Talk:Elizabeth II

Every Continent?

Qote from the article: ...and their total land area makes Elizabeth one of only a few monarchs to reign over parts of every continent on earth.

Does this refer to monarchs who have in the past reigned over parts of every continent on earth (in which case it is IMO gramatically ambiguous, maybe ...monarchs to have reigned... would fit better?), which would clearly only include her and a few of her predecessors, or does it indeed mean CURRENT monarchs reigning over parts of... etc?

In the latter case i would be wondering how there could be anybody else but her, seeing that Australia is a continent in itself, and she reigns over it. Lbocgn (talk) 02:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Only monarchs of the United Kingdom have reigned over Australia and the six colonies that formed it. The failed Dutch colonies of the 17th century (the island continent now known as Australia was named Nova Hollandia in 1644) were during the republic. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 03:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The Dutch Monarch would also have had a colony in every continent too. Off the top of my head... New York, Suriname, Aruba, South Africa, And here is the photo of their Asian/Oceanian colonies. [File:Dutch_and_Portuguese_in_Asia_c._1665.png] CaribDigita (talk) 02:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

At the time that New York (or New Amsterdam) as it was then was a Dutch colony The (northern) Netherlands were not a monarchy buit a republic although the head of state was usually a member of the House of Orange Penrithguy (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The maternity ward of Ottawa Hospital was temporarily part of the Netherlands in 1943 so Princess Margriet would be a Dutch citizen. Back to the original topic, nobody has yet mentioned that Antarctica is a continent. The terms of the Antarctic Treaty about sovereignty make the claim of "reign over parts of every continent on earth" dubious. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 03:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

How so? Even if one discounts Antarctica as a continent, Elizabeth still reigns over territory on all the remainings ones. --Miesianiacal (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The IP's point is what happens if one does not discount Antarctica as a continent. -- Jao (talk) 14:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see now. My mistake. Well, I don't know what the IP means about the terms of the Antarctic Treaty. It would seem to me that if the UK and Australia both have an Antarctic territory, then the Queen's sovereignty extends to that continent. --Miesianiacal (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If the IP user is referring to main treaty of the Antarctic Treaty System, it does not recognize or dispute any claims to sovereignty. Portions of the continent are claimed and controlled by the UK, Australia, and New Zealand, so on what basis would Wikipedia refuse to recognize the claims? -Rrius (talk) 15:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

QE II's decision to forbid resettlement of Diego Garcia by native Chagos Islanders

Clearly that should be here. The case was in the British courts and the court granted that they be allowed to return to their native island after being forcibly deported. The Queen then intervened and overruled the court by granted the British Government a "Royal Prerogative" or the power to forbid the Chagos Islanders from ever being able to move from the UK back to their native islands. Clearly that is a human rights issue involving the Queen. CaribDigita (talk) 03:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Sounds interesting. Go for it. Incidentally, I notice there's no 'Controversy' section. Perhaps there should in biography or so significant a person.--Gazzster (talk) 04:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It was not a personal decision by the Queen. It would make no more sense to include it than controversial lines from openings of parliament. I have removed the section as it is violation of the policy on the policy on biographies of living persons to imply that she somehow personally chose to ban the return of Chagos Islanders to Diego Garcia, as the inclusion of such an issue on this page does. It should remain off of this page without clear citations showing her personal involvement (beyond exercising the royal prerogative on the advice of her government).--Ibagli rnbs mbs (Talk) 04:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Islanders accuse Queen of illegal eviction ( http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article749321.ece )December 6, 2005

The Chagos islanders are saying they are going to take the case to the European Court of Human Rights since they also got turned down by the Law Lords of the UK. She was Queen also when this happened in the 1960s and 1970s. CaribDigita (talk) 05:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

