), I was interested to hear the Queen mention that she had been a mechanic during WWII. However, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom says, "She joined the Women's Auxiliary Territorial Service ... and was trained as a driver." Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom#Military_career. Can anyone clarify her actual training and service? Thank you. -- 201.51.231.176 17:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The famous photo of her in the Army shows the future Queen changing a tyre, and I assume being a driver involved having to do at least some maintenance on your vehicle as well. It would make sense that every driver would learn at least some basic repair procedures, if a vehicle broke down in the field it might be impossible to reach any kind of support services. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.146.47.250 (talk) 22:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Longevity

Hello I enjoyed reading the Wikipedia article on Queen Elizabeth ii,however i would like to point out a small error which i feel will need to be corrected. under heading "Reduced Duties". It is stated that if Elizabeth ii lives until 21st December 2009 she will become the longest lived monarch in British and commonwealth history.I think this date should be 21st December 2007 by which time the queen will have lived longer than Queen Victoria and King George iii who each lived to the ages of 81yrs 7mths.Elizabeth ii will surpass both on 21st December 2007 at 81yrs 8mths. Thanks 80.41.22.241 00:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I have checked the List of British monarchs by longevity and found that it is true that the Queen will become the longest living monarch in British history in 2007. I have corrected it in the article.--Joshua Chiew 09:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Marriage

In the section on Marriage, the wiki states that "The couple [Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip] are second cousins once removed: they are both descended from Christian IX of Denmark - Elizabeth II is a great-great-granddaughter through her paternal great-grandmother Alexandra of Denmark, and the Duke is a grandson through his paternal grandfather George I of Greece." Prince Philip is in fact a great-grandson: Christian IX => George I => Prince Andrew of Greece & Denmark => Prince Philip. (If here were merely grandson, then they would second cousins twice removed. If somebody with appropriate access to update the main thread would please do so....) - Talanpoe 00:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I have checked the Christian IX of Denmark and George I of Greece articles and found out that it was indeed true. I have corrected it in the article.--Joshua Chiew 02:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

New

EX [değiştir]Citrat!. Forgiv lang,pleese. News=

Prince harry is a direct descendant of Mohamed = he comes from Princ Zayda who married keeng of castilia, c 102?, Zayda's grand-gt father was in Cairo, Khal of Cairo, and 13 to Mohamed. =news, pleese direct to news, thank, pleese,21:58, 6 Mart 2007 (UTC) Unitsabout 21:59, 6 Mart 2007 (UTC)

News is news, so did you think Brit kings should blood of Mohamed, can this be said?Unitsabout 22:36, 6 Mart 2007 (UTC)

it iss blood, this is blood, formidable truth, desired of all texts :

"connection is based on some rather dubious data. However, for what it is worth I will try and describe the line. It is well documented that xxiss are both descended from King Edward IV via two different lines of descent. Edward's geat grandfather was Edmund Plantagenet, the son of King Edward III. Edmund married Isabel of Castile in 1371. She was the daughter of King Pedro 1 (Pedro the Cruel) of Castile. Taking several steps at a time, Pedro 1 was the great great great grandson of Alfonso IX of Castile who was, in turn the great great great grandson of Alfonso VI of Castile." "This is where the supposed Moorish connection "begins". Alfonso IV married Zayda, daughter of Mohammad al-Mutadid (1040-1095), the Emir of Sevile. He was the great great great grandson of Isma'il al Mansur (~901-952) kalif in Egypt. This person is allegedly 13th generation descent from Mohammad, himself,"

This tells you so pleese see 'xxxxxxxxxxxxx' who is 'xxxxxxxxx's, is Mohamed's child, by pass fromcZayda of Seville, daughter of +/- x 20 x2 ex-Mohamed, one married Castile, one children married to Ingle. If one Brit 'xxxxxx' is not then brit , one xxxxxx is not blood.

I know no more, this is infototalle or infantie, or politic . Stop...?

finito, pleese. Thank Unitsabout 23:47, 6 Mart 2007 (UTC)

dan alındı Sayfa kategorileri: Aktif olmayan kullanıcılar | Kaynakları eksik olan maddeler

If Prince Harry is descended from Mohamed, then so what? He is also descended from Dracula (i.e. Vlad the Impaler). TharkunColl 08:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

New- the son produced no son, so this info is empty ( "They overran the outer defences but failed to take the citadel. King Alfonso VI of Castile, aged 77 and suffering from a wound, was in no shape to led an army, so direction of the relieving force was given to his son Sancho, a lad of fifteen, although Count Alvar Fañez was in effective command...

