Talk:Elizabeth II

Coronation Gown - Reference to India

Surely the lotus on her coronation gown only represented Ceylon, not Ceylon and India. India became a republic on 26 January 1950, so she was never Queen of India. Her father, the last Emperor of India (1936-1947) and then the first and last King of India (1947-1950) did not even hold the equivalent male title for the last two years of his reign. Even if one take a sentimental view and say it "really" represented both countries, the official representation *must* only have been of Ceylon - or the Queen, through her coronation gown, would have been making a potentially unconstitutional political statement about the Crown's relationship to India.

69.181.57.166 (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

This belongs as the 'bottom' of the talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Hey all. I'll be reviewing this article for possible GA status. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

This article has some serious issues that preclude it from achieving GA status as-is. However, to allow contributors opportunity to address my concerns, I am placing the article on hold. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Writing and formatting

• "and called "Lilibet"" -> "and was called "Lilibet""
  • Corrected
• Should be consistent in whether quote marks close before or after punctuation marks.
  • Whole sentences have quote marks after the punctuation mark, fragments have quote marks before punctuation, per WP:MoS
• "Caesarian section" -> "Caesarean section"
  • Corrected
• Would suggest direct-linking to the section on 1st Buckingham Palace Company
  • Done
• "dubbing Philip as" -> "dubbing Philip"
  • Corrected
• What does the term "cadet relative" mean?
  • Removed
• "During their Maltese visits, the children remained in Britain" - here, "their" seems to refer to the children, but it should be the parents
  • Corrected
• "embarked on a six month, around the world tour" - should use hyphens
  • Corrected
• "though the Prime Minister Eden, denied it" - either extraneous comma (and the) or missing comma, take your pick
  • Corrected
• "are you there Mr. Prime Minister?", -> shouldn't end with a comma
  • Corrected
• "However, evidence mounted that their relationship had hardened as the years passed,[89] until it was revealed in May 2007 that the Queen was "exasperated and frustrated" by Blair's actions, especially by what she saw as a detachment from rural issues, as well as a too-casual approach (he requested that the Queen call him "Tony") and a contempt for British heritage" - run-on sentence
  • Split into two sentences and shortened.
• "Elizabeth could become the longest-lived British head of state (surpassing Richard Cromwell) on 29 January 2012, the longest-reigning monarch in British history (surpassing Queen Victoria) on 10 September 2015 at age 89, and the longest-reigning monarch in European history (surpassing King Louis XIV of France) on 26 May 2024, when she would be 98" - why are there ages for two dates? I would argue for either one or all three. Also, should maintain the "at age..." construction for the last age (if it is kept).
  • "at age" added for other two ages
• Instead of blood pressure, consider linking to hypertension
  • switched
• The long quote under "Canadian national unity" might be better off summarized and cited than simply quoted
  • Removed
• Why are some of her titles only mentioned in the lead and not in the "titles" section?
  • They've been split off into List of titles and honours of Queen Elizabeth II
    • Which means (I assume) that the less notable ones have been excluded from the titles section? In that case, these definitely shouldn't be in the lead. Put the most notable/ best-known titles in the lead, an expanded list in the titles section, and the full list in the daughter article.
• "Elizabeth has received a many honours" - remove "a"
  • Corrected
• "Bibliography" is the term generally used for books written by the subject of the article. I would suggest making the previous section "Notes" and this one "References"
  • Corrected

Accuracy and verifiability

• The lead says she is the fourth-longest-reigning British monarch, but it says third-longest later in the article. Which is correct?
  • Resolved
  • This is not resolved at all. As I stated above in the talk section, Queen Elizabeth II is currently the fourth longest reigning sovereign in the history of the British Isles. The article states 'third' (which is wrong: 1) Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland 63 years, 2) King George III of Great Britain and subsequently the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland 59 years, 3) King James VI of Scotland just under 58 years 4) Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 57 years and closing in on James VI fast); and 'British/English' which is about as confused a terminology that you can devise for describing the political development of these islands. You need to use the term 'British Isles' because 1) England ceased to exist as a sovereign state in 1707 2) the term 'British' does not actually exist as a political entity: it's Great Britain (1707-1801), or the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland/Northern Ireland (1801-present). Can you change this please?Ds1994 (talk) 15:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Changed to "third-longest-reigning monarch of the United Kingdom"
• All quotations need citations for GA status

• I believe this one is done

• Citations needed for:

• To the dismay of the royal family, Crawford later published a biography

• Cited

• her Guides badges

• Removed

• There was some suggestion that the two princesses be evacuated to Canada

• Reference at the end of the sentence

• The ideas were rejected by the Home Secretary, on the grounds that it might cause conflict between north and south Wales

• Reference at the end of the sentence

• Before the marriage, Philip renounced his Greek and Danish titles, and adopted the style Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten, the surname adopted by his mother's family

• Cited

• The marriage was not without controversy: Philip was Greek Orthodox, had no financial standing, and had sisters who had married German noblemen with Nazi links

• cited

• The wedding was seen as the first glimmer of a hope of rebirth

• Removed

• Elizabeth and Philip received over 2,500 wedding gifts from around the world

• Removed

• In post-war Britain, it was not acceptable for any of the Duke of Edinburgh's German relations to be invited to the wedding

 Not done

• in the words of Martin Charteris, "the Queen was naturally sympathetic towards the Princess, but I think she thought – she hoped – given time, the affair would peter out."

• Cited

• She became the first reigning monarch of Australia and New Zealand to visit those nations

• added 2 refs

• Eden recommended that Elizabeth consult...

• Reference at the end of the paragraph

• In both 1957 and 1963, the Queen came under criticism for appointing the Prime Minister on the advice of a small number of ministers, or a single minister

• Reference at the end of the paragraph

• During a trip to Ghana, she refused to keep her distance from President Kwame Nkrumah, despite him being a target for assassins

• done

• In 1969, Elizabeth sent one of 73 Apollo 11 Goodwill Messages to NASA for the historic first lunar landing

• Text changed to match the citation at the end of the paragraph

• The Queen took a deep interest in the constitutional debate, especially following the failure of Bill C-60

• Cited

• Commentators were universally shocked by the apparent attack on the Queen's life, even after it was revealed that the shots fired were blanks

• removed

• it was rumoured that Elizabeth was worried that Thatcher's economic policies fostered social divisions

• Reference at the end of the sentence

• Thatcher later clearly conveyed her personal admiration for the Queen, and expressed her belief that the idea of animosity between the two of them had been played up because they were both women

• fixed

• The Queen called 1992 her "annus horribilis" in a speech on 24 November 1992

• Cited

• In 1991, she became the first British monarch to address a joint session of the United States Congress

• done

• It was initially thought that Elizabeth had very good relations with Tony Blair

• Removed

• until it was revealed in May 2007 that the Queen was "exasperated and frustrated" by Blair's actions, especially by what she saw as a detachment from rural issues, as well as a too-casual approach (he requested that the Queen call him "Tony") and a contempt for British heritage

• Cited

• Elizabeth was rumoured to have shown concern that the British Armed Forces were overstretched, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as "surprise" over Blair's shifting of their weekly meetings from Tuesday to Wednesday afternoons

• Concern cited; surprise (though citable) removed

• Relations between the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh and Blair and his wife, Cherie, were reported to be distant, as the two couples shared few common interests

• Though citable, removed as essentially repeats information already given earlier in the paragraph

• In 2005, she was the first Canadian monarch to address the Legislative Assembly of Alberta

• added ref

• While she continues to have what is described as excellent health and is seldom ill

 Not done

• While Buckingham Palace did not comment, medical experts stated that the Queen would have suffered no pain, and would be back to normal within a week or two, without lasting damage. However, they also mentioned that burst blood vessels, though common in the elderly, could be a sign of high blood pressure

 Not done

• in November 2006, there were worries that the Queen would not be well enough to open the British parliament, and, though she was able to attend, plans were drawn up to cover her possible absence

 Not done

• Sandringham House and Balmoral Castle are privately owned by the Queen, having inherited them from her father on his death, along with the Duchy of Lancaster, itself valued at £310 million and which transferred a private income to the monarch of £9.811 million in 2006. Income from the British Crown Estate—with holdings of £7 billion—is transferred to her British treasury in return for Civil List payments

• resolved

• When told that the separatists were showing a lead in the polls, Elizabeth revealed that she felt the "referendum may go the wrong way", adding, "if I can help in any way, I will be happy to do so." However, she pointedly refused to accept the advice, from the man whom she believed to be Chrétien, that she intervene in the referendum without seeing a draft speech first

• Removed

• Elizabeth personally worships with the Anglican church

 Not done

• When in conversation with the Queen, the practice is to initially address her as Your Majesty and thereafter as Ma'am.

• Cited

• Elizabeth has been Colonel-in-Chief, Captain-General, Air-Commodore-in-Chief, Commissioner, Brigadier, Commandant-in-Chief, and Royal Colonel of at least 96 units and formations throughout the Commonwealth

• Removed

• Following her marriage, these arms were impaled with those of the Duke of Edinburgh (and might also want to explain what "impaled" means in this context)

 Not done

• This same badge is also used as the Queen's personal flag for her role as Head of the Commonwealth, or for visiting Commonwealth countries where she is not head of state

 Not done

• Should "Windsor" be included as part of her name in the lead?
  • This has been contentious in the past, e.g. Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Archive 15#The Queen's "surname"
• Note which of the links require log-in or subscription

 Not done

• Ref 45 needs to be expanded
  • Removed
• The links to the official website are all redirected to its home page, instead of the intended target
  • Updated
• Ref 57 has redundant dating
  • Removed
• Refs 89, 117, 118 appear to be broken
  • Removed or corrected
• Need publisher for Ref 94

• added

• Need consistent formatting for "Further reading" entries

• fixed

• External link 5 is broken
  • Removed
• Should not have the same site in both "References" and "External links"

• fixed?

Broad

No issues noted

Neutrality

• Numerous violations of WP:WTA and WP:Weasel, adding an editorial bias to the article which needs to be addressed

Stability

• While there are no ongoing edit wars, there have been minor issues with stability in the past, including a recent naming dispute. These issues are not, however, significant enough to merit a fail on this criterion.
  • The naming dispute is ongoing and shows no signs of abating, not very stable. LizzieHarrison 18:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Images

• Lizwar.jpg is tagged as lacking author information

 Not done

• Qu&DoE_Wedding.png no longer has a fair-use rationale because of issues with the "Historic fur" tag. This needs to be addressed before GA status can be achieved

• Removed

• Queencrown.jpg is missing a fair-use rationale, and the source is a broken link

 Not done

• EIIR-Aus-1.jpg needs a fair-use rationale specific to this article

• Removed

• Blason_Elizabeth_Alexandra_Mary_du_Royaume-Uni.svg‎'s description needs to be completely translated - only a partial translation is present

• Translated

Follow-up

Looks like there's been plenty of improvement on the article; there are, however, a few more issues that need to be dealt with, as well as a couple of minor problems brought in by recent edits. For simplicity, I will reiterate what still needs to be done.

• Formatting, refs 94 and 121
• References needed for:

• In post-war Britain, it was not acceptable for any of the Duke of Edinburgh's German relations to be invited to the wedding
• While she continues to have what is described as excellent health and is seldom ill
• While Buckingham Palace did not comment, medical experts stated that the Queen would have suffered no pain, and would be back to normal within a week or two, without lasting damage. However, they also mentioned that burst blood vessels, though common in the elderly, could be a sign of high blood pressure
• in November 2006, there were worries that the Queen would not be well enough to open the British parliament, and, though she was able to attend, plans were drawn up to cover her possible absence
• Elizabeth personally worships with the Anglican church
• Following her marriage, these arms were impaled with those of the Duke of Edinburgh (and might also want to explain what "impaled" means in this context)
• This same badge is also used as the Queen's personal flag for her role as Head of the Commonwealth, or for visiting Commonwealth countries where she is not head of state

• Note which of the links require log-in or subscription
• violations of WP:WTA and WP:Weasel, adding an editorial bias to the article which needs to be addressed
• The title of the article is still actively debated, and the page was moved and reverted recently
• Lizwar.jpg is tagged as lacking author information
• Queencrown.jpg is missing a fair-use rationale, and the source is a broken link

Definitely improving, but the majority of these issues need to be addressed before promotion. Ask on my talk page if you have any questions. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 19:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Given that this article has been on hold for well over a month, I'm inclined to fail it if the remaining issues aren't addressed within the week. Please ask questions here or at my talk page, and finish up these last few things so that the article can be promoted. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Bermuda seems to be missing from this site. The Queen is the Queen of Bermuda!

Role in government

There's a problem in this section. It begins by stating, correctly, that she never expresses personal political opinions in public. But in the "Canadian national unity" section, that is, seemingly, exactly what she does as she "publicly praised Canada's unity and expressed her wish to see the continuation of a unified Canada". The truth is that these are not her words or her personal opinion. They are what she was instructed to say by her ministers. I'm inclined to see this whole section as problematic. This article should be a biography about Elizabeth the person, not an explanation of the role of the monarch in politics. That is rightly dealt with in articles such as Monarchy of the United Kingdom or Monarchy of Canada.

Consequently, I'd like to remove this whole section with two exceptions: 1. the first sentence should be kept as the second sentence of "Public perception and character". 2. The link to the political role of the monarch should be moved into a hatnote:

This page is a biography of Queen Elizabeth II. For the constitutional role of the monarchy, see Commonwealth realm#Monarch's role in the realms.

DrKiernan (talk) 16:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

A fair point. It isn't true to say, BTW, that she never expresses her views in public. She has done, for example, in her comments at the Golden Jubilee that stressed the fact that she was crowned queen of the United Kingdom, ie, not of Scotland and England separately, so explicitly criticising calls for England and Scotland to separate. On other occasions she has made private comments which appeared in public (for example, her criticism of Margaret Thatcher on the Commonwealth, her criticism of Tony Blair saying that he had no sense of history, etc). But she takes care to ensure that usually her personal views are not known. They do become known on occasions. Those who know her views believe that she would someone closest to the right wing of the Labour Party or left wing of the Tories, someone of the Harold Macmillan ilk (Macmillan toyed with the idea in the 1950s move moving from the Tories to Labour.) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Disputed Name

There has been no resolution of the name for this article therefore there should be box at the top to say that the title is disputed and probably one to question the neutrality of the title as well. 78.86.226.253 (talk) 12:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no current dispute and no need for tags. The matter was withdrawn first and then when discussed again it was closed as no-consensus.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 12:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes but that means no consensus on the current name either. 78.86.226.253 (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Move Page Again...