From the link: ""On June 10, 2004, the right they thought they had, and believed they had, was removed from them," he said. "Not by Parliament, but by Her Majesty the Queen acting through Orders in Council on advice from the Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office." Until and unless other controversial actions by the British government in the name of the Queen are listed on here, this should not be. What's next? Putting every court case where the Queen is listed as the defendant?--Ibagli rnbs mbs (Talk) 05:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ibalgi. There is no controversy section as she is politically neutral not to mention extremely well behaved. Many actions are carried out in the name of the Crown, but those actions belong on pages about the government, not on the page about our gracious sovereign. ;) Best, --Cameron* 12:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I too agree with Ibalgi, you worded it well Cameron, these belong elsewhere, not on the article of our wonderful neutral Queen. Besides, the Queen can do no wrong.--Knowzilla 15:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not touching the "Wonderful neutral Queen" sentiment :-) however you're statement does hold water. It is often said to illustrate this, the Queen does not rule she reigns the later is the role of the Monarch or their Governors-General(in the realms) nowadays. CaribDigita (talk) 03:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• 'Wonderful neutral Queen'? There's a fine example of NPOV for you.What, has she been neutered or something? She is not a goddess, but a human being (shock, horror!) Like every human being, she is subject to human frailty. Like all of us, she has a positive side and a darker side. Why should her august majesty be exempt from any treatment of controversy, when other world leaders aren't? In matters regarding the Royal Prerogative, she is not accountable to Parliaments or heads of Government; she has a certain amount of discretion. So her personality is involved. Now, treating of controversial issues is not forming a value judgement, as some seem to think. It is reporting than an issue is regarded as controversial. I would suggest trying to establish that this particular case is controversial or no.--Gazzster (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If there's an actual controversy, fine. This is not something that has to do with her; it is an act of the Foreign Secretary. If it is notable enough for treatment there, then great, but Cameron is right. Unless every major criminal case in the UK, Canada, and the other Commonwealth countries is going to be listed, let's be consistent about how we deal with acts on advice of ministers or that are her acts in name only. -Rrius (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm perfectly fine with a controversy section, assuming well-cited controversies can be found, which I'm sure is hardly an insuperable barrier. This is not a controversy involving the Queen, though. This is a controversy involving the Ministry of Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and/or the Ministry of Defence. There is no evidence that she "had a certain amount of discretion" on this issue. If this is added, it will set a precedent for every action taken by the government to be added to this page. Her approval of the Order was no different than the Royal Assent given to bills passed by parliament. There are some on here (not naming names) who make sure that "approved by the Queen/Governor General on the advice of..." is added to every single thing it can be, and I think they've sowed some of the seeds for this, actually. It personalizes the impersonal. As it stands right now, however, approval is impersonal. Disapproval, unless also done on the advice of the government, is a different story altogether, but that doesn't happen because that would show a personal opinion instead of rightfully pawning consequences of actions off on the democratically-selected government.--Ibagli rnbs mbs (Talk) 02:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep this has nothing to do with Queen Elizabeth II, its not her choice what her elected national government does. If there is a controversy section, then it must be about her not her governments with perhaps a mention of things like what happened after Dianas death etc. But there has not been royal scandals with the Queen like there has been for Harry or Charles so im not sure one is needed at all. I fully agree with Ibagli, such text being included in the article was a clear violation of wikipedia policies when dealin with living people. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

elizabeth

she ruled by giving an allegience to all the people of the country equally (Doramefasolate (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC))

Hello Doramefasolate, welcome to wikipedia. Are you trying to correct something that is currently written in the article? Or perhaps make an addition i.e. her ruling authority being based on an oath she made which promises loyalty to the people? What you have posted caused a little confusion because your message is unclear...perhaps you could try and spell it out for us a little better? Gavin (talk) 23:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Elizabeth II doesn't rule, she reigns. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Assassination attempts/plots

There have been reports of multiple assassination attempts/plots over the years but apart from the one mention of Front de libération du Québec this is not really covered in WP. There has been some discussion in the media about IRA plots over the years but this is presumably covered by a D-Notice. The al-Qaeda plot in Uganda last year has been reported[1][2][3][4] and most recently a failed assassination attempt in Australia in 1970[5][6][7][8][9] has been revealed. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

In addition, Christopher John Lewis actually fired a shot at the Queen in Dunedin, New Zealand on the 14th of October 1981. It is outlined in Tom Lewis's 1998 book Coverups and Copouts.121.73.33.101 (talk) 20:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

What happened to our bravery section? We had some assassinations mentioned there. --Cameron* 17:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

[10]

OK, thanks Doc. See "Public perception and character" for more info. Someday I will get round to creating a page about EIIR's assassination attempts... ;) --Cameron* 21:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Why give age in info box... ?