Purple peacocks perniciously preen pending particular papal pronouncements.--Gazzster 22:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Not ?'dubious'? in the grand? daughter of Zayda = "Costanza d' ALTAVILLA; of NAPLES; Queen of SICILY" then to George I England, and many, Princess Diana, Churchill. 'Alphonso VI Zayda daughter to Sicilia' is es.wikipedia.

Castle of Mey

The section on HM's finances (section 5.5) refers to the Castle of Mey as a property she inherited from her mother. This appears to be at odds with the castle's own article, which states that the Queen Mother left the property in trust. Perhaps in some curious way both things are possible. Does anybody know? – Kieran T ^(talk) 00:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Length of article

The article doesn't seem very long to me! Queen Elizabeth (II of the UK) is one of the most important and prominent persons of the 20th and 21st centuries. How long should an article be for a world figure of this stature? If the article were to be shortened, what would be removed? I think that people coming here (Wikipeidia) to seek reference material on prominent people (like Q. Elizabeth) expect to find what they are looking for on the person they are looking up. They should not have to go to supplimentary material to find what most regular people might be looking for. Yes, scholars can go elsewhere -- no argument there. But it isn't clear that a significantly shorter article is really serving the public for a person such as Q. Elizabeth. -Coldwarrior 00:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor, Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom or Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom?

The thought of putting all the information about her majesty on a page titled with her full name is stupid, we don't do that with all the other people on the website so there is no reason what so ever that the Queen should!

Someone has moved the original page to Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor, Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and this page needs to be deleted to move the page back. mattbr 22:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

If it ever comes to a vote, I vote that we move it back! JoshHolloway 22:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Article moved back to original location, and edit history restored. -- Arwel (talk) 22:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Picture of the Queen

Hello everyone, It's the first time that i am trying to edit a wiki page. Since i am a starter i am unable to edit this article myself.i found a picture of the Queen which seems to me to be quite nice...she looks quite happy and glorious. If you would like to replace the main current picture or simply add it,here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:RFnew_Queen_introduction.jpg Unfortunately i have no idea how to check for copyright licences or getting one. If a seasoned editor is interested, be my guest.Cobretta 01:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I remembered that the same picture existed somewhere in Wikipedia but it was probably deleted. I think it may be File:Formalportraitofqueen.jpg. For the licence, as the photo was taken from a UK government website, I think it is crown copyright. --Joshua Chiew 07:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Styles

Hi, i've never used a discussion page before, so sorry if this is in the wrong place! Under the Styles bit, can someone clarify the info about ma'am, because the quote is directly taken from the film "The Queen". It kind of annoyed me to see it here. Can it be clarified, or removed. Thanks St91 20:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Posting here is right if you are talking about the article, except that new discussion usually goes to the bottom. As for your question, I see no problem on addressing the Queen as "ma'am". I could be wrong, but AFAIK, except for formal purposes, the Queen is addressed as "ma'am" in the UK. --Joshua Chiew 00:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, properly and strictly speaking, if one meets the Queen, and is to engage in conversation with her, one would call her "Your Majesty" in the first instance, and "Ma'am" thereafter. However, as far as I can tell, "Ma'am" is acceptable on its own most of the time, like informal situations (how many of those would most of us get with HM? lol) or some sort of acknowledgement. (And btw, always say both in Title Case) ^† DBD 00:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Gun dogs

She is reportedly an excellent trainer and handler of gun dogs

Defender of the Faith

Why, does it say on this page that Her Majesty is only the defender of the Faith in England and Scotland, but her title includes that phrase in Canada and New Zealand.

Braditude 09:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Because the phrase "fidei defensor" refers to her being head of the Church of England (and, I think, Scotland), so it would only be true to say she "is" Defender of the Faith in those two domains. However, her full style includes fid. def. wherevr she is. ^† DBD 11:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I kinda doubt that reasoning. The title was awarded by Pope Leo X to Henry VIII for defending the Catholic faith. Nothing to do with the then non-existent Church of England. Henry's successors have retained the title, paradoxically, despite the Catholic Church ceasing to be the official church in England 4 centuries ago. It is not part of QE2's official title in every one of her realms, but that may not be pertinent as to whether she should be considered Defender of the Faith in all her realms. The article has some good info aboit this. JackofOz 13:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the phrase in included in her title for different reasons in different Realms. I know the story behind her Canadian title, including why "Defender of the Faith" was included, is outlined at Style of the Canadian Sovereign. --G2bambino 15:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