How about "QEII 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, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu and the United Kingdom."

Redirects mean there should be no problem with this. It adheres to the spirit of the naming convention and is NPOV unlike the current page title. 78.86.226.253 (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe we've had enough 'page move requests' for awhile. GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary; keep them coming. Each one adds to the list that demonstrates just how inadequate the naming conventions are. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Nay, get the 'Naming convention' changed first. None of this selective articles stuff. GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Get the naming conventions changed before using page move requests as illustration of how the naming conventions need changed? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, ya'll should be raising heck at the Monarch naming convention. The Japanese & Thai monarchs have 'only' their regnal names. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense, GoodDay. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

This article shouldn't be given special treatment, at the expense of the other British monarchs articles & the English, Scottish monarchs articles. If this article gets renamed 'Elizabeth II'? then the others must be changed to 'George VI', 'Edward VIII', etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure; but, that doesn't have anything to do with what I said. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It's okay; flatulence of the cranium does happen! ;) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Attempting to change the Naming Conventions went absolutely nowhere! 78.86.226.253 (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Then lets not bother changing them, just ignore them. We should change the title to Queen Elizabeth II. That is her common name by far. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

By using the DISPLAYTITLE code: {{DISPLAYTITLE:Elizabeth II <span style = "display:none">of the United Kingdom</span>}} we could retain the page at its current location, but the page title would display as "Elizabeth II", as shown by this example: Revision 308438443. DrKiernan (talk) 07:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, yes and yes! That should solve the problem somewhat. I think it should be Queen Elizabeth II though. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 07:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it can be used to insert words. Parallel discussion here. DrKiernan (talk) 07:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It just saying Elizabeth II would be an improvement.. that should be done yes, although i agree Queen Elizabeth II would be better. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I won't go along with this name changing, if the other British monarchs aren't changed & the English, Scottish monarchs aren't changed. GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:EGG again

A second nudge that in the lead, the Commonwealth realms are all linked to articles about their monarchies. Eg., Jamaica is pipelinked to Monarchy of Jamaica. This is confusing, and not permitted per the WP:EGG part of WP:MOS. Also the United Kingdom is pipelinked to "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", but all the other states seem to use their common name. Why is the UK treated differently here? That also strikes me as odd. May I suggest this is fixed? --Jza84 |  Talk  11:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is this controversial? No-one objected last time, so I don't see why you just don't make the edit, unless they've been arguments over it in the past. DrKiernan (talk) 12:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Names

Throughout this entire article, I have noticed that there are references to "Elizabeth" and "Philip" written. Not only is it disrespectful it is downright inaccurate. Who ever has written this article should be ashamed. "Elizabeth" as she is negligently called is in fact, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN and "Philip" is in fact known as PRINCE PHILIP or as the DUKE OF EDINBURGH. Calling Her Majesty The Queen simply as "Elizabeth" is equivalent to calling the President of the United States simply as "Barack"

It needs to be fixed, Wikified, and it needs to be encyclopedic.

--Kildruf (talk) 01:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

How about we just use their surname? Oh, wait...never mind. -Rrius (talk) 03:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

'Elizabeth' & 'Philip' is all we need, afterall they're not special. GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh haha GoodDay. However, there is no need to change the wording, keeping on saying 'The Queen' all the time in the article isn't a very good idea. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 14:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotection review

The protection logs show that for about a six-month period starting at the end of 2006 this article became the focus of massive vandalism and was semiprotected.

I'd like to review this now quite old decision to see if it's still considered necessary. As well as welcoming comments from regular editors, I've contacted the admins who placed this article under semiprotection. --TS 03:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Lord of Mann

I just wanted to point out a misspelling in the article on Queen Elizabeth II. On the opening page it gives a title for her as LORD OF MANN, and it should of course be changed to LORD OF MAN (meaning the Isle of Man). It is so confusing to suggest an edit for a protected article that I cannot figure out how to do it, and leave my suggestion here instead, hoping someone will see it.

See Lord of Mann. The island is Man, the ruler is Mann. Just another one of those weird historical things the British do so well. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The Queen appears to use a single n: http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandCrowndependencies/IsleofMan.aspx DrKiernan (talk) 07:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Queen uses or whoever wrote that section of the website uses? Timrollpickering (talk) 10:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Isle of Man parliament also uses a single n: go to http://www.tynwald.org.im/ and click on "Tynwald of Today". Both forms are acceptable so why not use the easier form? DrKiernan (talk) 11:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Because it is amusing to correct people who think that they are correcting Wikipedia? It seems that this is the only reason why Lord of Mann is better than Lord of Man. Surtsicna (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

One reason would be if "Mann" is more common than "Man". Another is that "Lord of man" is a title sometimes used for Jesus. Even if the chance of confusion or offense is small, why bother with it? -Rrius (talk) 03:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

"Man" is much more common, e.g. 18 million ghits for "Lord of Man" (without "Jesus") 80 thousand for "Lord of Mann" (without "Jesus"). Same goes for gbooks and gscholar searches. DrKiernan (talk) 07:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Assuming that reflects reality (usage on the internet may not be the same as overall usage), that leaves the Jesus argument. I doubt too many would be convinced by that one. Perhaps this should also be taken up at Lord of Mann? -Rrius (talk) 07:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed this should be debated at Lord Of Mann, and whats decided there implemented across wikipedia including here. As the Royal website / Man government website uses just Man, they probably all do need changing. No problem with the Jesus thing, he was just the son of God, we are talking about Her Majesty the Queen, she outranks him!. Also as Lord of Man redirects to Lord of Mann already and no one has tried to insert Jesus (as far as i know) or require a hatnote so it should be fine. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Head chef at the wedding

Does it mention any where who the head chef at this wedding was?I was told he was a greek named Harry Lambini?Does any one know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.76.128.156 (talk) 19:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Photographs relating to relationship with USA

It seems to me rather bizarre that there are THREE photographs relating to visits to or by American Presidents on the wikipedia page of the British Head of State. Throughout her reign, and up until the present day, Her Majesty has maintained a highly active programme of incoming and outgoing visits involving a wide variety of nations all over the world, not least to those in the commonwealth, and is the most widely travelled monarch ever anywhere (as stated in this article). Can this not be reflected better in the images used on this page, which at the moment give the impression that The Queen's visits are cheifly concerned with the USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.96.237 (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

very good point, theres several decent images on Monarchy of Canada, one from there should be added to this page and replace one of the USA images. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The reason the so many of those images are used is because they are the work of the Federal government of the US, and therefore public domain. ninety:one 22:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Greenland

The last time I checked Greenland's Head of state was Margaret II of Denmark. -- GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, it was just a disruptive IP. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

St. Vincent holding a national referendum soon (among other things it will decide on Queen)

Just a heads up. The government of Dr. Ralph Gonsalves in St. Vincent and the Grenadines is getting close to approving the staging of a national referendum to vote on a new constitution. Within the new constitution it effectively terminates Q.E. II as Head of State and replaces that office with a non-executive President. So depending if the public votes 'YES' or 'NO' it determines whether Q.E. II would likely still be Head of State in St. Vincent.

• Article: Gonsalves' political gamble - 9/16/2009 (Nation Newspaper, Barbados)

CaribDigita (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, lets see what happens, recent referendums in Australia and Tuvalu, trying to remove the Queen both failed. However this one seems to come along with other things, which may or may not be desirable to the people of that nation, and it all seems to be in only one vote, without letting voters decide separately on each issue. Tricky one that. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 10:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I feel it is essentially a done deal. When you couple this with the statement made by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom the Caribbean has essentially been told to "get on with your lives" from the UK side. The President's comments have created a media fire storm in each of the islands, with all leaders now talking about terminating their final colonial linkages with the UK. Each isle is very likely to roll this into overall constitutional reform, since the constitutions must be changed to remove provisions of using the UK's court system for appellate jurisdiction. Opening the constitutions is a tough enough exercise in the Caribbean, let alone attempting to do some multiple times for many different provisions. They'll probably just do it once and be done with it. CaribDigita (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Not really. Don't forget, many countries have gotten rid of appeals to the British Privy Council, and have kept the Queen. We'll see what happens. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 07:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It would seem that former Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Prime Minister Sir James Mitchell (he is also one of the longest serving Prime Ministers in Caribbean history) has called on voters to reject the new Constitution, saying it will be "chaotic". He has also specifically said he wants The Queen kept. 1. Also, the thought that all governments of the Caribbean realms are trying to get rid of The Queen is a myth. Just recently The Bahamas Prime Minister the Rt. Hon. Hubert A. Ingraham said: "When our founding fathers, the Governor General included, sought to achieve independence, they made a determination to retain the Queen of Britain as Queen of The Bahamas as part of Bahamian heritage and legacy. Their determination has not been altered." at the investiture ceremony of The Queen's Birthday Honours 2. It should also been taken into note that several attempts by several Caribbean realms governments to get rid of The Queen have never flown. She is highly revered by the people. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 11:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Vote-day is here. Election results are expected by Midnight.

• REFERENDUM DAY: Historic vote in St Vincent and the Grenadines
• Royal referendum: St. Vincent to vote ties to queen on eve of monarch's visit to region

CaribDigita (talk) 18:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The referendum has failed. [4] --Ibagli (Talk) 04:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

That marks three republican referendums lost in the last decade: Australia, Tuvalu, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines. Excellent! --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

'Excellent Smithers!' 'I want this letter mailed by gyroscope to Prussia'.If you want to play constitutional ping-pong: India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malta, Cyprus, Republic of Eire, South Africa, Fiji, etc. (no offence, I just like to see the old fighting G2bambino come out occasionally lol)--Gazzster (talk) 06:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Fiji is the odd one out here, as the monarchy was deposed by a coup d'etat there. --Igor Windsor (talk) 08:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that just about none of the Commonwealth realms which became republics changed to a republican form of government by a referendum or vote by the people of that country. And in the case of South Africa for example, even thought there was a referendum, it was a white only one. And in the Fiji there seems to be indication that they will return to a constitutional monarchical form of government at the same time the country returns to democracy. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 09:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Referendum failed? not surprised. Disappointed, but not surprised. GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it failed then. This referendum can be put to bed... It wonder though if Mr. Gonsalves was trying to coincide this date for the referendum with the visit of the Queen to Trinidad. She's planning to travel to Trinidad for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. Any-who this is another one for the history books. CaribDigita (talk) 15:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Press interviews

"Since Elizabeth rarely gives press interviews..." When has she ever done so? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 14:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this may depend on both what is meant by press and what is meant by an interview. The Queen has responded to questions posed by television personalities during the programmes in which she has participated, and she has given interviews to professional biographers. But as to a full interview to a newspaper journalist, no, I don't believe she's ever given one. The easiest thing to do here is simply to remove "press". DrKiernan (talk) 15:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't recall whether is was a press interview, per say, but I have seen one televised question and answer segment with the Queen, from sometime back in the 70s, I think. I later read commentary about how rare such a thing is. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Queen's personal choices

I have found a source here [5] that states that HM personally supports Arsenal F.C., should it be included in the article? The C of E (talk) 09:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that the Queen says she supports and follows every sportsman she meets. She may not be truly interested in any sport unless its shooting or riding. DrKiernan (talk) 10:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Health and Reduced duties

I'd like to see it made clear that there is currently no exceptional concern for Her Majesty's health unless, of course, there is a source to say that there is. I don't feel that I can do this impartially and I lack the substantial knowledge of this article's history to be able to place it appropriately, but I feel it should be clear, not least since implying, with the purest of intentions, that Her Majesty is in poor health could be defamatory. HJMitchell You rang? 05:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

wrong information

Elizabeth became Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon upon the death of her father, George VI, on 6 February 1952.

this is according to the article where as in 1947 pakistan was independent ... !!! kind verify before posting the information ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.125.132.122 (talk) 08:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Pakistan was independent from 1947, just as independent as the other dominions (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Ceylon) were, and just as independent (more or less, at least) as the Commonwealth realms are today. It did not become a republic until 1956, however, and the heads of state of the Dominion of Pakistan that lasted from 1947 to 1956 were indeed George VI and Elizabeth II, although they were represented by the four Governors-General of Pakistan (the last of whom, Iskander Mirza, also became the first President of the Pakistani republic when it was established, so formally succeeded Elizabeth as the head of state in 1956). —JAO • T • C 09:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

What's her military rank?

--Dojarca (talk) 00:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

As monarch, I assume it's Field Marshall (Army), Marshall of the Air Force (Air Force) & Admiral of the Fleet (Navy). Though I'm not sure. GoodDay (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Commander-in-Chief. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I though she also had Armed Services ranks. Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII & George VI had them. GoodDay (talk) 01:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

She's Lord High Admiral isn't she? As well as Colonel of a number of regiments throughout the world.--Gazzster (talk) 03:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Commander-in-Chief and Lord High Admiral are not the military ranks. Colonel is indeed a rank but cannot be in different regiments (can be in different armies). There is appointment "Colonel of the Regiment" in British army [6] but this is ceremonial, not military rank. Another appointment "Colonel-in-Chief" is not a military rank either.--Dojarca (talk) 03:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

When she wore a uniform to Trooping the Colour, she wore the insignia of a colonel (which is what all colonels-in-chief and honorary colonels wear unless they have higher rank). The uniform is on display at the Guards Museum at Wellington Barracks. I don't believe the Queen has ever taken any military rank other than Second Subaltern in the ATS.--Ibagli (Talk) 04:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

She was Junior Commander in the ATS. DrKiernan (talk) 12:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Well according my research colonel of the regiment gives temporary colonel rank for the period of holding the Colonel of the regiment office. Since the Queen most likely will not retire from such office, her rank may be most accurately described as colonel, though her permanent rank is Junior Commander which is equal to Leutenant. This is in accord with other European royal persons: for example, Nicholas II of Russia was officially called Colonel Romanov by the Provisional government after he abdicated.--Dojarca (talk) 15:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Duke of Lancaster

Needs to be edited to show she is also Duke of Lancaster.

How can that be done on a locked article please?