Something caught my eye & hit me in a kind of funny way when I read the info box:

Born 21 April 1926 (age 82) Mayfair, London

At first glance, *age 82* between parentheses makes it appear as if Elizabeth was 82 years old when she was born.

Then one realises that *age 82* must have been the age when info box was filled; however, when one looks at the photograph that says *Elizabeth in 2007*, result of the calculation is *81* !!! Very confusing!

Now since someone who reads a wiki article is supposed to be able to read, write & count, (oh! why should wiki readers be treated as if they were first graders???!!!) why is it necessary to put an age beside a date? Queen Elisabeth being born in 1926, she will be 83 on her 2009 birthday, as she was 80 at same in 2006. Anyone should be able to calculate her age & there is no reason to burden the info box with unnecessary details that become obsolete as years change.

An info box should be 'slim', i.e. show exact details in a concise manner, no unnecessary details that either one can calculate or are developed in article. An info box should be read at a glance with no question needed to be asked.

Not an 'habituée' of English history article, I am not going to change anything in info box - only wanted to give my point of view.

Frania W. (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

How is the date under the photograph confusing? Surely if most users can count, most users can also tell that photographs don't magically update themselves every year. Could you explain how anyone could intelligently assume that she is 81 because of that? It also won't become obsolete. The age automatically updates on April 21 each year, as it's an age calculation template. Currently she is 82. On April 21 this year, it will change to 83 without any intervention by an editor.--Ibagli rnbs mbs (Talk) 08:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Most biography pages list the age after the dob. Check out some other politician's wikipedia pages for comparison. It's perfectly standard. ;) --Cameron* 16:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello! No, it is not the date under the photograph that is confusing, it is the ensemble of dates with the age given between parentheses beside *born*. When you know that it is meant to be the age at present time, it is fine; however, it can be confusing at first glance when one is not used to wikipedia style. Why not have right in front of that age something like *present age*. And I do maintain what I wrote above: Something ... hit me in a kind of funny way, because, if unaware of wikipedia template activities, one reads born on such a date at such an age. That's all! Frania W. (talk) 17:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Previously discussed at Template talk:Birth date and age/Archive 1#born aged 42 - ouch!, Template talk:Birth date and age/Archive 1#Why display the age?, Template talk:Birth date and age#Suggestion: current age. Also raised at other biography talk pages (Spinney, Williams, Hughes, Stewart, Bush, to mention a few). This seems to be a big problem for some, but the people over at the template talk page stress space concerns instead. —JAO • T • C 18:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Jao: Thank you for forwarding previous discussions on subject. At least it makes me feel less *silly* for having asked the question when others are getting the same impression on reading the age between parentheses after DOB. If that age needs to be shown for a person still alive, then why not put it higher up by that person's name, or have a separate line under born with *age at present* or something of the sort. Again thank you. Frania W. (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

57 years today!

As of today, she has been queen for 57 years, so this needs updating. Is there any way that the length of her reign can be calculated automatically? 62.60.103.9 (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. GoodDay (talk) 16:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Excellent & informative comment GoodDay! Misortie (talk) 15:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Great comment commenting on the comment, Misortie! :)

It would also be nice if readers could calculate in their own head instead of having everything done for them... automatically! How about an automatic reading or thinking *machinepedia*? We have entered the *Era of no effort*! Frania W. (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Why even have Wikipedia? Most of the information on here is available for everyone to find on their own. They shouldn't be so lazy by wanting facts from an encyclopedia.--Ibagli rnbs mbs (Talk) 18:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

"Cough" Misortie (talk) 17:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"one of only a few monarchs to reign over parts of every continent on earth"?