According to the article Fidei defensor the title is technically not the title bestowed by Leo X; it is a title conferred by Parliament in 1544. As Henry VIII was always a Catholic in doctrine I suppose it meant defender of the Catholic faith. And his successors, of course, politically held the Protestant faith of the Church of England to be the true Catholic faith, 'popery' being an aberation. I doubt that Fidei defensor is technically a title of the Scottish sovereign. Henry VIII was not King of Scotland and in any case the English Parliament could not confer a title for use outside of England. But this may be a moot point as the British judicature has decided that Elizabeth II is not Elizabeth I of Scotland. So presumably if her post-nominal does't change, her styles don't either.The article also states that most Commonwealth realms do not use the title, although Canada and New Zealand still uses the title. I suppose because technically she is defender of the Faith in the Church of England. Nowadays, only a few Commonwealth realms share the faith of the Church in England. In most the Anglican Communion is not as influential as it was, and some are almost entirely Catholic or non-Christian.--Gazzster 22:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth I surely?

I know it has been seen before, but to be correct, she is not Elizabeth II of the UK, she is, without doubt, Elizabeth I of the UK. To avoid confusion, Elizabeth I of England was Queen before the UK had been established. Wikipedia won't let me move the article, but I feel some serious thought ought to go into moving it to its correct title Donaldhenderson 20:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Hi, as far as I am aware, an Act of Parliament has designated her title in the UK- the Royal Titles Act 1953 Thunderwing 20:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, it seems from reading the article that a court case, MacCormick v. Lord Advocate concluded that it is within the royal prerogative to decide on numerals of monarchs. Thunderwing 20:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Lead length

WP:LEAD is a guideline for the length of an article's lead section. Not only does it specifically state that exceptions may be made for long important articles, it is also (deliberately, I think) very vaguely worded, and so shoudl never be applied legalistically. The very fact that it describes an optimal length in terms of paragraphs, which are of variable length, shoudl give this away. The lead in this article is the length of three or four acceptably long paragraphs, and so could literally fit within the guideline simply by amalgamating paragraphs. However, to do this would be stupid, as it reads better this way. This is precisely the sort of reason why Wikipedia guidelines are usually applied with sensible flexibility. JPD (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Every GA and FA conforms to this guideline. There is no reason why this article should be excempt from WP:LEAD; the lead should be abridged so that it has a maximum of four paragraphs.

Stating that the article should be allowed to breach this because it's important (according to your POV) does not help. God, Universe, History, World War II all have four paragraphs max. Jhamez84 16:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not claiming that any article should be exempt from WP:LEAD - read the guideline again. It says it is a "general guideline" and definitely does not say that introductions "must be four paragraphs maximum" as you claim. I did not argue that this article should be allowed to breach it (or even have a longer lead) because it is important. I pointed out that the guideline says long articles on important topics may have longer introductions. That exemption may or may not apply to this article, but it definitely shows that you have misunderstood the guideline.

However, my most important point is not about whether the "four paragraphs" is a strict maximum or not, but the fact that the lead in this article is well within the intentions of this guideline. The length of the intro here is already what would normally be considered four paragraphs - it is roughly the same length as the two paragraph intro to History, one of the examples you cite. The actual number of paragraphs is not a serious indication of length. JPD (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be the same length as the leads of most FAs, it's just broken into more paragraphs. Don't worry about it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Photo

Is the photo at top of page really the best we can do? Passingtramp 09:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably - getting a free-license recent image of such a high-profile living person is incredibly hard ^† DBD 13:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The Queen will be visiting at the White House (this week or next week). We could get a U.S. government photo. Real96 10:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I found an image on Wikimedia Commons. Hopefully that will suffice. Real96 21:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Much better new photo! Passingtramp 11:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent) Love the NASA photo! Coincidence that she was visiting the states. :-P Real96 18:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Asian Ancestry?

The source of this article's quote "Her ancestry includes a wide range of European and even Middle Eastern and other Asian Royal Houses.[4]" is the unsourced quote "Queen Elizabeth II's ancestry is a multicultural panorama. German and Danish in the main lines, it also includes figures as diverse as Armenian princes, Mongol warriors and Muslim leaders." I don't have a problem with the assertion (virtually NO living human is not in someway connected genetically to widely-spaced populations throughout the world because of eons of migration and mixing), but a more reliable source is needed. Kemet

Buckingham Palace statements

There are several references along the lines of 'the Palace says'; one understands that there will be statements from the Queen's 'office' and maybe 'the Palce says' doesn't need rerwording. However, 'Buckingham Palace is also reported to be considering giving the Prince more access to government papers' I think warrants a more formal label for the office at the Palace that's making the atatements (Is it always Buckingham Palace, how about Windsor, Balmoral etc?) --Brenont 05:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Queen of Canada?