78.93.176.39 (talk) 14:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

'most of the empire evolved'

I never said that it still exsisted. However what is left of the empire has not evolved into the Commonwealth. Therefore the whole empire has not 'eveolved into the modern Commonwealth' - but 'most of' it has. Flosssock1 (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Howabout something like: 'most of the former empire evolved into the commonwealth'. GoodDay (talk) 18:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I would admit though there *is* an appearance given across many country articles that the British Empire has evolved into the Commonwealth. Many of the Commonwealth country articles use a common catch phrase. This phrase often reads something like "(~insert country name here~) became an independent country in the Commonwealth of Nations."

It would be better to say something like: "(blank) became an independent country, at which time it established membership to the Commonwealth of Nations. The former statement gives an appearance of a graduation- to the status of the Commonwealth of Nations from the former British Empire. CaribDigita (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

That's acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say something similar to GoodDay's proposal, something like 'and the former countries of the empire joined the modern Commonwealth' Flosssock1 (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Whatever is decided, I'll go along with it. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally I prefer just putting 'most of' in. Now that I've explained, what do you think of that? Flosssock1 (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

If nobody will complain about it? no prob. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

If I'm correctly understanding the various edit summaries left, the issue is not if the Empire evolved into the Commonwealth - it clearly did - but whether or not there is any British Empire left. I initially thought that the British Overseas Territories would count as the last remnants of the British Empire; but, as part of the UK, those territories are therefore now part of the Commonwealth. So, in this case, DrKiernan may be right. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

"most of" is unacceptable because it may be misread as meaning that the remainder of the empire still exists.

Flosssock1 and I are using different definitions of the word "empire". She thinks it means "the area over which George V had reigned as sovereign" whereas I think it means "a state in which the sovereign is an emperor". If the sentence is so easy to misread, then it should either be removed or redrafted.

I don't see the problem with the Overseas Territories. They are listed at the Commonwealth Secretariat, at the Commonwealth Games Federation, and in the Commonwealth section of the Queen's website. As defined by section 37 1(a) of the British Nationality Act 1981, as amended by the British Overseas Territories Act 2002,: "Every person who— (a) under the British Nationality Acts 1981 and 1983 or the British Overseas Territories Act 2002 is a British citizen, a British overseas territories citizen, British National (Overseas), a British Overseas citizen or a British subject; or (b) under any enactment for the time being in force in any country mentioned in Schedule 3 is a citizen of that country, shall have the status of a Commonwealth citizen."

So, the Overseas Territories have evolved into a part of the Commonwealth. The problem arises from the Arab countries that were once within the area of the empire but are not part of the Commonwealth. If the reader thinks "empire" means "area" rather than "state" then the sentence is misread. DrKiernan (talk) 12:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

When Elizabeth was born, the British Empire was a pre-eminent world power. Her father, George VI, became King of the United Kingdom and the Dominions and Emperor of India in 1936. After World War II, in which Elizabeth served in uniform, the title of Emperor was abandoned. George VI became the first Head of the Commonwealth, a symbol of the free association of the independent countries comprising the Commonwealth of Nations. On his death...

Or:

When Elizabeth was born, the British Empire was a pre-eminent world power. Her father, George VI, became King of the United Kingdom and the Dominions and Emperor of India in 1936. After World War II and Indian independence, the title of Emperor was abandoned. George VI became the first Head of the Commonwealth, a symbol of the free association of the independent countries comprising the Commonwealth of Nations. On his death...

I fail to see what you mean DrKiernan. To start with, George VI was only emperor of Inida, not the whole empire, also the British Overseas Territories are not part of the Commonwealth, and when I think of the British Empire I think of a large empire that, generally by convention, ended in the late 20th century. When I think of the British Overseas Territories I think of overseas territories that were part of the British Empire and that today make up what is left of the empire. Which is correct. So you could say that the British Empire evolved into the Commonwealth and British Overseas Territories. Which would be correct. Therefore I think that slipping 'most of' in sorts the problem.

Also please don't refer to me as 'she', I can assure that I am not a woman. But no hard feelings, Flosssock1 (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

But given the links posted above, in what way are the BOT (or for that matter territories of other Commonwealth states such as the Tokelau, not part of the Commonwealth? David Underdown (talk) 19:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure about other countries' territories however I do know that British Overseas Territories are not part of the Commonwealth. Citizens of British Overseas territories do have 'status' of a Commonwealth citizen, however as I said, the territory itself is not part of the Commonwealth. Flosssock1 (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see from http://www.commonwealth-of-nations.org/xstandard/65-82.pdf that you are strictly correct:

Only independent countries are members of the Commonwealth, although member countries’ overseas territories and associated states – mainly small island developing countries in the Caribbean and the Pacific – are eligible for assistance and may take part in certain activities. Some of them contribute to the Commonwealth’s development funds. The restriction of membership to sovereign states has helped to retain the sense of equal partnership in the forums in which Commonwealth policy and programmes are discussed.

but given that it's not just the UK that has dependent territories, , I don't think it's correct to describe the BOTs as the remnant British Empire either, the former Empire is now the Commonwealth, plus the dependent territories of all the sovereign states taht make up the Commonwealth. David Underdown (talk) 09:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I will not accept "most of". I have now provided four alternatives to the current wording [7][8][9][10], without agreement from Flosssock1.

In contrast, Flosssock1 has suggested: "most of", "most of", "most of", "most of", "most of", and "most of". Proposing the same rejected phrase over and over again will lead nowhere.

As a fifth alternative, may I suggest:

Her father, George VI, became King-Emperor of the British Empire in 1936. The empire was a pre-eminent world power, but World War II and the empire's continued evolution into the Commonwealth of Nations led to Indian independence, and the abandonment of the title of Emperor. George VI became the first Head of the Commonwealth, a symbol of the free association of the independent countries comprising the Commonwealth. On his death...

This would then revert back to the wording employed in the last stable revision before my edit of 12 November. DrKiernan (talk) 09:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thats a very good point David. Other nations that are in the Commonwealth have territories that could be classes as being what is left of the BE as well as BOTs, also only most nations that have gained independence from the UK have joined the Commonwealth, but not all.

If we were to go down the route of changing the wording then I still think it would be best to put 'most of' in, however as someone previously stated this may need explaining, it would obviously go into too much detail for the intoduction. Therefore I think it would be best for the introduction to remain the way it is/was. Regards, Flosssock1 (talk) 12:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed change to opening paragraph

Propose changing it to read:

Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is the queen regnant of the United Kingdom and fifteen other independent sovereign states: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis. These sixteen states are known informally as the Commonwealth realms. She holds each crown separately and equally in a shared monarchy, as well as acting as Head of the Commonwealth, Supreme Governor of the Church of England, Duke of Normandy, Lord of Man, and Paramount Chief of Fiji. As a constitutional monarch, she is politically neutral and by convention her role is largely ceremonial.

Nope. No reason to single out the UK as somehow special above the other countries. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Erm yes, every reason! 86.133.55.3 (talk) 03:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC).

Well, you'll have to argue your case better than that. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It's so blindingly obvious that the UK is in a special position wrt the British monarchy that it really needs no further explanation. 86.150.101.4 (talk) 12:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC).

Blindingly obvious if you believe only the UK has a monarchy headed by EIIR, sure. As others have noted, we've dealt with this issue already and arrived at the current wording. It's fine as it is. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. What I should have said was that the UK is in a special position wrt to the monarch. 86.134.43.204 (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC).

I oppose any change, the current wording is fine. BritishWatcher (talk) 03:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I also oppose any change like that. There have been discussions in the past (and many times too) to move this article from Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom to Elizabeth II, because it's quite a horrible and misleading article name, and you want to make things even worse by making the UK seem more special than the other realms in the opening paragraph? Not going to happen. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 10:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The two things arent't really comparable "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" is not a title that people are familiar with, hence it sounds awkward and unnatural. However, everyone would nevertheless agree that the British monarchy has a special relationship with the UK. 86.150.101.4 (talk) 12:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it does, for example the royal website describes it as the British monarchy however the current introduction is fine. The United Kingdom is listed first and its "of the United Kingdom" in the article title which quite a few people disagree with. Theres just no reason to make a change to the introduction, its stable. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course the UK has a special relationship with the British Monarchy, but I'm quite sure that Canada has a special relationship with the Canadian Monarchy, don't you agree? The thing is, The Queen does not only head the British Monarchy, she heads the Canadian Monarchy, the Australian Monarchy, the NZ Monarchy and so on and so forth. This article isn't about the British Monarchy, it's about The Queen, who is shared equally among all her realms. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 13:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Per my other comment above, what I should have said was that the monarch has a special relationship with the UK. 86.134.43.204 (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC).

(outdent) It's too bad there isn't a way to collapse the introduction, which appears top loaded. GoodDay (talk) 14:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the first sentence is fine. The problem with the first paragraph is the second sentence. The first sentence needs no explanation as it is self-explanatory, everyone knows what a queen is. And the third sentence is clear too. However, in the second sentence a list of titles is introduced, but it is not obvious what any of them actually mean. DrKiernan (talk) 15:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the 2nd sentence could be placed somewhere else, in the article. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The royal family go back very far in British history, and history of the British throne. This is explained throughout this and related articles. Also her offical residence is in the UK. However her position as monarch in all realms is equal. As others have said, I think that the introduction is perfectly fine as it is. Flosssock1 (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Not overly far back, only 302-yrs. GoodDay (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

But the family goes back even further. Flosssock1 (talk) 19:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

In the form of the English, Scottish & Irish monarchies. GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Today mostly the UK. Flosssock1 (talk) 17:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we're overlooking something, folks. Never mind the UK for the moment. I've no objection to the UK being first. Without the UK, there would be no other realms. But, as I say, never mind that. In the list that follows, why does Canada precede the other realms? Why does Australia precede New Zealand? Why does NZ precede Tuvalu, and so on and so forth? If you notice, the most populous and the most white realms have precedence: everywhere. Why should that be? If all the realms are equal, as they surely are, why should not a ST Lucian user demand that Saint Lucia be first in the list? Ot a New Guinean speak up for New Guinea.

Let's be reasonable about this folks. Obviously someone has to go first.But there's a bias attached to every ordering. Why not try according to order of foundation, in which case the UK would b first. Or alphabetically, in which case Australia would be first. Or in order of prime ministers; birthdays!--Gazzster (talk) 06:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

They are in order of foundation. DrKiernan (talk) 09:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

That's right. I believe that's been the accepted practice since the beginning of the Commonwealth. As a slightly associated aside, that's also the practice used for the precedence of the provinces in Canada; the first four listed in order of population and the remainder according to the date they joined Confederation. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Mais I stand corrected! But if were not gonna give the UK pride of place, what order do we want to use? Leave it as is, I say--Gazzster (talk) 02:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

No change to the order is needed. But if Gazzster wasn't sure what the order means, you can bet others wonder about this too. To make it explicit why they're ordered the way they are, we should come right out and say "in order of foundation", before the list of realms. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Fiji

There are reliable sources that say the Great Council of Chiefs consider her still "Queen of Fiji": [11][12][13]. However, her official website[14] says nothing about her being Queen or Paramount Chief. The government of Fiji[15], the Commonwealth[16], the CIA[17], and the BBC[18] all say that Fiji is a republic, and none of them mention any role for the Queen. This video[19] says she was once Queen of Fiji, but she is not now, though she may be again. These sources [20][21] show similar sentiment. Saying she is still Queen/Paramount Chief is bias and poorly sourced. If you're going to include it then it must be backed up by solid, reliable sources, and balanced with the opposing view that she is nothing of the sort. DrKiernan (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The Queen is no longer Queen of Fiji, but she is Paramount Chief though. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 16:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Source? DrKiernan (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Can this article be used: [22]? I understand that, while the Council of Chiefs do consider her Paramount Chief, she herself has not accepted the title; but then again neither has she renounced it. Whatever the case, it is obviously merely a honorific, rather than a proper office enshrined in any constitution or similar. (Though one does not know what the near future beholds in Fiji, to be quite honest.) --Igor Windsor (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I've added the requested source for her being considered Paramount Chief of Fiji. I don't believe it's up to us to decide whether the title is apporpriate or not; we must merely present the facts. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC) PS- what's with the big, screaming neutrality tag, as though one disputed fact undermined the entire article? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we please remove the dubious claim about Fiji for the time being so we can remove that neutrality tag. Far better to leave out the information for the moment than cast doubt over the entire article. On the Fiji issue id say it does need better sources than the ones shown so far. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the bit about Fiji from the introduction, all those damn tags are making a mess. For stuff to be in this article it needs to be very reliable, those current sources provided are not enough. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Amazing that it's been there essentially since the creation of this article and only now has it become such a dramatic issue that even a reliable source is deemed not good enough to support the fact. It's a point about how Elizabeth is regarded by the council of chiefs in Fiji as Paramount Chief, not some claim that she eats puppies for breakfast. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, not the corgis. GoodDay (talk) 00:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think she has so many if not for a snack on the go? ;) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Her title means nothing anyway if the government of Fiji doesnt recognise it.--Gazzster (talk) 03:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The Council of Chiefs is a part of the constitutional construct of Fiji. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It had no legislative power in that Constitution, nor did it appear to have the executive authority to act as a sovereign "fount of honour". Besides, both the Council and the Constitution are suspended. Surely it is obvious that the declaration was a political ploy by one of the competing factions in Fiji, and one that does not seem to have paid off. DrKiernan (talk) 10:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It has been suspended, not abolished, and no, I don't see anything as obvious besides what some sources tell us: Elizabeth has been deemed Paramount Chief by the Fijian Council of Chiefs. There's no sense in us ascribing unknown motives to that body. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Howabout, the suspended Paramount Chief. GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

That's original, so, no. DrKiernan (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It's true that she was chosen as Paramount Chief only because she was Queen, and in normal circumstances there would be 1:1 correspondence between the two offices. But Fiji has not had normal circumstances since 1987. The fact that she's no longer the Queen of Fiji does not necessarily mean she's no longer the Paramount Chief. In the same way, if she were to abdicate tomorrow, there's nothing in the rules that says she automatically relinquishes the role of Head of the Commonwealth. It's very unlikely she'd keep that job, but technically she could, as Duchess of Edinburgh or whatever she'd become. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

She was not chosen as paramount chief. The Council claimed that the paramountcy was invested in the British Crown by Cakobau in 1874, and it was never divested from the British Crown. But that is false, since the powers invested in the British Crown by the Fijian Deed of Cession were divested by the British Crown to the Fijian Crown in 1970. So, it is the Fijian Crown that holds the paramountcy not the British one. This is the usual misunderstanding of the Statute of Westminster. The Crowns of the different realms are separate. You can't pick and choose which aspects of the Crown you're going to keep and which you're going to give away. DrKiernan (talk) 21:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Yet the Chiefs are on record as saying the coup that did away with the Fijian monarchy ended the Queen's governmental position in Fiji but not her traditional role. In other words, the Statute of Westminster and any other legal documents seem irrelevant to the Council of Chiefs and their decision on whether or not Elizabeth II is still Paramount Chief. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I checked the infobox at Fiji. What a confusion, Fiji's a republic & yet it's a monarchy. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not a monarchy any more, and the infobox doesn't say that it is, as far as I can see. The fact that it has a paramout chief who happens to be queen of a number of other countries doesn't make Fiji a monarchy. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

And there are more remnants of the Queen's traditional role in Fiji, despite it being a republic: her official birthday is still a national holiday [23], and she is still depicted in the Fijian dollar banknotes and coins [24]. --Igor Windsor (talk) 09:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Dependent territories

I think the Australian external territories are part of Australia, they appear to be treated as such[25]. New Zealand, Niue, the Cook Islands and Tokelau are all part of the realm of New Zealand[26]. So, the way the lead is currently phrased means that the Australian territories are mentioned twice (once as part of Australia and once by themselves) and New Zealand is mentioned twice (once by itself and once as part of the realm of New Zealand). That is bad prose, and unnecessary duplication.