Assuming this bit refers to current monarchs, then surely she is the only one to do so? 81.158.1.233 (talk) 02:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but why are you assuming that? The wording seems rather ambiguous to me. By the way, have you read the #Every Continent? section. —JAO • T • C 13:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't really accept this claim. There are three sticking points: (1) Asia: the Chagos archipelago is a continuation of the Maldives ridge, and hence part of the Asian continental land mass, but I think it more likely that this claim actually derives from her once ruling in Hong Kong; (2) Antarctica: it can be argued that "reign over" is but a short step from "claims territory in" but this is at best a circumlocution; (3) Africa: St Helena and its dependencies are on the Mid-Atlantic ridge, and so are no more a part of the African plate than the South American one. While one can argue that the islands are slightly to the west of the Mid-Atlantic ridge, and so are a part of the African plate, this is still an argument rather than an undisputed fact. One can also argue that having jurisdiction over barely inhabited islands lying hundreds of miles off the coast of a continent is not the same as ruling part of a continent itself. The ambiguity and complexity of the statement, the lack of a direct cite, and its potential for dispute, are in my view all reasons to remove or at least rephrase it. DrKiernan (talk) 08:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Its a grandiose statement that adds little, is not cited and not true (Antarctica alone makes this point) --Snowded (talk) 08:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if this page ever does get near Wikipedia:Featured article status, it looks like it'll have to go. DrKiernan (talk) 08:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Your amendment is better - but the sentence should go. Any objection if I remove it? --Snowded (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Not from me. DrKiernan (talk) 08:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The Queen's "surname"

I've reverted the insertion of a "surname" for The Queen. Please read Her Majesty's declaration more carefully: (my bold)

My Lords Whereas on the 9th day of April 1952, I did declare in Council My Will and Pleasure that I and My children shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that My descendants, other than female descendants who marry and their descendants, shall bear the name of Windsor: And whereas I have given further consideration to the position of those of My descendants who will enjoy neither the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness, nor the titluar dignity of Prince and for whom therefore a surname will be necessary: And whereas I have concluded that the Declaration made by Me on the 9th day of April 1952, should be varied in its application to such persons: Now therefore I declare My Will and Pleasure that, while I and My Children shall continue to be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, My descendants other than descendants enjoying the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess and female descendants who marry and their descendants shall bear the name of Mountbatten-Windsor.

I took the liberty of reverting as such a change would potentially affect all the articles of titled royals of Elizabeth's close family. --Cameron* 15:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted the deletion of a surname for the Queen. Please read her declaration more carefully: (my bold)

My Lords

Whereas on the 9th day of April 1952, I did declare in Council My Will and Pleasure that I and My children shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that My descendants, other than female descendants who marry and their descendants, shall bear the name of Windsor:

And whereas I have given further consideration to the position of those of My descendants who will enjoy neither the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness, nor the titluar dignity of Prince and for whom therefore a surname will be necessary:

And whereas I have concluded that the Declaration made by Me on the 9th day of April 1952, should be varied in its application to such persons:

Now therefore I declare My Will and Pleasure that, while I and My Children shall continue to be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, My descendants other than descendants enjoying the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess and female descendants who marry and their descendants shall bear the name of Mountbatten-Windsor. FactStraight (talk) 12:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't see what you are referring to. I'm reverting for now though, we don't have enough input for such drastic changes (such changes affect the articles on many members of the RF. I took the liberty of putting in a note at the British Royalty WikiProject). Also, I'd like to see a source. Her Majesty's website states she does not need a surname. She signs all official documents with 'Elizabeth' (R) and does not have a passport. Prince Charles, who does have a passport, does not use a surname (a pic of The Prince of Wales' passport). --Cameron* 13:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Reading it very carefully indeed, it would appear that - contrary to expectations, individual members of the Royal Family do not have surnames. What she is saying here is that the Royal Family shall be known as the "House and Family of Windsor" - i.e. collectively. They are, indeed, the Windsor family, but a surname is a more specific legal concept. Those descendants of the Royal Family who don't have royal titles shall, according to this proclamation, have the legal surname Mountbatten-Windsor. But this, quite explicity, excludes all those with a royal title such as HRH or HM. ðarkuncoll 13:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