Since when is Canada back under the rule of the UK? I was taught in school, and read on the Wiki under "Canada" that they are a democracy... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.42.35.210 (talk) 15:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Someone's very confused. --G2bambino 15:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Overseas Territories

User:JPD, why do you keep reverting the addition of the Overseas Territories? Queen Elizabeth II is the reigning monarch of the OT's and the article completely omits this fact. As stated in British overseas territories, the OT's are "not part of the UK itself, although under UK sovereignty". Nor are they Commonwealth Realms.

If the article is going to enumerate Commonwealth nations such as Australia and Canada, then to be factually accurate it needs to either: (a) mention the OT's by name, such as Cayman, Bermuda, etc., (see list of UK OT's or (b) at least provide an inline Wikilink to British overseas territories, in the interest of Lead succinctness. I have been a resident of Bermuda for the past five years, and your insistence on omission of the fact that HM is the reigning monarch of Bermuda and the other OT's is an insult to Bermudians. HM is on our currency and postage, and the Royal Governor delivers the Throne Speech in Her name. I have corrected this once again.

Also, please explain why the article should ignore WP:CAP? JGHowes ^talk - 16:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

To deal with the minor issue first, WP:CAP is a guideline that says the name of the photographer is generally not included in an article. Saying that the name must not be included is stretching it a bit. However, I do apologise, as the most recent time I replaced the caption was unintentional - it really isn't worth edit warring over.

As for the British Overseas Territories, yes, the article should in one way or another make it clear that she is Queen of the British Overseas Territories. However, it is not so clear that this should be in the first couple of paragraphs. To include the Overseas Territories, but not Crown Dependencies such as Guernsey, Jersey, Isle of Man (which are also not part of the UK), let alone other overseas territories such as Christmas Island, the Cook Islands, etc. is an insult to residents of those areas. Leaving all of them out and listing only fully independent realms, however, is neutral, as the criterion for inclusion is quite clear. Including them all would obviously be even more unwieldy than the current list.

The Queen reigns over Bermuda, etc. directly because they are British territories and ruled over by the person with the title Queen of the United Kingdom, so Bermuda is already covered by the intro. Similarly, the Cook Islands are ruled by the Queen of (the Realm of) New Zealand. There is possibly more of an argument that the Crown Dependencies are not covered by the intro, but either way, none of these places should be mentioned before the realms. JPD (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply. I had contributed a photo I took of Catherine Zeta Jones with attribution in the Infobox caption and got my wrist slapped for it, so I've become highly attuned to this "guideline", shall we say.

I admit it's not imperative by any means to mention the OT's in the Lead paragraphs, and am greatly relieved that we can agree that a mention somewhere in the article is warranted to inform the reader that she is Queen of the British Overseas Territories etc. In Bermuda, we find that many visitors (mostly from the U.S.) are quite uninformed on this aspect. To avoid my being reverted again, where would you suggest this be placed in the article? Regards, JGHowes ^talk - 19:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have tim eright now to think about this fully, but perhaps the simplest option would be to have a single reference to the overseas territories of all the realms later in that same paragraph, after the list of sovereign realms. Out of curiousity, do visitors really not realise that she is Queen of the BOT, or is the problem simply that they don't realise Bermuda is a British Overseas Territory? After all, being under the Queen is really what UK sovereignty means. JPD (talk) 09:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, how about the second paragraph is reworded to say (emphasis added for illustrative purposes only):

Apart from the United Kingdom, Elizabeth II is also Queen of Canada, Australia, 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, and the British overseas territories, where she is represented by Governors-General. The sixteen countries of which she is Queen are known as Commonwealth Realms, and their combined population is 128 million

JGHowes ^talk - 19:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It's good, but ignores the British Crown Dependencies and the territories of the Cook Islands and Niue, which are under her sovereignty as Queen of New Zealand. Is there anything particularly wrong with the opening sentence and its statement "Elizabeth II (born Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; 21 April 1926) is Queen of sixteen sovereign states and their overseas territories and dependencies..."? --G2bambino 20:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with it, I'm just trying to find a way to wikilink somewhere to British overseas territories. Also, not to be critical, but could there be a better choice of words than "more directly involved"? JGHowes ^talk - 21:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Lead

Hi everyone. Although I'm an American, I admire the Queen and respect her, so with her recent trip to the states, I thought I would check out her article. This one thing really popped out to me: the second paragraph in the lead, which states: "Apart from the United Kingdom and its overseas territories, Elizabeth II is also Queen of Canada, Australia, 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, where she is represented by Governors-General. The sixteen countries of which she is Queen are known as Commonwealth Realms, and their combined population is 128 million."