In contrast, the Crown dependencies (see this government briefing) and the British overseas territories (see paragraphs 28 and 49 of Regina v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs) are neither part of the United Kingdom nor a part of the realm of the United Kingdom.^{Or are they?—See below. DrKiernan (talk) 11:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)} And so, they should be mentioned separately. DrKiernan (talk) 17:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

And no territorial claims in the Antarctic are recognised in international law, which further befuddles the issue.--Gazzster (talk) 19:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The British Overseas Territories are not part of the UK, but by being territories of it, don't they make up part of the realm of the UK? But anyway, I was thinking perhaps theres no need to mention any of that at all (British, Aus, NZ Territories), because if The Queen is head of state of the UK, Australia, and NZ, doesn't it make her head of state of their territories and dependencies as well anyway? We don't say in the lead of Barack Obama's article that he is President of the US, and head of state of <insert US non-federating territories here>, as well do we? So maybe it's best to just remove it all, and make the lead shorter. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 11:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Legislation like this: [27] uses the shorthand "United Kingdom" for Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the Crown Dependencies, and at least excludes BOTs from the meaning of a foreign country, though they are not explicitly included in the UK. She's actually in Bermuda tomorrow, so it would be good to get this sorted by the end of today. DrKiernan (talk) 11:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

So what's the solution? Do we mention them or not? --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 12:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind if you remove all or part of them, but I suspect that others may disagree. I'm surprised no-one else has commented. Maybe try some drastic action by removing the lot and seeing what happens? DrKiernan (talk) 13:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, before doing that, a question: The Queen is Lord of Man and Duke Normandy by virtue of being the British Monarch, am I right? She is also Supreme Governor of the Church of England by being the British Monarch, right? (I'm thinking about removing all the territories/dependencies bit, as well as perhaps the CoE part, since that can be under Religion - basically removing anything which The Queen is by virtue of holding another position already listed). --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 15:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It is unnecessary to mention any title which she holds by virtue of being Queen of the UK. No other encyclopedia does it. They all start off in the first paragraph by saying something like "she's Queen of the UK and her other realms and territories and Head of the Commonwealth" but they don't go further than that (except in some to say "Defender of the Faith"). In fact, I've yet to find one that even mentions her being Supreme Governor. Having it in the lead is undue weight, and smacks of Anglican POV. DrKiernan (talk) 15:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Go by her official titles. good idea--Gazzster (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

She is 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" in the Crown Dependencies and the BOTs, as defined by the Royal Titles and Styles Act 1953 which specifically extends its jurisdiction to all territories "for whose foreign relations Her Government in the United Kingdom is responsible". "Duke of Normandy" and "Lord of Man(n)" are informal styles. DrKiernan (talk) 09:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not think these should be removed. In any case, I would suggest that anyone wishing to change the opening paragraph write their proposal in full here first before introducing the changes in the article. --Igor Windsor (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I concor, Igor The C of E (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's discuss each issue separately, to keep things simple. I suggest taking Australia first. DrKiernan (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Australian territories

Mentioning that she's Head of State of Australia's external territories as somehow separate from her being Head of State if Australia as a whole, seems inapt, to say the least. Australia is said to have seven sovereignties: the country as a whole (which includes all the states, the internal territories, and the external territories), and each of the six States. Queensland attempted to create a separate title, "Queen of Queensland", but this was blocked in the High Court. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The territories of Australia are a part of Australia, just like the Northern Territory or Canberra. The second mention of Australia should be removed. DrKiernan (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep.--Gazzster (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

If her official title includes "and of her other realms and territories Queen", I believe both the realms and the territories should be mentioned. In my opinion, the latter include Crown Dependencies and British Overseas Territories, as well as such other self-governing territories as the Cook Islands and possibly also the Northern Territory. Or am I wrong here? --Igor Windsor (talk) 10:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I think if you want to go that route then it would be wiser to change the opening to Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is the queen regnant of the Commonwealth realms and their territories. The 16 realms are, in order of foundation, the United Kingdom, etc., etc. DrKiernan (talk) 10:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, that sounds quite all right. It would then go on to say e.g. The territories consist of Crown Dependencies, British Overseas Territories, as well as the Realm of New Zealand and the external territories of Australia. The introductory part would then conclude with e.g. She also holds the position of the Head of the Commonwealth and that of the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. How about that? --Igor Windsor (talk) 13:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

IMO, the lead should be ..is the queen regnant of the United Kingdom and fifteen other commonwealth realms.... But, the article title, infobox & content lead, balance each other quite well, so I'll stick with the current setup. GoodDay (talk) 13:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It's too long. The article should be a biography about Elizabeth Windsor the person not an article about the realms and territories and titles, styles and roles of the British/Commonwealth monarch. That should be detailed in the articles about those subjects. I will not accept the current wording. DrKiernan (talk) 14:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Well then, how about this as the opening paragraph: Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is the queen regnant of the Commonwealth realms and their territories. These are, in order of foundation, the United Kingdom with Crown Dependencies and British Overseas Territories, Canada, Australia and its external territories , New Zealand and its territories and dependencies, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis. She also holds the position of the Head of the Commonwealth and that of the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. --Igor Windsor (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It's too long and it's too boring. I've just asked my family to look at the article individually and asked them for their views. They all said exactly the same thing, and partly what I've been saying. They get bored reading the first sentence because it is too long. Children tune out mid-way through the first sentence, and will only read on after prompting. Adults just scan the first few words and then skip to the end. After prompting, they will read beyond the first sentence, but then they do not understand the second sentence. It introduces too many concepts, very few of which are explained. The religious title needs to be stripped out. The duplications should be removed. The listy sentences need to be cropped. Otherwise, this article is failing. People come to the article expecting answers, but all they get is frustrated and confused. The article itself is not actually read. Readers come here, look at the first sentence or so, and then they leave. The best that was said about it was: "Nice picture, shame about the article." DrKiernan (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I must agree, the introduction is bloated. GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am sorry, encyclopedias are meant to be boring. That in itself, however, is no argument for one way or the other. We will, alas, have to wait to hear a better one before we agree to a change in the opening paragraph. No offence, of course, to any families whom it may concern. --Igor Windsor (talk) 20:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

No, that is totally and utterly wrong. They are supposed to be engaging and educational. This article fails on both counts. DrKiernan (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I am so sorry. I do think, however, that I have tried my best. I shall not accept, however, any less than what is already written in the article. --Igor Windsor (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The Australian external territories were never mentioned before. They were only added very recently. DrKiernan (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Igor, you have a thing or two to learn about how Wikipedia works. Accept or not accept as you wish, but at the end of the day consensus wins every time, and ultimately you have no choice but to accept that. Or leave. I'm for removal of any mention of territories, because they're included in the realms, for all ordinary purposes. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Jack, Thank you for your input. Please elaborate on the consensus issue. Please let us know where you see consensus here and in relation to what issues exactly? Thanks, --Igor Windsor (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue for this thread is as set out in the header. We're working collectively towards a consensus. It's fine to state one's views, and all views should be accepted for discussion. But for one editor to say, effectively, "I will do whatever I want, regardless of the outcome of this discussion" (which is what "I shall not accept ... any less than what is already written in the article" says to me), is adopting a not very collegiate or helpful tone. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the Australian external territories should be removed from the opening. Being head of state of the Australian territories separate from Australia (if she even is; it isn't sourced) is a direct result of being Queen of Australia. "Elizabeth II...is queen regnant of...Australia...and Head of State of...the external territories of Australia..." is redundant, or at least highly and arbitrarily selective. To me, it's no different than if it said she was "queen regnant of Australia, as well as one of three parts of the Parliament of Australia." One is simply a part of the other, and there's no need to single out one role from her duties as Queen of Australia. I would also apply that to the Realm of New Zealand and even the Crown Dependencies and British Overseas Territories. Acting as their head of state flows directly from her sovereignty over New Zealand and the United Kingdom, respectively. It's one part of her role as Queen in each country, and mentioning it at the beginning of the article gives it undue weight.--Ibagli (Talk) 08:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit spats

I'm sure we can all agree, edit sparring isn't the solution. We don't need to have this article protected, do we? GoodDay (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand

Moving on to the second issue, I don't see why the realm of New Zealand is mentioned twice. The realm of New Zealand is specifically mentioned in the initial list ("the Commonwealth realms: the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand,") and then in the very next sentence it is duplicated: "the Realm of New Zealand". I at first presumed that this was a simple misunderstanding and that the first mention was supposed to refer to just New Zealand itself whereas the second mention was supposed to refer to the associated states and dependencies of New Zealand. However, when I changed the second mention to "associated states of New Zealand", this was instantly reverted. So, as the second mention is not supposed to refer to the associated states alone, and does indeed refer to the exact same entity referred to in the first mention, it is a direct and unnecessary duplication. It should be removed. DrKiernan (talk) 08:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

British overseas territories

I put these in the article on 22 November [28]. I was instantly reverted within five minutes [29] and since then other editors have said that they should be taken out [30][31][32][33][34]. I do now agree that the insertion unnecessarily bloats the lead. One of the two editors who supposedly disagree with the removal was actually the one who reverted my insertion, and so is clearly not actually bothered whether the overseas territories are included or not. Consequently, given the overwhelming majority for their removal, I am now removing them. DrKiernan (talk) 10:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

I'm likely gonna get 'kicked' for this. IMHO, the infobox is a tad bloated, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and fifteen other Commonwealth realms or Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth realms is more agreeable. The 2nd version though, might violate OR. GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Why kicked? Never! :-) More agreeable does not necessarily mean correct. In my opinion, specific Realms are listed only because there are articles linked to them, if/when we have articles listing monarchs of other Realms, well - by all means - let's include them too, or indeed remove them all, however only then should we discuss as to how best to modify the infobox. --Igor Windsor (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I still think it needs trimming. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It isn't necessary to repeat lists of realms. If they're all listed in the infobox, then we don't need a list in the lead. Or, if they're all listed in the lead, then we don't need a list in the infobox. Having two lists right at the start of the article is distracting and unnecessary. Particularly when the rationale for the truncation of one of the lists is not apparent to the reader. The intention of the writer may be to list those countries that had independent status prior to Elizabeth's accession, but it looks to the reader as though the list is restricted to the countries with mostly-white populations with the rest appended as an after-thought. DrKiernan (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree that the infobox is a poor solution to the equal realms conundrum; it's merely the unacceptable UK-centric attitude slightly expanded to include a couple of other realms to the exclusion of others. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Would shortening to Queen of the Commonwealth realms, be acceptable? GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that works because the section of the infobox is meant to show her proper title, not a description of her role. That, of course, is yet another reason why the present version isn't right. Sorry, I was wrong. The infobox section is about succession. Is "Queen of the Commonwealth realms" a position to be inhereted? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Assuming that all 16 realms have identical successions, then yes. However, I suppose the title 'Queen of the Commonwealth realms' is OR. GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Howabout, Head of State over the Commonwealth realms? Are descriptives allowed in Infoboxes? GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

"Queen of the Commonwealth realms" is a descriptive, so I would prefer that to "Head of State". The position of monarch of the Commonwealth realms is inherited, and is determined by the law of succession to the shared monarchy, which applies to all realms and cannot be altered without the agreement of all realms. DrKiernan (talk) 09:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

To be precise, it's a shared monarch (not a shared monarchy). GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I've had a look around and the most frequent formulations are (not unexpectedly) "Queen of 15 Commonwealth realms in addition to the UK" or "Queen of the UK and 15 other Commonwealth realms" or such like. Where explained (infrequently), the reason given for employing such a phrase appears to be that the Queen exercises constitutional powers in the UK herself, whereas she has never exercised constitutional power in any of the other realms, where she is purely ceremonial and power is exercised by the governor-general. There are reliable examples of:

"Head of State for 16 countries, which are known as Commonwealth realms" [35]

"monarch, separately, of sixteen members of the Commonwealth, informally called the Commonwealth realms" [36]

"Head of State for 16 countries - known as the Commonwealth Realms" [37]

I quite liked the way the territories were slipped in here: "Head of State in the UK and 15 other independent states, their overseas territories and dependencies" [38]. So, personally, I don't have a problem with "Queen of the Commonwealth realms and their territories", which I think would cover all bases. DrKiernan (talk) 17:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

"The Queen exercises constitutional powers in the UK herself, whereas she has never exercised constitutional power in any of the other realms" is incorrect; she appoints governors general regularly, has read speeches from the throne, and has created extra seats in the Canadian Senate, amongst other constitutional duties Elizabeth has carried out beyond the United Kingdom. So, I agree that "Queen of the Commonwealth realms and their territories" is a worthy summary, being accurate, succinct, and expressive of the equality that exists between the realms. My only suggestion would be to say "...and their respective territories"; but, it's not of much consequence. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It would cover all bases, for sure. The potential problem is 'Queen of the Commonwealth realms' could be considered original research. GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Miesianiacal, I agree it's a dubious argument. Indeed, almost anything about the constitutional role of the Queen is going to be a matter of opinion open to interpretation. Our decision should be based on a factual, unarguable basis rather than a questionable one. The only factual difference I can see between the UK and the other realms is that it doesn't have a governor-general and the others do. However, this isn't a good way of distinguishing between them, since her office and title (Queen) is the same in all the realms; the differences between other people's offices and titles in the realms is somewhat irrelevant to hers. DrKiernan (talk) 12:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should remind ourselves what the Wikipedia Infobox is for:

'Infobox templates contain facts and statistics which may be common to a broad range of articles of a certain type. For instance, all animals have a scientific classification (species, family and so on), as well as a listing for their conservation status. Adding a {{taxobox}} to articles on animals therefore makes it easier to quickly find such information and to compare it with that on other articles.