But you have only addressed part of her declaration. What about the words "My descendants, other than female descendants who marry and their descendants, shall bear the name of Windsor" When she uses the word "name" here, she cannot be referring to "given name", since each family member has one that differs from others'. She can only be referring to the surname of herself and those of her children who are not "female descendants who marry", i.e. Anne. The fact that she and other royals don't use their surname is their business, but doesn't alter the Queen's decree. Her grandchildren with royal titles may have different surnames, because this declaration does not stipulate that their name is Windsor (although children normally take the surname of their fathers -- but if not, that simply means they have some other surname, not that they have none at all). But for the Queen and her own children, where is there doubt? Source? On the Royal Family's official website, in the section called "The Royal Family name", it is stated "In 1917, there was a radical change, when George V specifically adopted Windsor, not only as the name of the 'House' or dynasty, but also as the surname of his family...The Royal Family name of Windsor was confirmed by The Queen after her accession in 1952." If George V had a surname (and he never had occasion to use it), when did Elizabeth II and other royal members of the dynasty lose it? The language is plain, and it is reputably sourced. FactStraight (talk) 15:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be ignoring the bit before "female descendents who marry", where those styled HRH and/or who are princes or princesses are also excluded. Aslo the royal.gov.uk doesn't specifically say it was his surnmae, just that it was adopted as the surname for members of the house (implicitly, for those who needed a surname). David Underdown (talk) 15:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't see any portion of the decrees of George V or Elizabeth II which leave any of their male-line descendants without a surname. Yes, the surname varies between Windsor and Mountbatten-Windsor, and titulature affects that variance. But it is simply inaccurate for these articles to reflect a view by those who are plus royal que la reine and keep asserting "royalty don't have surnames", despite the historical evidence (Elizabeth I was a Tudor, James I was a Stuart -- no law or decree ever stripped them of those surnames) and decrees (1917, 1960) which definitively state otherwise. No "implicit" deduction can contradict the plain language used by George V, Elizabeth II and the Royal Household website, all of which affirm that members of the Royal Family, with or without "royal titles and styles", do have surnames. Usage is a red herring: I don't have to use something to possess or retain it. And the fact that I sometimes change my name, or call myself by aliases for convenience (noms de guerre, noms de plume, noms de "incognito"), doesn't ipso facto mean that at any point I have no surname at all. FactStraight (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Those earlier ones were of the House of Stuart, or Tudor certainly, but that doesn't necessarily imply a surname of Stuart or Tudor. Returning to the current situation, those who are in the male-line and are HRH and/or Prince are logically excluded from the passage which says "their name shall be Mountbatten-Windsor".

I believe Charles signed his wedding certificate Mountbatten-Windsor but it was emphasized that this was 'in honour of his father'. --Cameron* 13:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Charles and his sons have certainly been known to use both "Mountbatten-Windsor" and "Wales" on official forms and such. ðarkuncoll 13:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the Yorks use York as a surname sometimes too and Prince Eddy used Wessex while he had his production company. After his exile King Constantine II of Greece has been refused a Greek passport due to the fact that he does not have a surname. Personally, I'd sue them through the European Court of Human Rights but he doesn't seem too worried as the Danish Royal Family have issued him a passport instead. A personal friend of Prince Charles, he is referred to as King Constantine on official royal invitations etc...--Cameron* 14:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Remember, the Queen or her successors, are allowed to change the Royal House name & surnames. It's possible Charlie, may opt for House of Mountbatten (but that's another story). GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Religion

The Queen's religion is described, in the box, as being Anglican, is this technically true?

I do not know anything about her personal faith, but whilst she is Sup. Gov of the CofE, she is also, when in Scotland, Presbyterian.

I am just suggested an edit to "Anglican, Church of Scotland". RAMscram (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Her religious beliefs do not change when she crosses the border. Her personal affliation is CoE. -Rrius (talk) 21:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I can buy that broadly, but the rest of the box is about Elizabeth II qua queen. As private person she may be Anglican, but as Monarch she is a member of the Church of Scotland. RAMscram (talk) 09:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

As Queen of Scotland, Elizabeth is a member of the Church of Scotland. (See the statement on the crown website: "The Queen is therefore not the Supreme Governor of the Church of Scotland, but an ordinary member.") When the Queen worships in Scotland it is with the Church of Scotland (see the Kirk's page on "Church, State and Kirk"), so the royal chaplains in Scotland are Church of Scotland appointments (Kirk webpage: "the Church of Scotland [...] from which the chaplains of the Royal Household in Scotland are appointed" as well as this Scotsman article). And in fact the Queen faithfully attends Kirk every Sunday when she is in Balmoral (see this Scotsman article). (See also the last paragraph of this Telegraph article.) So, on this evidence, she is not only a full member of the Church of Scotland in law, but also a regularly practising member in fact.