Is it really necessary for the lead? According to WP:LEAD, leads are supposed to be short and summarize the article, and I don't know what the point of the above paragraph is in the lead. Maybe it could be put in the "Life as Queen" section, but as far as I'm concerned, it shouldn't go in the lead. Happyme22 03:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think it is, because the single most important fact in the bio of a living head-of-state is which state(s) he/she heads JGHowes ^talk - 03:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I also believe it should stay, we have had long debates in the past, on the wording of the intro, lets keep it as it is. The Queen is not just HoS if the UK, so we need to introduce her as such. Brian | (Talk) 04:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, ok. If you guys say so. Happyme22 04:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the original poster. The current wording only leads to confusion, relegating the UK to just one of more than a dozen or so countries of which she is queen. For those in the Commonwealth Realms who refuse to understand the difference between legal technicalities and actual fact, may I suggest a new and radical solution. Let's create 15 new articles (Elizabeth II of Australia, Elizabeth II of Tuvalu, etc.), and invite people from those countries to try and pad out articles based on information about the Queen's involvement with that particular country. TharkunColl 08:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, we could also make articles about her role in former realms. I can imagine it now, Elizabeth II of Pakistan, Elizabeth II of Fiji, Elizabeth II of Trinidad and Tobago, Elizabeth II of Nigeria... (I do still think the current realms should remain where they are though, as actual fact is that she is the head of state of all of them, and being head of state of a country is generally considered to be a somewhat important fact.) --Ibagli (Talk) 21:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed, the fact that the Queen is still head of state of quite a few former members of the empire is a very important fact. Please go and look up the difference between de jure and de facto to understand what I'm trying to say. TharkunColl 23:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm very aware of what you're trying to say, I just don't agree that it's completely true, as she is the de facto and de jure head of state in all of those countries (at least the ones I'm most knowledgeable in). --Ibagli (Talk) 23:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

She is de jure head of state in all those countries, but only de facto in the UK. Look at the article on de facto head of state and you'll see a nice picture of the current Governor General of Canada. TharkunColl 11:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

De jure simply means 'in law'; literally 'regarding law'. According to law, the Queen is Head of State in the Commonwealth realms and in the United Kingdom. De facto means 'in fact', that is, 'for all practical purposes', but not accordingly to law. A de facto head of state would be one who governs practically but without due process of law, such as the leader of a coup or a usurper. Even when a country is presided over by a person acting as a regent, such as the Prince Regent George who became George IV, or a Governor-General in the Commonwealth Realms, the reigning Sovereign remains de jure Head of State. Tharkuncoll appears to misunderstand the technical distinction betweeen de jure and de facto Please let us not resurrect the awful discussion about who Elizabeth is really Queen of. It took up pages and created a lot of heat and bad feeling. If editors are proud to have Elizabeth as their country's sovereign, why can't they just share that pride?--Gazzster 13:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You are incorrect. De facto means "in fact", so also applies to most de jure situations. TharkunColl 23:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Gazzster imo describes the situation quite well. Brian | (Talk) 23:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to see this lead has been changed. I'm infavour of the British Queen title, getting prominence over the British Commonwealth titles. GoodDay 20:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting tired of these 'Commonwealth nationalistic pride' edits. Elizabeth II is primarly known as Queen of the UK, not the Commonwealth Queen. In Canada (I'm a Canadian), we don't see her as equally our Queen (compared to the UK), we don't have an official residence for her. So again, enough with this Commonwealth nationalistic pride, afterall it's the British Commonwealth. If ya don't like that, petition your country to leave the British Commonwealth. GoodDay 21:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

But any 'British nationalistic pride' edits are perfectly acceptable? Please, we've been through this inane argument at length already and the intro as it is was agreed on - with compromise from both camps. POV about who she's "seen" as "belonging" more to is irrelevant to the actual fact that she's the legally established monarch of each country equally. Further, Rideau Hall is her official residence in Canada, and the "British" Commonwealth hasn't existed for a good few decades - it's Commonwealth of Nations now. --G2bambino 21:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If that's the compromise, so be it. Trust me though, it looks crappy, the way it is. Why not move the page to Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth of Nations, it's basically the same thing. OK, I've blown off enough steem. GoodDay 22:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think you quite understand the all-pervading role the monarchy has in the UK. Please try and understand the difference between what is true in law, and what is true in practice. This is not a constitutional treatise. TharkunColl 21:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