Infobox templates are rather like fact sheets, or sidebars in magazine articles. They quickly summarise important points in an easy-to-read format. However, they are not "statistics" tables in that they are only supposed to summarise material from an article - the information should still be present in the main text, because it may not be possible for the infobox to be accessed by some of our users. For instance, infobox templates may hide long columns of data inside collapsing tables, which means that blind readers (who have to use a computer program which reads web pages to them) may not be able to access them.' (Help:infobox)

From this it would seem that it is not necessary that the infobox list all of the realms over which she is Queen.'Queen of 16 realms' would technically suffice, though as she is most commonly associated with the UK, the UK at least should be mentioned. The box is meant to contain a summary. The term 'realm' or 'Commonwealth realm' seems a good summary term to describe the states of Elizabeth II. The phrase we have now suffices. There is no danger of perceived bias toward the UK or ustralia or Canada or New Zealand, because the main body of the text explains the equality of the realms. In any case, an infobox is not the place to explain the legal nuances.The territories and dependencies need not be mentioned at all, for they are part of a monarchy.--Gazzster (talk) 21:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, would be acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

To who? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It's just a suggestion. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we can assume that option won't fly. It's too UK-centric.

Gazzter, I agree the infobox isn't the place for nuance, but at present it looks over-loaded with detail or is open to misinterpretation. DrKiernan (talk) 12:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

There are other options:

"Monarch of the Commonwealth realms [and their {respective} territories]"

"Head of State of the Commonwealth realms [and their {respective} territories]"

or the words from her actual styles that are common to all realms

"of Her Realms and Territories, Queen[, Head of the Commonwealth]"

"Queen of Her Realms and Territories [, Head of the Commonwealth]

or simply,

"Queen"

I think "Head of the Commonwealth" could be problematic because that title/office is not hereditary, and "Head of State" seems too much when the simpler and more informative "Monarch" is available as an alternative. "Queen" of course is the simplest option.

Perhaps we should consider this collapsing table option. The guideline doesn't seem to ban it, as the information is still in the main body of the text, but we could list the realms in a hidden box that one opens with a click.

Elizabeth II
Queen of 16 Commonwealth realms United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Canada Australia New Zealand Jamaica Barbados the Bahamas Grenada Papua New Guinea Solomon Islands Tuvalu Saint Lucia Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Belize Antigua and Barbuda Saint Kitts and Nevis
Reign	6 February 1952 – present (72 years, 174 days)
Coronation	2 June 1953
Predecessor	George VI
Heir apparent	Charles, Prince of Wales

Though this does create problems because I suppose her reign in the 11 realms listed last could be considered shorter than her reign in the 5 realms listed first. DrKiernan (talk) 12:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I think its brilliant, for the pure fact that on my screen size, the text for the UK entry in the drop down box has wrapped around, and the single word 'Ireland' appears seemingly as item 2 in the list of realms Elizabeth rules over. MickMacNee (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The collapsable proposal is great. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I like it too. The collapsible text is a stroke of genius. So simple, so straightforward. It looks encyclopedic, whereas the present infobox looks like a personal advert. Let's use it.--Gazzster (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with Queen of 16 Commonwealth realms? GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The number seems redundant; there are only 16 realms for her to be queen of and she's queen of all of them. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Howabout 'Queen of the 16 Commonwealth realms'? GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Not much different, is it? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I understand where you're coming from. By saying .. of 16 or of the 16..., it suggests there's other Commonwealth realms that she's not Queen of? GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I considered Queen of the Commonwealth realms, but that might be seen as an OR title. GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It could do, yes; essentially, to me it seems redundant at best, confusing at worst. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I assume my suggestion at 21:19 December 4, 2009, is a non-starter? GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I changed the wording into 'Queen of 16 sovereign countries' because an infobox is there so that people can quickly get the vital facts about the topic of the article without having to go elsewhere. I'm sure a lot of people don't know what a Commonwealth realm is, and would probably jumble it up with the Commonwealth in general or something. To understand what it is, they would need to go to the Commonwealth realms article, and even then they might not understand fully. So it's much simpler for readers if we have a wording like the current one, which many will understand. If we want, we could make it even simpler by putting 'Queen of 16 independent countries', which even more people would understand straight away. The point of an infobox is so that the reader can get vital information about the subject of the article and understand it easily. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 12:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Supreme Governor

I think this should be removed from the lead. It is of insufficient importance to feature there. No other encyclopedia mentions it in the first paragraph, or indeed at all. The first paragraph should concentrate on her prime role (Queen) rather than on one of her many titles included in that role. She is not a religious figure nor does she wield any personal executive power in the Church of England, as essentially all decisions are made by others. Including the title in the lead is misleading and confusing as it falsely portrays her as a religious authority and implies that she is generally known by that title. Whereas, in fact, it is a tangential detail at best. It is mentioned in the "Religion" section, where it is relevant and appropriate to do so. DrKiernan (talk) 08:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the role has become insignificant. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Concur --Snowded ^TALK 16:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree with removing that title as it is part of her powers. She may not be a religious figure on the terms of The Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury, however she is head of the Church of England and that title is Supreme Governor. She indeed used the powers she has to not attend Prince Charles and Camilla's wedding which she could have attended but chose not to as a direct result of her place as Supreme Governor The C of E (talk) 21:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

She has dozens of extra titles and supposed roles. We don't mention any of them in the lead. We just wrap them up in the all-encompassing term "Queen". I see no reason to highlight this one of many ceremonial roles. On the wedding: no, she didn't. She attended the Anglican service, which was held in Church and conducted by the Archbishop of Canterbury, as a mother not as the Queen or as the Supreme Governor. The question of why she didn't go to the civil ceremony is unanswered: some say it was security (civil weddings must by law be open to the public -- anyone can attend), others that Charles wanted it low-key because for them the main event was the religious service. DrKiernan (talk) 08:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't you make the same arguments about her being Queen "as essentially all decisions are made by others"? Should we move that down to "Reign"? The arguments for removal apply a fortiori to being Head of the Commonwealth; she has no actual role there whatever. Of course the last sentence of the paragraph, which says she is neutral and has a largely ceremonial role could then go too, since it would not make sense standing alone. What's more, the arguments against "Supreme Governor" ignore that sentence anyway, so we don't really need it, do we? -Rrius (talk) 03:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

While I'm glad that you agree we can remove "Supreme Governor" from the lead, I don't agree that the other sentences can be removed. Her "leadership" of the Church of England is an identical office to her "leadership" in terms of being Queen; they are the same position as the offices are combined in one position called "Queen". So, "Supreme Governor" is a repetition of "Queen". On the other hand, "Head of the Commonwealth" is an entirely different office that is bestowed separately and is not inherited or acquired in the same way as the "Queen/Supreme Governor" office. So, it should be mentioned separately. DrKiernan (talk) 08:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I should have been holding up my sarcasm sign. My point is that we shouldn't remove "Supreme Governor" unless there are better reasons than those put. The argument had been that she has virtually no power as Supreme Governor, which I thought rather ignored the fact that she has virtually no power as Queen and no power at all as Head of the Commonwealth. This new addition is not terribly compelling: being Supreme Governor is an aspect of her job that has nothing to do with her political role. That religious, as well as political, power flows from her is worthy of mention in the lead. It is by no means obvious that a constitutional monarch would be head of a church. If it were true that all kings and queens head established churches, then it might make sense, but that is not the case. -Rrius (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You say it "is not the case" that "kings and queens head established churches". After a brief search of wikipedia (not wholly reliable I know but then we are comparing to this article) I discover:

Margrethe II of Denmark is the head of the Danish National Church

Harald V of Norway is the head of the Church of Norway

The Church of Sweden was founded by Gustav I of Sweden, and that monarchs played a significant role in it until it was disestablished

Synod members in the Dutch Reformed Church were nominated by the King of the Netherlands until it was disestablished in 1853.

The Kings of Hanover were the Supreme Governor of the Evangelical Lutheran State Church of Hanover

The Kings of Prussia were Supreme Governors of the Prussian Protestant Church

I am not convinced that the leadership of national Protestant churches by monarchs is as unusual as you suppose. DrKiernan (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of how we may interpret her religious role, the Church of England, the world-wide Anglican Communion and the UK government recognises her as Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Her ancestor, Henry VIII did in fact establish a church, passing the role, but not the exact title, to his successors. This is a fact, verifiable beyond doubt, and that suffices.--Gazzster (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

So, you're seriously suggesting that the opening to Wilhelm II, German Emperor be changed to Wilhelm II was the Emperor of Germany, King of Prussia and Supreme Governor of the Prussian Protestant Church? DrKiernan (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not suggesting that. That's a decision for those interested in editing Wilhelm II, German Emperor, should those editors wish to raise the matter. And if he was the Supreme Governor of the Prussian Protestant Church. I'm saying that if Supreme Governor of the Church of England is one of Elizabeth's title, which it is, it may stand in a description of her roles.But if you chose to remove it from the lead, it removes nothing that a lead should say.--Gazzster (talk) 02:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

So you were able to name two modern monarchs and ignore the fact that Elizabeth has no religious role with respect to her other realms? I'm not convinced. Do the Japanese Emperors or any of the other Pacific monarchs head a church? How about Middle Eastern emirs or kings? -Rrius (talk) 02:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Henry VIII explicitly made himself 'Supreme Head' of the Church of England, breaking communion with the Bishop of Rome. The religion of the new communion remained more or less Catholic. His daughter Mary returned to Rome, but her sister, Elizabeth I revived the role of head of the Church of England, calling herself however 'Supreme Governor'. At this point the Church of England started to move away from continental Catholicism in doctrine as well as administration. This is the title that Elizabeth II inherits. I suppose if you want to say that she is not head, or Supreme Governor, of the Church of England, who is? The General Synod? The Archbishop of Canterbury? The Prime Minister of the UK, who recommends ecclesiastical appointments? None of these bodies make such a claim. The only one who does so is the Sovereign.True, she is probably just the rubber stamp for what these other authorities decide. But then you could say the same thing about her role as head of state. She's basically instructed what to do. But that doesn't make her any less the head of state.

As for a religious role in the other realms of the Commonwealth, the Church of England does not extend beyond England. The episcopal, or Anglican bodies in those countries are separate jurisdictions. And the Sovereign of the UK has no role, even honorary, in those churches. I imagine however that she would have a certain place of respect.

It is certainly unusual for a head of state to be head of a church, but the UK is an unusual polity.--Gazzster (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Not quite true, small parts of Wales are actually part of Church of England parishes (and conversely I think there are actually a few small parts of England which are actually in Church of Wales parishes and therefore not part of the established church!). The Church of England also includes the Diocese of Sodor and Man (Isle of Man), the bishop is still a Crown (prime ministerial) appointment, although not eligible to sit in the House of Lords. The Channel Islands are part of the Diocese of Winchester, though I'm not sure what the relation of the Crown is to the parishes there. The Diocese of Gibraltar in Europe has churches throughout contininental Europe, Russia and Turkey, though not a geographic jurisdiction in quite the same way as an English Diocese. David Underdown (talk) 09:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment

Should one specific role of the queen be singled out for mention in the lead, or should the lead stick to her main role? DrKiernan (talk) 09:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

In the article, but not the lead

Like most Protestant monarchs, Elizabeth II is the constitutional head of a national church. This role, in the same way as commander-in-chief and sovereign of the orders of knighthood, is part of and secondary to her role as head of state.

Her role as constitutional head of a national church is not as heavily covered in reliable sources as other aspects of her role such as nominal head of the armed forces or her charitable work, nor is it of greater importance either nationally or internationally.

Per Wikipedia:Lead section, the lead of an article should summarise the most important points of the topic, and the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance and its coverage by reliable sources.

Her role as ceremonial head of the Church of England may be or should be mentioned in the article, along with other aspects of her role, and appropriately integrated into a description of her life, but not in the lead.

Users who endorse this summary

1. DrKiernan (talk) 09:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Ibagli (Talk) 05:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment

1. --Gazzster (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC) I can see your point: a relatively unimportant role of the monarch need not be included in the lead. And that is a sound point. The difficulty though is that it can be hard to determine what is relatively unimportant. Someone may argue that since the Church of England is one of the most powerful religious institutions in the UK the Queen's role as Supreme Governor is indeed significant. On the grounds of relative unimportance one could also suggest removing references to any particular Commonwealth realm, or the headship of the Commonwealth. Personally I dont mind either way (re the C of E).--Gazzster (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• If her role as Supreme Governor is not important enough for the lead, is her role as Head of the Commonwealth? The term itself only appears in the lead. I'm more concerned with consistency than with the role itself. Although, it is a bit rich to talk about "most Protestant monarchs" when only two are mentioned and there are so few (two more?) in any event. Relying on those royal two as guides as part of a pattern that should be followed here is just silly. If we are to make a change, let's do it for good and consistent reasons. -Rrius (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

When we were discussing above whether or not to mention the territories in the lead, the general feeling was that it is not necessary to mention roles, in the lead, that are already encompassed within one that is already mentioned. Headship of a state religion is part of being head of state, however, headship of an international organisation is not. The two offices are separate and so should be mentioned separately. DrKiernan (talk) 09:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

In the lead

A quick Google search on 'role monarch England' turned up www.royal.gov.uk, which seems like it should be a definitive source. That source felt that it was worthwhile, in a brief lede, to mention her roles as Head of State, Fount of Justice, Head of the Armed Forces, and "important relationships" with the Churches of England and Scotland. That's what this notable source felt the proper weights were for her roles. Without a countering weight of reliable sources stating otherwise, it's hard to nay-say that.

Users who endorse this summary

Outback the koala (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment

But that is on a page describing the roles of the British^{I say British deliberately as the page used as a source for the above is about the Queen of the UK specifically} monarch. This article is not about the roles of the British monarch; it is about Elizabeth Windsor the person. This article should focus on the biography of the woman, not on the roles of the monarch in one of their realms. That is rightly discussed at Monarchy of the United Kingdom. DrKiernan (talk) 11:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• I endorse giving prominance to the fact that Elizabeth II is Supreme Govornor of the Anglican Church. While she lacks direct power with this role, this is true of her position as Head of the Comonwealth, and as a constitutional monarch. The position of Supreme Governor is historically extremely important, and has been held by every English monarch since Henry VIII (as Supreme Head; the current terminology was adoped in 1559, as part of Elizabeth I's religous settlement). 84.92.117.93 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, that is merely an argument for its removal, since it is a common title that every one of all the monarchs of the United Kingdom have held by virtue of their position as monarch. That is distinct from her other titles, 12 of which are unique to her alone, and one of which has only been held by one other person. In addition, something that happened 400 years before her succession to the throne is not relevant. DrKiernan (talk) 16:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that's an excellent point. At the same website, there is a section entitled "Her Majesty the Queen": http://www.royal.gov.uk/HMTheQueen/HMTheQueen.aspx

And here, the Church of England has been relegated to a minor role as a mere link to "Other Websites of Interest."

Which flips my judgment 180-degrees, and now it seems clear to me that, according to this definitive source, the church is not a major part of the Queen's life. MarkNau (talk) 17:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

A bit off topic, but is Elizabeth also 'Head of the Church of Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland'? GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The Church of Scotland denies that is the case: http://www.churchofscotland.org.uk/organisation/orgqueen.htm

MarkNau (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Howabout Wales & Northern Ireland? GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The Church of Wales was disestablished in 1921; and the Church of Ireland in the 1880s (? or thereabouts) - before the Partition of Ireland - the Church of Ireland still operates on an all-Ireland basis; so the Monarch has no particular role in those churches. These are all Anglican churches. The Church of Scotland is Presbyterian, and is the National church of Scotalnd, but not since the late 19th century the Established church in the same as the Church of England, though I believe the Monarch or their High Commissioner must be present before the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland can legally function. Ther is also in Scotland the Anglican Scottish Episcopal Church, which has a rather complicated history, but since most of its bishops were non-jurors at the time of the Glorious Revolution it has not been a state church in any form. David Underdown (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Why should her roles in the UK not be mentioned in the lead? It has been argued that the article is about the person of Elizabeth Windsor. True. But the person of Elizabeth Windsor is Queen of the UK. She is Supreme Governor of the Church of England.--Gazzster (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

1957 & 1959 US state visits

From the Queen's own mouth in 1957: "When you hear or read about the events in Washington and other places, I want you to reflect that it is the Queen of Canada and her husband who are concerned in them."[39] From Canada and the End of Empire r.e. 1959 US visit: "Diefenbaker was also determined to make it 'quite clear' to the Americans that the Queen was visiting the United States as Queen of Canada and that 'it is the Canadian embassy and not the British Embassy officials who are in charge' of the Queen's itinerary. The Queen's speeches in Chicago, written by her Canadian ministers, 'stressed steadily the fact that she had come to call as Queen of Canada."p.69 --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You're misquoting the source. It actually says she did not visit the United States as Queen of Canada in 1957. The whole section from Buckner (pp. 66–69) is about how the 1959 and 1957 visits were totally different: see for example: p67: "the brief 1957 visit (which was tacked on to a visit to the United States)" and p68: "the Liberal government enthusiastically encouraged the Queen to visit Canada en route to the United States in 1957" (my emphasis).

Buckner's view matches that of other experts on this subject: the 1959 visit to the United States was as Queen of Canada, but that is the only foreign tour ever undertaken by the Queen as Queen of Canada. Indeed, this is such a well-known truism that it even features on the Queen's website: "In 1959...The Queen undertook her first, and only, foreign visit as Queen of Canada when she met President Eisenhower in Washington, D.C."

Extending this one and only event to all other trips of the Queen to the United States is is not supportable by reliable sources. DrKiernan (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Come off it with the POV accusations, would you? I provided a source quoting the Queen herself in 1957, so it's hardly my POV. Indeed, it's your theorising that could be construed at WP:OR. I suggest you adopt a more collegial attitude if you want this to proceed smoothly. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to integrate her visit to the States in 1959 as Queen of Canada into the article. This is supportable by references. The other claims are not. DrKiernan (talk) 16:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, your insert r.e. 1959 is incorrect; the precedent of the monarch carrying out state visits from Canada to the US was set by George VI in 1939. Secondly, you've still completely ignored the Queen's speech given in 1957, none of what you've presented having rendered it inaccurate in any way. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The Queen's speech doesn't say that she is visiting the United States as only Queen of Canada. And you've ignored the official website of the Canadian monarchy which states explicitly that 1959 was the only occasion. DrKiernan (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Er, but it does: at "the events in Washington... it is the Queen of Canada... who [is] concerned in them." Even if it does conflict with the Buck House website, how else is one to take Elizabeth's words but as meaning that the trip was by the Queen to the US specifically as Canada's head of state? Here, too, the same speech is used to show that the 1957 visit was one between Canada and the US (pp. 16, 18) (interstingly, it also says Elizabeth was welcomed in America as a visitor from Canada in 1951 (p. 67)). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

One of the ministers in attendance throughout the 1957 United States tour was Selwyn Lloyd, see an example of an original document here. Selwyn Lloyd was not a Canadian minister. This differs (as pointed out by Buckner) from the 1959 trip because in 1959 the sole minister in attendance was Canadian. DrKiernan (talk) 18:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, then. So, what does that mean? That the US visit was jointly British and Canadian? Diefenbaker was the Queen's "senior advisor". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Was he? The list is obviously not in order of precedence; "Mr Orr" (no honours) is listed before Lord Plunket. If you look in the columns to the right of the list of names, you can see that Diefenbaker was only present in Washington. It was Selwyn Lloyd who was present throughout. DrKiernan (talk) 07:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The Time article says he was. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Fine, he was. So? You still don't have any sources saying she was in the United States in 1957 solely as Queen of Canada. On the 1957 trip she was attended throughout by the British foreign secretary. On Thursday 17 October, she stayed at the British embassy. On Friday 18, she attended a reception at the British embassy attended by Commonwealth diplomats. On Saturday 19, she met Commonwealth diplomats again at the British embassy, held an investiture for both Commonwealth and American citizens, laid the foundation stone of the new British embassy office building in Washington, and gave a state banquet for Eisenhower in the old British embassy building. On Sunday 20, they had lunch at the British embassy, and held a dinner at the Australian embassy, for which gold plate from Buckingham Palace was especially brought over. On Monday 21, she addressed the United Nations referring to "ten Commonwealth countries" and "the Commonwealth" in her speech, but not one specific country. In the evening, she attended a dinner at the English Speaking Union and a "Commonwealth Ball" at the 7th Regiment Armory on Park Avenue.

Besides, all this batting to and fro on the single issue of the 1957 tour is irrelevant. She is always Queen of the United Kingdom, Queen of Australia and Queen of Canada, wherever she is. She doesn't start being one and stop being the other as soon as she sets foot in the United States. It is misleading to call her "Queen of Such-place-or-another" when she is always "Queen of All These Places". You wouldn't like it if someone came along and started placing "Queen of the United Kingdom" and "the British monarch" throughout the article, so why should anyone else accept "Queen of Canada" or "the Canadian monarch"? The arguments which you yourself have put forward against the use of the former, also apply to the use of the latter. DrKiernan (talk) 15:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Who has been arguing anymore that she was there only as Queen of Canada? Of course she's always sovereign of all her realms, but we know that she also almost always is acting on behalf of one state or another. Since you've presented your evidence, I've given up the idea that she was in the US in 1957 solely as Queen of Canada; this now seems like it was one of those rarer occasions where she was representing multiple countries either at once or at specific events on one trip (like she sometimes does at D-Day ceremonies in France). My concern therefore is that we impart this information without claiming, or implying even, that she was in the US only as Queen of the UK. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see. How about phrasing along the lines of That year, she made a state visit on behalf of the Commonwealth to the United States, where she addressed the United Nations General Assembly. On the same tour she opened the 23rd Canadian Parliament, becoming the first monarch of Canada to open a parliamentary session. Two years later, on behalf of Canada, she revisited North America.? DrKiernan (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Descended from Alfred the Great

This needs to be added. Queen Elizabeth II is directly descended from King Alfred the Great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.81.221 (talk) 10:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Why? GoodDay (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Church of England, Church of Scotland

This should simply read "Anglican" - the Church of England and Church and Scotland are but two churches within the Anglican communian, of which Queen Elizabeth II is the head. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.137.138 (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The Sovereign of the UK is not head of the Anglican Communion, but of the Church of England.--Gazzster (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The Church of Scotland is not part of the Anglican Communion nor can it be described as Anglican. Plus the Queen is not head of the Kirk but rather is just an ordinary member. Scroggie (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Anon seems to be confusing the Scottish Episcopal Church with the CofS. David Underdown (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen...

I just came here from Australia, I was planning to add a note about the head of state to the intro when I realised I would have to link it to 'Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom'. Kind of odd when I was discussing her role as Queen of Australia. I do realise there's probably a precedent or policy here, but I feel the title as it stands is less then brilliant, and certainly less than neutral. Elizabeth II would rarely be referred to as Queen of the United Kingdom almost anywhere in the anglophone world (even in the US, where the less correct Queen of England prevails), the title is clumsy. It also doesn't aptly describe the article, which deals with the person in all her regal capacities, not just that as Queen of the UK. I would suggest this be moved to the more simple and more common "Elizabeth II", for reasons of neutrality and accessibility (I'd like to know how many people would first type all that when looking for this article, assuming obviously they were not previously aware of its obscure location). —what a crazy random happenstance 11:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. The current article name is a violation of NPOV and is also a made up one, 'Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom' has never before been used in any notable sources, and if I remember right it is against WP policy to make up titles/names. Elizabeth II is shorter, completely neutral, and probably the best name for the article. The reason it hasn't been moved is usually because of biased people with their own agenda stopping it from happening. There has not been any monarch or anyone else with the name 'Elizabeth II' who come even close to being as notable as The Queen. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 12:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thar this issue keeps coming up again and again should say something to those who always claim it's irrelevant. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

---

• Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom → Elizabeth II
• George VI of the United Kingdom → George VI
• Edward VIII of the United Kingdom → Edward VIII

1. In contrast to monarchs succeeding to the British throne prior to the Statute of Westminster 1931, these three monarchs all succeeded to the shared throne of the Commonwealth, and as such ruled over multiple independent states from accession. The current article titles choose one of these states in preference to the others. This could be perceived as nationalistic, non-neutral and bias.
2. In these three cases, disambiguation from other monarchs or articles by adding "of a Country" is unnecessary. Edward VIII is the only person of that name. George VI is obviously and unambiguously the prime use of that term google scholar search for "George VI of Georgia". Elizabeth II is the prime use of that term. All three suggested locations are redirects to the current titles.
3. The main reason cited by opposition to the moves in the past is adherence to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). However, the guideline permits exclusions, such as the List of rulers of Lithuania and List of Polish monarchs, and states that an unambiguous name without a country can be used.
4. The article titles relating to British monarchs already reflect changes in the political structure of the British monarchy. Prior to the Union of the Crowns, monarchs are "of Scotland" or "of England". After the Act of Union 1707, monarchs are "of Great Britain". After the Act of Union (1800), monarchs are "of the United Kingdom". There is no inconsistency if article titles also reflect changes in the political structure of the British monarchy since 1931. DrKiernan (talk) 12:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[40] User:Happenstance 08:52, 10 January 2010[41]

Discussion

• Strong Support, for the reasons I have outlined above and as per the very well argued nom, with which I agree whole-heartedly. —what a crazy random happenstance 12:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Support, for the reasons outlined above and as per the very well argued nom, with which I agree whole-heartedly. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• Very strong support (just to one-up everyone else) As I've been arguing for years in favour of such a move for all the reasons DrKiernan mentions above, how could I not be in favour of this proposal. My only question is: What happens with George V, who was on the throne when the Statute of Westminster was passed? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. Perhaps it should be moved as well. George V redirects to George V of the United Kingdom anyhow. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 15:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Incredibly strong support - I have explained my reasons so many times. In short: Moving these articles to those names, of which those persons are the only notable ones who hold them anyway, will make all those article names fully NPOV, simple, and factually correct, especially for EIIR. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 15:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• Seriously, incredibly, majestically, strong support: for all the reasons set out above. – ukexpat (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Haha! Damn you both for your one-upmanship! --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, European monarch bios are titled as X of country. More importantly, the British monarch bios are titled as X of country. Also, wheither we like it or not, the United Kingdon (though equal among 16) is commonly seen as the Queen's primary realm. GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The point is that Elizabeth isn't merely a European monarch, let alone merely a British monarch. England is commonly known as the Queen's primary realm. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