We do understand the role on the monarchy in the UK. You don't understand the role it has in the other realms. It is true that the UK is her oldest realm, the realm she lives in, the realm she is most active in, and the realm she is most widely known as monarch of. That's why the UK is mentioned first, and is in the title. The truth of these points does not dilute Her Majesty's role in the other realms, which you continually relegate to the status of juvenile asides for the Queen. Go to Canada and look around sometime. You'll see portraits in both government and private buildings; portraits on currency; her name on roads, schools, and civic buildings; her name spoken with pride by new citizens. That is what is true in practice in at least one Commonwealth Realm. --Ibagli (Talk) 22:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

God, TharkunColl, you've tried this line over and over again. I understand clearly the role the Monarchy has in the UK. So what? This isn't an article about the British Monarchy. The opening sentence as it was - the format agreed to after we went through this stupid debate ad nauseum months ago - outlined perfectly both the legal and practical realities of how Elizabeth II serves as monarch of sixteen countries. --G2bambino 21:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

But that's just the point, because it didn't. The version you are referring to made it seem as if her roles in the UK and elsewhere are essentially similar. Consensus can change, by the way. I think it's time to re-examine this. TharkunColl 22:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it didn't. It said clearly, and right up front, that she is more directly involved with the UK - whether that means with government, culture, ceremonies or whatever. --G2bambino 22:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not interested in the politics of this, I do understand the Queen's relationship with Commomwealth Nation members (I'm not aguing that). All I'm saying is, in publications, television coverage even encylopedias, Elizabeth II is recognized as the Queen of the UK first, Commonwealth of Nations second. When was the last time, her family was referred to as the Commonwealth Royal Family? Again peoples, give up these nationalistic pride edits. I'm just calling for the 'most common' title she's known as. GoodDay 22:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Opinion in Introduction

{{Editprotected}}

The Fourth Paragraph Reads: "She is presently the world's only monarch who is simultaneously Head of State of more than one independent nation. In practice, however, she personally exercises very little political or executive power, especially outside the UK, but not little enough."

I believe "but not little enough" should be omitted as it constitutes somebody's opinion, it was probably an appendage to an otherwise good sentence.

I've removed it. TharkunColl 13:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Not the First Monarch to Travel Around the World

The Travels section reads "From 1953 to 1954 she and Philip made a six-month, around the world tour, becoming the first monarch to circumnavigate the globe." King David Kalakaua circumnavigated the globe in 1881.

From his wikipedia article "In 1881, King Kalākaua left Hawaiʻi on a trip around the world to study the matter of immigration and to improve foreign relations. ... The King first traveled to San Francisco where he was given a royal welcome. Then he sailed to the Empire of Japan ... He continued through Qing Dynasty China, Siam, Burma, British Raj India, Egypt, Italy, Belgium, the German Empire, Austria-Hungary, the French Third Republic, Spain under the Restoration, Portugal, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and back through the United States before returning to Hawaiʻi. During this trip, he met with many other crowned heads of state, including Pope Leo XIII, Umberto I of Italy, and Victoria of the United Kingdom. In this, he became the first king to travel around the world." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mitcheca (talk • contribs) 05:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Mitcheca 05:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

historically indigenous?????

Queen of sixteen sovereign states and their overseas territories and dependencies, holding each crown and title equally. However, she is more directly involved with the United Kingdom, where the Royal Family resides, and the Monarchy is historically indigenous.

Historically indigenous? Except when it has been imported from the Netherlands, Greece, Germany, Denmark, Scotland or Normandy? What a crazy statement - please rewrite.--Doc^g 23:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Indigenous is the wrong word. --G2bambino 00:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Quite. Utterly so.--Doc^g 00:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

While 'historically indigenous' is an awkward phrase, it is born out of a discussion in which many editors felt the special identification of the sovereign with the UK needed to be mentioned in the introduction. The phrase, and the entire sentence, is unecessary to the introduction. But for fear of provoking a long edit war, it is perhaps wise to discuss a substitute phrase on this page. I suggest 'however, she is more directly involved with the United Kingdom, where the Royal Family resides, and wher the Monarchy is historically identified with the Kingdoms of England, Scotland, and the former Kingdom of Ireland.'--Gazzster 07:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, fine. But "historically indigenous" isn't just awkward - it is quite patently factually wrong.--Doc^g 08:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