My current stance remains. We've got the multiple monarchy stuff properly mentioned in the infobox & the article content. GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps your stance does remain the same; however, it's clearly irrational. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, my reasoning is rational & that's what matters most to me. GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but, in these situations, it's convincing others that matters more than convincing yourself. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not budging. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Nobody asked you to; in fact, I've been prompting you to try and budge me (and others on my side of this debate). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not my style. GoodDay (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Which greatly weakens your argument. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That's your opinon. The closing administrator shall have the final say on what's valid & what's not. GoodDay (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I know, and it was his/her opinion I had in mind when urging you to explain yours. However, if you feel you've said enough, so be it. No worries on my part. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, for your concerns. GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Same reason as GoodDay. Surely if you want a Elizabeth II of X page then why not copy the page and place the copy under a more suitible name for a person's personal preferance. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. We have already discussed what happens when a British monarch reigns over multiple kingdoms, when we decided that James I of England was better than James VI of Scotland and I of England and Ireland. In any case, this is only postponing the inevitable; Charles III is ambiguous. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Inevitable?? Charles might predecease his mother. Failing which he would take priority over Charles III (disambiguation). Kittybrewster ☎ 20:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Really? Why (anglocentrism aside) should one suppose that he would be primary usage? Charles II isn't.
  • And William V isn't unambiguous either. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• Per WP:CRYSTALBALL, decisions on article names should be made on the basis of current information. Although we may have to move George VII to George VII of Georgia when Charles chooses the regnal name George,[42] it is not appropriate to decide on article names now in preparation for an event which may not actually happen. DrKiernan (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• He might pick Philip. He could legitamately choose Arthur, in which case we would have other, but different, issues. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per all the arguments made in umpteen previous attempted moves. These three are not unique examples of monarchs with multiple separate thrones and no-one has put forward a convincing reason for exceptionalism. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• You yourself state that they are "unique", hence the case for exceptionalism. DrKiernan (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed; I'd be intrigued to hear Timroll explain how unique does not warrant exceptionalism. He might also offer some light on why he thinks this proposal has come up "umteen" times, and is bound to come up again. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That was a typo, now corrected. And just look through the talkpage archives to find the basic same proposal coming up many times. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Please provide some examples of other monarchs with unambiguous names and numerals that rule over multiple states. I'd like to propose that they also be moved. DrKiernan (talk) 08:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I think undue importance is being placed on the Statute of Westminster 1931 as a constitutional document. Yes, its equality provisions would give the dominions much more theoretical political autonomy, but it would not be until Queen Elizabeth II that the Crown would be seen as divisible; Edward VIII would not style himself as "Edward VIII of New Zealand" for example. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• So, in other words, you support the move to Elizabeth II, but not the other two. I would also point out the Edward VIII of New Zealand is not one of the options. DrKiernan (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm neutral on the Elizabeth II article, but for the reasons laid out by other editors I'd be inclined to oppose. My understanding was that the current titles are being opposed because these monarchs were heads of state of multiple countries - though in my opinion, this doesn't change the fact that before Elizabeth succeeded to the throne, post-Statute of Westminster monarchs were still all styled exclusively as kings of the United Kingdom. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That's actually incorrect; they were "of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas," not exclusively of the United Kingdom. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose WP has a convention that articles on monarchs should usually have a title in this form. If other forms exist, they should exist only as redirects. The convention was adopted for a good reason: we need a stable format, otherwise we get an anarchy of renaming, which is not good for WP. Peterkingiron (talk)

DrKiernan already pointed in his OP out how there is no stable format. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

No, he didn't; the format differs for James I and, say, Edward VII, but the same process that leads to James I of England and Edward VII of the United Kingdom results in Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Describing this as instability is (at best) misleading; this has been stable for years. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed he did; he mentioned two deviations and a guideline that says why they're okay. He then asked why these articles should not also be allowed exceptions to the rule, and the question has, so far, not really been answered. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose This proposal is an incredible can of worms, don't go there. There is a strong presumption on Wikipedia that monarchs are "Joe X of Ruritania", it needs a strong case to overturn this. The nominator claims that deciding that one country was a monarch's primary realm is nationalistic bias, this ignores the fact that some monarchs before this are described as "of England", "of Great Britain" or "of the United Kingdom" even though they were also monarch of Ireland or Hanover. Several French kings were also king of Navarre. George VI is not unambiguous, is it nationalistic bias to regard the UK king as primary meaning of this name even though we also have George VI of Georgia and George VI of Imereti? The Statute of Westminster is a relatively minor technical re-adjustment, it could come as a surprise to most people that it marked a fundamental shift in the nature of the UK monarchy. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but our naming conventions should be robust enough to cope with some developments which may well take place fairly soon without having to be fundamentally re-adjusted e.g. if we get "Charles III of the UK" competing with Charles III of Spain. We have several monarchs already who are the sole or primary meaning of a given name e.g. George III, IV and V of the UK, Robert III and James V of Scotland, should they all be moved? Or does the "Commonwealth Realms" have a unique character? If you read guidelines, you will see that Lithuania gets through because its monarchs had a completely different namestock with the rest of Europe. PatGallacher (talk) 02:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

There was once a strong perception that men were better then women, and boy was solving that a can of worms. Yes, melodramatic, but just because a convention has been enshrined by a select group of traditional monarchist editors doesn't mean that said convention is right or neutral. The other monarchs named as such are named for a very simple reason - that was their most common English name. "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" in NOT the most common name of said queen anywhere in the anglophone world, especially not in the non-British Commonwealth realms, the population of which incidentally exceeds that of the UK. Though I doubt Canadians and Australians will search Wikipedia for "Elizabeth II of Canada" or "of Australia", they will be quite surprised to find her at this location, as I was. The arrangement is a violation of neutrality. —what a crazy random happenstance 02:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, educated Australians are very aware that, in relation to the British Isles, she's not "Queen of England" but "Queen of the UK". They're just as aware that, in relation to our country, she's Queen of Australia. They know she wears many hats. But she's still very much thought of as a British person, who lives in Britain where she continues the tradition of monarchs of those faraway isles, speaks with a decidedly British accent, consults with her British PM far, far more often than she does with any of her other PMs, and visits Australia only every now and then, and when she does have occasion to acknowledge the existence of her Australian realm, she does not pronounce the name of the country the way her antipodean subjects do. So it's not all that shocking for us to find our monarch referenced as "Queen of the UK". (Disclaimer: This should not be seen as support for the NO case, as I'm currently on the fence about it). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 05:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I found your response fantastic and humorous, but I'm sure the monarchists would disagree, and they're obviously a (the?) stakeholder group here. We're not proposing that Elizabeth II of the UK be moved to Elizabeth II of Australia, merely to Elizabeth II. It makes sense, how often have you heard her referred to as 'Elizabeth II of the UK', both in Australia and overseas? I don't think I've ever heard 'Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom' in my life. The Queen should be placed at the most common name, the one where the most people are likely to go looking for her, and though you don't find the neutrality thing to be an issue yourself, I'm sure you can see how it may be considered one by some. This vote comes up every few months, and the only argument the oppose-voters really have is 'we want to keep the status quo, change is hard and scary'. —what a crazy random happenstance 15:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

If I may correct you, I did not say or claim it was nationalistic bias. I said it could be perceived as bias. Racism/nationalism is often in the eye of the beholder, rather than in the thought of the doer. My point is that if we can easily avoid offending people who are sensitive to such matters, then we should avoid offending them. So, if we can easily avoid offending readers simply by removing a few words that are unnecessary anyway, and without any loss of meaning or understanding, then we should do it. DrKiernan (talk) 09:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose Monarchs are of a particular country. --IdiotSavant (talk) 03:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right, I propose this be moved to 'Elizabeth II of Barbados', or perhaps 'Elizabeth II of Tuvalu'. The queen does not rule those nations in her capacity as Queen of the United Kingdom but completely separately as Queen of Tuvalu and Queen of Barbados. They are entirely independent nations, with their own succession laws and their own monarchy. —what a crazy random happenstance 03:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Monarchs are of a particular country? This just shows you couldn't even be bothered to read the article at hand. QEII is Queen and Head of State, equally, of 16 sovereign countries. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 04:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a problem I perceive in this discussion (and have in others like it); people "vote" without familiarising themselves either with the article or the argument for the move, giving a knee-jerk reaction rather than a formulated reply. It's depressing. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support. The present naming convention for royalty is silly. We should be using the name most commonly used by reliable sources, disambiguated as necessary. I understand this is difficult for royalty, but that is no reason to throw our hands in the air and give up. Hesperian 05:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support for Elizabeth II. Extraordinary circumstances call for extraordinary solutions. Neutral on others.--Ibagli (Talk) 05:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Should we not include the title of Queen, in the page title if we are eliminating the UK part at the end? I see it as her most widely used title regardless of country. Plus it seems fairly neutral to me.Outback the koala (talk) 05:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose per the fact that I sympathize with the reasons behind the proposal, but I do not think it is in wikipedia's best interests to make these pages an exception to the present naming conventions, at this time. Outback the koala (talk) 04:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I quote WP:NCROY:

"Where a monarch has reigned over a number of states, use the most commonly associated ordinal and state. For example, Charles II of England, not Charles II of England, Scotland and Ireland; Philip II of Spain, not Philip I of Portugal, although there should be redirects from these locations. When several states are so associated, it is proper and often desirable to give the others compensating prominence in the introduction of the article." Earlier it states explicitly that pre-emptively disambiguating monarchs by country is an exception to the general rule of most common name on Wikipedia. If I understand people correctly, they are objecting to the guideline that in cases of dual, triple monarchy etc. we refer to the monarch by their most important country, on the grounds that this introduces bias. This would have implications for dozens of monarchs and in many cases would raise the question of how we do disambiguate them. At the very least, this should have been raised on the talk page for WP:NCROY instead of inserting the thin end of a very thick wedge in relation to just 3 monarchs. Also, "Elizabeth II" is not her most common name, in Britain she is usually just known as "the Queen", and BBC News 24, aimed at an international audience, calls her "Queen Elizabeth". I am genuinely puzzled by the claim that she is "exceptional", in what way? PatGallacher (talk) 10:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment DrKiernan did have the merit of recognising that this proposal could have wider implications when he said "Please provide some examples of other monarchs with unambiguous names and numerals that rule over multiple states. I'd like to propose that they also be moved." Actually, George VI of the UK is not unambiguous although he is the primary meaning of George VI, there were also kings of Georgia and Imereti. Examples are: Louis XIII, Louis XIV, Louis XV and Louis XVI of France, all unambiguous names and numerals who were also king of Navarre, George III and George IV of the United Kingdom, not unambigous but the primary meaning who were also king of Hanover, and Anne of Great Britain, the only monarch of this name who was also Queen of Ireland. You can probably find other examples e.g. from Scandinavia. Should they all be moved? PatGallacher (talk) 11:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

"King of Navarre" is a title, in the same way that "King of Bohemia" was a title of the Austrian emperors. It doesn't mean that Navarre or Bohemia were independent sovereign states. Similarly, Ireland was not an independent sovereign state; its parliament was subordinate to that of Westminster. These examples are not pertinent. You are correct that Georges III and IV were kings of two independent sovereign states, but does anyone from Hanover complain that the article titles are wrong? There does not appear to be a perception of bias in those two cases. DrKiernan (talk) 12:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually Navarre was an independent sovereign state at the start of the reign of Louis XIII, up to 1620. The Irish parliament was subordinate to Westminster during the period we are discussing, but the Scottish parliament was not, it retained some degree of genuine independence up to 1707. Wikipedia guidelines should be sufficiently robust and impartial that we should not have to wait from complaints from specific countries before avoiding bias. PatGallacher (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, so we agree. Louis XIII, etc are not valid examples because Navarre was subordinate to France from that point on, and Ireland is not a valid example because it was subordinate to England. DrKiernan (talk) 09:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

That still doesn't answer the point about Scotland during 1603-1707. With Louis XIII, do we deal with the situation at the start of his reign, when Navarre was a state, or the end of his reign when it was not? The Kingdom of Hanover was not that unimportant, it was independent enough have different laws of succession from the UK (unlike the Commonwealth Realms today) and get a different monarch in 1837. I used to think it was a small strip of territory myself, it was only when I looked at the map in the article a few minutes ago that I realised it covered a large part of northern Germany. See WP:BIAS, opposing systemic bias on Wikipedia is to be encouraged, we do not have to wait for complaints from the people who have been biased against. PatGallacher (talk) 13:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we should stick in Louis XIII's case to the end of the reign for simplicity's sake. I think it's fine just to add "and Scotland" to Charles I, Charles II and Mary II. It is just an extra two words on top of four words and really isn't too onerous. I'm not sure what to do in the other cases, as their article titles would increase to eight or more words, which is beginning to get a little unwieldy. Anyway, we can't propose changes in this discussion for other pages beyond the three mentioned above. For other pages, a new discussion will have to be started. DrKiernan (talk) 13:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support - no reason to have the bizarre disambiguators when these are clearly primary topics. All the oppose arguments seem to be "we can't do this because it's against the rules", which is ridiculous - if the rules would lead us to do stupid things, then we either tweak the rules or make an exception. If consistency is an issue, then it's far more valuable to be consistent with Wikipedia's global naming principles than with one specific topic guideline (which has also spawned the even more atrocious article title Victoria of the United Kingdom).--Kotniski (talk) 11:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). Change the convention, not the article. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You mean don't change the article without changing the convention, presumably, but the convention would naturally be updated to reflect the changes, so this is another example of what I regard as a non-argument.--Kotniski (talk) 12:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I do not mean that, and I request that you do not regard my point as "a non-argument". My point is that if a convention is problematic, then you need to seek a consensus to change it, otherwise the convention will be reapplied to any change made here, because it forms the basis of right and wrong at a macro level. No consensus = no change. A convention has and always will have more weight than a article talk page. As stated in WP:MOS, "consistency promotes professionalism... and eases navigation for our readers"; the selective application of conventions is unwise as it sets precedent for irrational debate and irrational users to cite as an example to enforce unreasonable changes. I'm not saying I support the convention, but if it is not serving its purpose then it would be more productive and sustainable to change it before anything else. For that reason, I maintain my strong opposition to changing the title on the basis that we have a convention that should not be broken. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a little backwards. Policies, guidelines and conventions on Wikipedia describe actual practices. When the guidelines are out of synch with practice, that indicates the guideline needs to be changed. older ≠ wiser 14:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

...or that an action needs to be reverted back to established convention? But you make my point for me: change the guideline first, article second; it will have much more longevity. What is there to fear? --Jza84 |  Talk  14:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Where a guideline does not reflect actual practice, it should be changed, not vice versa. Changing a guideline without the context of actual practice is difficult at best.

While I don't object to a change in the guideline, for this proposal specifically, the guideline already allows for exceptions (and exceptions do exist). In other words, the guideline is actually a seperate matter all together. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support per Hesperian, Kotinski and others. The naming conventions for royalty (and other nobility) are bizarrely counterintuitive and often result in completely unnecessary pre-emptive disambiguation when the common name should be used instead. older ≠ wiser 12:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support Naming conventions allow of exceptions. 'Elizabeth II' is unambiguous. There is no risk of confusion with any other current or historical figures. She is a monarch of 16 sovereign countries, all of which have their own titles for Elizabeth II.--Gazzster (talk) 13:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support as per the comments above but more importantly per WP:NPOV the article titles are not neutral it recognise one country over all others, if there is a reason to disambiguate between multiple people then the disambiguation should by the period of reign. Gnangarra 13:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

What a good idea! Actually, on further reflection, I've come to see how that wouldn't work, as it would only lead to the question of: period of which reign? Elizabeth II, for instance, has reigned over thirty-odd countries in her time, all beginning and ending at different points. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support per Kotniski and others. Wikipedia rules are one thing, common sense is second thing. There is a difference between monarch of one small territory and monarch-head of state of 16 different countries. This should be reflected. - Darwinek (talk) 13:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support - as common sense, as others have explained in detail here. Jeni ^(talk) 15:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - I would suggest that anyone who thinks "Elizabeth II" is somehow a more "common" name for this person than "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" is not really thinking. Most people worldwide know her simply as "the Queen". Deb (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

  After writing this I noticed that someone had made the same point above, which to my mind reinforces the argument. Deb (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

  Your argument doesn't make sense. Even if more people know her as "the Queen", so what? What we're looking at is which one of the following: 'Elizabeth II' or 'Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom' is more commonly used? The first one for sure. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 16:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

  "Which queen?" "Elizabeth II". Quad erat demonstrandum. —what a crazy random happenstance 16:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Because your argument is that "Elizabeth II" is her most common name - and it isn't. Deb (talk) 18:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

We have to interpret "most common name" as "name most commonly expected to be used as the title of an encyclopedia article". Barack Obama is commonly referred to in the US as "the President", just as E2 is referred to as "the Queen", but that does not mean there should be articles titled "The President" or "The Queen". The person people mean when they say "the Queen" is the person they would expect to find in an encyclopedia as "Elizabeth II" or "Queen Elizabeth II". Just as they would expect to find Queen Victoria referenced as, surprise, "Queen Victoria". And if they did come across an article called "Elizabeth II" while browsing, they would assume it was about the one who currently lives in Buckingham Palace, not some obscure eastern European they'd never heard of before. For these reasons, I have decided to ...

Per Deb, most models of automobile are most commonly known by the common noun "car"; but if you actually read the "use the most common name" guideline, you'll discover that we're to use the most common name as used by reliable sources. The reliable sources we would use when writing an article about a specific model of automobile are going to refer to that model by its model name or number, not by the generic "car". How this relates to "the Queen" I shall leave as an exercise for the reader.... Hesperian 06:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support - as per the foregoing. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
• Strong oppose the numbering comes from being monarch of England, so it should be Elizabeth II of England, etc. The numbering of Scottish monarchs differed, and this is the first queen regnant by the name of Elizabeth for the Dominions of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, so... II never did make sense. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 05:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The above contribution should be stricken as both incorrect and irrelevant. The proposal has nothing to do with regnal numbers. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Not to worry Mies, Wikipedia is not a democracy, and this is not a vote. If there are completely incorrect and irrelevant statements, they can and will be ignored when seeing what the current consensus is here. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 05:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the numbering for whichever country would be higher? ----Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

No, because then we'd have James VI and VII rather than I and II. The numbering is another weakness of the present name; if we said "Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom" (which I believe is the official form) that wouldn' be so bad, but the name we've invented implies that she's the second Elizabeth of the UK.--Kotniski (talk) 09:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

And I don't believe the closing admin reads all the arguments. It won't make any difference here because we all know the result will be "no consensus", but I think the strong oppose above should be struck or at least asterisked or something, since the argument that follows it is clearly for the proposal if anything.--Kotniski (talk) 09:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support The current title should be about her role in the UK whereas the title with just her name should be more biographical. I'd like to see that format become our standard convention rather than making an exception for her. ----Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose First, because the criteria for article names exist to aid readers in finding whom they seek, and thus consist of common usage in conjunction with related factors, e.g. specificity (so not "The Queen") and suitability (so not "Queen Liz"), etc: Second, because I am not convinced that the intent of this effort is to use the most common name so much as to substitute in the most common name which promotes a POV principle -- even though the principle in question (equality of a monarch's various realms) is one I support & promote, but which I believe is best explained directly in the article rather than subliminally through selection of a title that's misleading (by suggesting that these monarchs are not widely associated with one of their realms more than with the others) and out-of-synch with names of other monarchs in this sequence: third, the laboriously evolved and evolving Naming conventions seems the appropriate place to first discuss a change (or exception) which may have wider implications than this article. FactStraight (talk) 07:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Locations of explanation aside (there's no reason why the lead infomation has to change because of a neutral title), this begs two questions: Do naming conventions trump NPOV? And, is "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" really the most common name for the subject of this article? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Neutral. As editors on both sides of the debate have criticised my conduct during the debate, I have withdrawn my "vote!". DrKiernan (talk) 08:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

Since this keeps coming up and it's unlikely that any obvious consensus will ever be reached through these standard move debates, perhaps we could aim towards a community poll along the lines of the recent Ireland naming poll, to choose between a few reasonable options for monarch naming?--Kotniski (talk) 11:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I would probably hold off on such a vote until at least this move is resolved, just to get a feeling of where the community is heading. Think of it as a litmus test for a larger vote. —what a crazy random happenstance 15:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree - I don't think many people have really thought it through or seen the argument in the context of an on-line encyclopedia. Besides, most wikipedia contributors live in countries that have no monarchy or titled classes and don't really understand the rationale behind the conventions. Deb (talk) 16:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't pander to royalty, we're an encyclopaedia. I think the majority understand that and agree, regardless of nation – they are not simply ignorant, as you suggest. —what a crazy random happenstance 07:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Concern

I have grave concerns over DrKiernan (talk · contribs), and his actions at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) ([43], [44], [45]) during this debate. I do not think that is proper. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

DrKiernan has now initiated a discussion here. I too am somewhat disheartened to see such behaviour by an admin. Though he did not violate WP:3RR his edits bordered on edit warring, and were probably not appropriate given the ongoing discussion here. I hope they do not reflect poorly on this move, the validity of which ought not to be put in question by his behaviour. —what a crazy random happenstance 15:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Kiernan has declared his position, and as a user he has the right to pursue his argument. I should hope though, that as an admin, he would exclude himself from making decisions for these articles, if he were to feel called upon to do so. Those naming conventions, which are not binding in any case, are for European monarchs. As Miesianical and others have pointed out, Elizabeth II is sovereign of only one European nation. The case of the 16 realms that share the same monarch is pretty much sui generis: their relationship to Elizabeth II is unique in the history of the world, and I don't see why the naming conventions can't make exceptions to reflect that.--Gazzster (talk) 02:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Unique? Not at all; not only is there her direct ancestor James I of England who reigned over three realms; but there are also innumerable cases of rulers who reigned over several distinct realms and technically had a different title for each of them; the Habsburgs, the Romanovs, and the Hohenzollerns rang up more than sixteen. In all such cases, we use the best known title and country (Holy Roman Empire, Russia, and Prussia, respectively). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Gazzster's main point, and one I've stressed as well, is that EIIR (as with George VI, Edward VIII, and George V after 1931) is not simply a European monarch. Her sovereignty covers areas on four continents; that is unique. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Neither was Philip II of Spain's. So? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

What independent and sovereign kingdom outside of Europe did he reign over? --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 05:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

New Spain. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

In the article Philip II of Spain, it is not even mentioned he was King of New Spain. Furthermore in the article New Spain it clearly states that it was a Spanish colony. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 05:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The relationship is also unique in that the union is not dominated by a single nation. The same cannot be said of the Stewart, Hanoverian, Hohenzollern, Habsburg and Romanoff dynastic unions.--Gazzster (talk) 05:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

So, tell us: what single nation dominated Austria-Hungary? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Gazzster, he may have the right to pursue his argument, an argument with which I agree, but not by edit warring. Disappointing behaviour by an admin. Did you even look at the diffs? They were simple reverts, and he only stopped when he placed himself in danger of breaching WP:3RR. —what a crazy random happenstance 05:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

To Sept: Austria-Hungary was dominated by Austria and Hungary more or less equally, to the detriment of smaller monarchies and duchies in dynastic union with the Habsburgs: eg., Croatia, Bohemia and Galicia-Lodomeria.To Happenstance: sure, he reverted, like we're all allowed to do. And he stopped short of breaching 3RR.Which would suggest to me that he is not prepared to violate Wikipedia convention.--Gazzster (talk) 07:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not defending his reverts. I'm just pointing out he hasn't overstepped any boundaries yet.--Gazzster (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

3RR is a rule of thumb, not a policy. Edit warring is. His edits were border-line edit warring. —what a crazy random happenstance 07:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

This page is for discussing articles not editors. DrKiernan (talk) 08:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The OP of this section expressed a concern that your actions have negatively affected the poll. I think we should just AGF and let this be, though I agree with the OP that your actions were unjustified. —what a crazy random happenstance 08:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I have already responded to the accusation at a more appropriate location to discuss editor behaviour. Duplicating the thread here is forum shopping. DrKiernan (talk) 10:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawal of requested move

Can Dr Kiernan do that? Unilaterally close off a discussion like that? Just because he was the originator, does not mean he "owns" the proposal. There has been significant support for it, along with significant opposition, and the discussion should be allowed to run its course, imo, with or without the originator's involvement. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Have it your way, I've re-opened it. DrKiernan (talk) 08:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.--Gazzster (talk) 08:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I've unstruck the rationale for the move request, that was deeply inappropriate. I've also fixed the strike-through on your other contribs in order to preserve indentation, leaving them otherwise untouched. It is very unusual to strike-through one's contributions to an entire debate, even if one has changed his mind. —what a crazy random happenstance 08:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Fine, as I said, have it your way. Now that I'm neutral, it doesn't much matter to me one way or the other. DrKiernan (talk) 08:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of interest, can you explain what arguments made you change your position?--Kotniski (talk) 09:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I've changed my "vote!" and my comments. That is not the same as changing my position. Like many other editors here, my actions are often determined by my petulance and temperament rather than by logic and argument. DrKiernan (talk) 09:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

This has to be the first time I've ever seen an admin throw a tantrum. —what a crazy random happenstance 10:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Then you must be very new. DrKiernan (talk) 10:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Been contributing longer than you. Are you really so petty you would attempt to derail a process you agree with just to sulk? Congratulations, because I'm flabbergasted. At least I have the honesty to admit I don't have the temperament to be an admin, you'd rather do a disservice to the community. —what a crazy random happenstance 11:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The debate has run its course. The result is no consensus. I see no reason to prolong it just so that you and Jza84 can insult me. It is better to close discussions that lead nowhere rather than let them degenerate into arguments over editor behaviour that have no bearing on the actual article. DrKiernan (talk) 11:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Moves usually run for a week at minimum, not a day, as I'm sure you're well aware. Jza84 had a sole pertinent edit, namely the raising of a quite legitimate and politely-put concern about your behaviour. I merely agreed that your actions were somewhat inappropriate, with no prejudice towards you. You threw a tantrum. It was only at that point that I expressed my amazement at the childishness your actions. But I do agree we should return to debating the article rather than you, this is leading nowhere. —what a crazy random happenstance 12:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

With respect, Kiernan, the debate has not run its course. On the contrary, it was stopped suddenly and unexpectedly by yourself.It would appear for an entirely personal reason, as admitted by yourself. The object of the debate is not to criticise your actions. You can hardly expect us not to comment when a supposedly unbiassed admin arbitrarily closes a discussion without the slightest indication that it is at an end.--Gazzster (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Clarified. DrKiernan (talk) 08:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Other Wikipedias

I decided to have a quick look at how Wikipedias in other languages handle this issue. After translation, the Spanish and French Wikipedias do have her at Elizabeth II of the UK. The German has her at plain Elizabeth II, it seems that they normally refer to a monarch without a country name if this is unambiguous e.g. they have plain Edward VI, VII and VIII, Louis XI to XVIII, but they are not totally consistent, they also have Victoria (UK), Edward V (England) and James V (Scotland). They have George III (UK), George IV (UK) and William IV (UK) even though I assume many German Wikipedians live within what was the Kingdom of Hanover, also Charles I (England). However plain "George VI." will just redirect you to a list of kings called George, they do not judge whether George VI (UK) is more important than George VI (Georgia).

I prefer our existing approach to the German approach, but if we did go for the German approach we ought to do so consistently so we all know where we are. PatGallacher (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

As I'm sure you'd agree, there's a danger in direct comparison with other language wikipedias because usages can have nuances and implications that we're not familiar with. But for what it's worth, we have adopted the same general conventions and disambiguation practices on the Welsh wikipedia as on the English, except that we have changed from "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" to "Elizabeth II, queen of the United Kingdom". Deb (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Dw i'n hoffi Cymraeg! That's all the Welsh I know though. :) There's also the problem that German and French speakers would due to their geographic location almost universally consider her the queen of the UK, perhaps often not even being aware of the other Commonwealth realms. English is a far more global language, and most speakers would be aware of the extent of the realms because to most Anglophones the Commonwealth is more pertinent than to most, say, Francophones. The common usage in those languages would differ from that in English. There's also the issue that many foreign language Wikipedias could have taken their lead from the enwiki without perhaps having even formulated a guideline of their own, or copied our flawed guideline. I don't think we should look to foreign wikis on this vote. —what a crazy random happenstance 15:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there is a fairly large number of French speakers in Canada. The 2nd paragraph of the Spanish Wikipedia entry lists in full the countries where she is queen, so they are aware of the issue, and remember there are more Spanish speakers in the Americans than Europe. The Tok Pisin Wikipedia calls her "Elisabet 2 bilong Papua Niugini" (but maybe that's their prerogative) and the Maori Wikipedia calls her what looks as if it might mean Elizabeth the Second, but these are very small Wikipedias which do not even have an entry for her father, so they have not had to developing consistent naming conventions. (These are the only examples I can think of of languages spoken in the 18 other Commonwealth realms.) PatGallacher (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, trying to find cross-language conventions is not helpful because there aren't any.There isn't even a consistent Anglophone convention. In the USA she is mostly 'Elizabeth II, Queen of England'. In my country, Australia, she is invariably simply 'Elizabeth II'. The dynastic union of the Commonwealth realms is unique. --Gazzster (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I obviously don't think that they would be entirely ignorant of her other realms, I merely suggested that the majority (which shapes the 'common name') wouldn't be aware of them. The 6.8 million strong Quebecois population is negligible compared the the 500 million strong francophone population worldwide. —what a crazy random happenstance 04:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)