UK

Please stop attempting the relegate the UK to just one of 16 realms. The monarchy is British. If you want separate pages for Elizabeth II of Australia, etc, then create them - but good luck with finding enough specifically Australian information to fill the article. TharkunColl 07:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No. Whilst the British dimension is paramount, this is the article about the person not office of the British monarch. The title is simply that the convention is to use the senior royal title. If you look for James VII of Scotland you'll find his bio under James II of England - that simply for convenience. This bio should reflect the person of Elizabeth Windsor who is Queen of many nations (although granted the UK is certainly the most significant to understanding her).--Doc^g 08:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Doc.We have had this exchange with TharkunColl and others before. I fail to see anything in the edit I have suggested that demeans the status of the United Kingdom. And his attempt to score points off the citizens of other monarchies ('good luck with finding enough specifically Australian information to fill the article'), is not only unmannerly, but puerile. I trust we don't need to go down this path again.--Gazzster 09:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Give it up, Tharkun. This article isn't about the monarchy (see British Monarchy, Monarchy in Canada, etc, which are as you suggest, separate) it is about the person. Yes, this means the UK is given more significance, but it doesn't mean there should be silly waffle about being the "de jure" Queen and so on. The notion of the GG as "de facto head of state" (not widely accepted, and usually only used to push some sort of agenda) does not all change the fact that QEII is the Queen. Her involvement with the UK is and should be emphasised without making cryptic implications about arrangements in other realms.

As for the material Gbambino removed from the lead, it really should stay. The lead is a very appropriate length, and if anything needs to do a better job of actually summarising the article, not a worse one. JPD (talk) 09:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, well, just to clarify: it was info I moved from the lead to elsewhere in the article. It just seemed to me that the details behind her ascension to various thrones she no longer holds would have been better placed in the "Evolution of the Commonwealth" section, as with her ancestry info going to the section on her ancestry; helped reduce the length of the intro. --G2bambino 14:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right that it should be covered in the body as well, but my point was that the length of the intro doesn't need reducing. The intro should summarise the article, not jsut say she is Queen of X, Y and Z. JPD (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The lead 'Queen of sixteen nations' contradicts the article title. If we keep the current lead, then the article should be Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth of Nations. When will the pro-sixteen equals, give it up. I'm Canadian, I don't mind 'UK and fifteen other nations. Let go of the national pride, peoples. GoodDay 22:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, there is no contradiction. The title is just one of her titles, and for better or worse it is used for the title of this article, as happens in similar situations all over Wikipedia (see above for one example). It doesn't mean that she isn't Queen of anywhere else, and she definitely isn't Queen of the Commonwealth of Nations, only sixteen of the Commonwealth's members. I don't particularly care whether it says sixteen sovereign states or UK and 15 others, but it seems quite petty to insist on the longer form when the title and rest of the first paragraph already put an emphasis (correctly) on the UK. JPD (talk) 10:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I too support Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, as the title. Sorry, my previous posting was meant for the 'Lead' discussion, above. GoodDay 17:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It's fine for the title - at least, it's the best it seems we can do - but we're not debating the title here. JPD's quite correct to point out that the opening sentence need not repeatedly mention the UK, especially in relation to her crowns and royal titles, which she holds equally. Saying Elizabeth II is Queen of the United Kingdom and fifteen other sovereign states and their overseas territories and dependencies. She holds each crown and title equally, however she is most directly involved with the United Kingdom, her oldest realm and the place of residence of the Royal Family is as ridiculously redundant as saying Elizabeth II is Queen of Tuvalu and fifteen other sovereign states and their overseas territories and dependencies. She holds each crown and title equally, however she is most directly involved with the United Kingdom, her oldest realm and the place of residence of the Royal Family. --G2bambino 17:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Remove She holds each crown and title equally, however she is most directly involved with the United Kingdom, her oldest realm and the place of residence of the Royal Family. It's way too cumbersome and over-explainatory. GoodDay 19:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

And Elizabeth II is Queen of the United Kingdom and fifteen other sovereign states and their overseas territories and dependencies gives undue weight to her British crown, causing unknowing readers to think the non-UK realms are still under her as Queen of the UK. The most succinct and accurate thing to say would be Elizabeth II is Queen of sixteen sovereign states and their overseas territories and dependencies. However, some objected to only this as it didn't mention anything regarding the differences in how she reigns over the UK vs. the other countries. Thus, the she holds each crown and title equally, however she is most directly involved with the United Kingdom, her oldest realm and the place of residence of the Royal Family part was added. It may be slightly cumbersome, but what can one expect when trying to sum up the realities of one woman who's actually sixteen queens? --G2bambino 19:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I got one better Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britan and Northern Ireland, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. Again, publications, television coverage, encyclopedias give the UK prominance. The opening lines of this article, should reflect this fact. As a pleaing anti-monarchist, pleased don't add the 'sixteen commonwealth' thing again. GoodDay 19:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Why just her British title? She has fifteen other ones, you know. And when she's in Canada the media doesn't give the UK much prominance. Besides, why let ignorant journalists guide Wikipedia content? --G2bambino 19:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to remember, who's the Governor-General of the UK (representing the Queen)? when the Queen is on her foreign trips? Let's see 15 Commonwealth members have a GG, 1 member doesen't. Interesting. I'm pleading with you, let go of your 'nationalist pride'. GoodDay 19:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Answer these questions: Is Elizabeth II not Queen of Canada? Is Canada subordinate to the United Kingdom? Did the Balfour Declaration not say the realms "are... 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."? Consider them before again making edits here that give the UK your own imagined prominance. --G2bambino 19:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, you don't respect the 'External Links' of this article (which back my views). I don't want this to become an 'Edit War', the 'sixteen commonwealth thing' still looks contradictory to the Article name. It would go better with Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth of Nations. Sigh, Have it your way. PS- I know your edits are 'goodfaith', as were mine, (we can agree to that) and you may want to reverse my edit at Charles, Prince of Wales. GoodDay 19:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

What's to disrespect? I see a couple of links to an American media outlet that writes about her as the Queen of the UK. Well, she is Queen of the UK; how could I dispute that? But, it seems you don't want to note the other links (including the gov't of Virginia site) that call her simply "the Queen" or "Queen Elizabeth II," nor the Canadian media links that explicitly refer to her as Queen of Canada. Anyway, there's a wealth of better sources than magazine articles to confirm that she's sovereign of sixteen countries equally. Beyond that, I never assumed your edits were made in bad faith - far from it - but they certainly are misguided. --G2bambino 20:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm waving the 'white' flag. I don't want an 'edit war'. GoodDay 20:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we restore the opening sentences, then? Right now they've morphed back to the format that months ago launched a long debate over their re-composing into something more readable yet accurate. --G2bambino 20:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Involvement

I'm moving this discussion here from my talk page --G2bambino 16:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC):

What is wrong with admitting that the only place the Queen has a direct role in govt. - weekly meetings with the PM for example - is the UK? Signing one law in 1982, or whatever, does not constitute a direct role in govt. Indeed, the constitutions of the dominions specifically excludes a direct role, vesting such powers in the GG. I was attempting to make the wording more encyclopedic, because as it stands it's too informal. TharkunColl 16:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No - that's too general a statement. For example, the Canadian constitution (and I only raise it because it's the one I know most about) still gives the Queen all powers of government. True, the ability to exercise those powers has also been granted to the GG either through statute law, convention or letters patent, but the Queen's powers remain the same. Hence, she can, and has, signed Canadian bills into law - your '82 Canada Act example is an appropriate one. Beyond that, she, and only she, can appoint a Governor General, and only she may create extra Senate seats, as she did in 1991. So, it's disingenuous to say her role in government is limited to only the UK. --G2bambino 16:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I've changed it to take account of your concerns. I still think weekly meetings with the PM are a few orders of magnitude greater. TharkunColl 16:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I noted your changes, however, as I explained in my edit summary, the Queen is involved in more than just government. In fact, on the whole she's involved more often in non-government affairs of a more ceremonial nature. Perhaps the details of her meeting with British PMs as opposed to other Realm PMs could be covered elsewhere? --G2bambino 16:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You appear to be under the misapprehension that the word "government" can only ever refer to a specific government, whereas in fact - especially with a small "g" - it is a general term. TharkunColl 16:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I said "the Queen is involved in more than just government" - clearly also using the general term. Your proposal focuses too specifically on her governmental role, when in reality she's more so, on a day-to-day basis, involved in cultural and ceremonial roles. --G2bambino 16:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Then change "government" to "government and the community" or whatever. But can we at least alter that first paragraph? It does not read like an encyclopedia at all. TharkunColl 17:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if it is necessary to be so hair-splitting in the intro. An introduction summarises a topic in the most general of terms.--Gazzster 21:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That's my thinking, as well. --G2bambino 21:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)