(It seems plausible to suggest that Elizabeth thinks of herself as primarily an Anglican and only secondarily a member of the Church of Scotland. But given the facts above, that wouldn't be enough to make her religious affiliation only Anglican and not additionally Church of Scotland. And anyhow I see no evidence here to support the suggestion at present.) RW Dutton (talk) 23:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Is she a member of the C of S by personal decision or just ex officio? 131.111.164.219 (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect attribution of Thatcher Quote

Treknet1 (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The Thatcher quote (footnote 108) is incorrectly cited. The webpage to which the citation points does not have the actual quote in the body of its text.

However, the quote is correct. It comes from the following source.

Thatcher, M. (1993). The Downing Street Years (p. 18) New York: HarperCollins. ISBN 0-06-0170565

The article text should be updated to cite it accordingly. However, my account is not autoconfirmed so I don't have the ability to do it myself. Anyone who can assist would be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Treknet1 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

First Monarch to Circumnavigate

The article incorrectly states that Elizabeth II was the first monarch to circumnavigate the globe. The first one to do so was King Kalākaua of Hawaii in the late 1800's. The article should be changed to reflect that she was the first British monarch to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.34.145 (talk) 19:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have source for that claim? --Knowzilla 09:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The Queen of Tahiti also did, at the same time of history. Gallagher06 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.52.58.88 (talk) 01:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Do either of you have sources for either of those? -Rrius (talk) 06:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Both of these IPs have only under 3 edits. No sources provided for either of the claims. I am unable to find any reliable sources for these claims, after so long. I'm going to place that sentence back in the article, there's enough evidence for it. Make any objections here, just as long as you have evidence. --Knowzilla 15:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Queen MARAU, who was the consort to King Pomare V of the Kingdom of Tahiti and dependencies (which was united with France in 1880), travelled to France and back to Tahiti. However she was a Queen-consort, not a Monarch in her own right. I also question the fact that King George V may also have circumnavigated (which I'm not sure), along with his brother (the one who died before him), before he was king, when he was in the Navy?

I recently placed the sentence back in the article, but it was taken off again by User:Snowded. There is enough evidence for that sentence, a simple google search proves so [11]. --Knowzilla 15:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I took it out because you reinserted it without citation after it had been challenged. I also think its not of particular note, most widely travelled is. A lot of the google search results are wikipedia links or web site without any great authority. I didn't trawl through them as I think its un noteworthy, but if you can find a government site or similar that supports it I won't oppose. --Snowded (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The Hawaiian King's article describes his circumnavigation with a cite to a writing by the King describing his travels. Perhaps adding the sentence back but qualifying "monarch" with "British" would be reasonable. -Rrius (talk) 20:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

"British monarch", yeah, nevertheless George V might have perfomed the circumnavigation as well, though he was not a King yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.52.58.88 (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

If you can find any evidence, have at it. In the meantime, I'm adding it back with a ref. -Rrius (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

If she was the first British monarch to circumnavigate the planet, then surely she was the first Australian monarch, South African, Canadian, and the like, to do so as well. I tentatively put in "Commonwealth realms monarch" to npov the statement, but also avoid the implication that there's any kind of supernational title. --Miesianiacal (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I reject that "British" was POV. Being underinclusive is not the same thing as expressing a particular point of view. The continued use of the terms "POV" and "NPOV" when it is not, or not necessarily, applicable is unhelpful as it tends to pointlessly inflame passions. I doubt that was your goal, but I know you are aware that that happens quite easily around here. -Rrius (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I realise the point of view acronym has become tinged with a pejorative flavour around here, but by using it I meant that one particular national descriptor was being singled out for no apparent reason other than personal choices (not to single you out as being guilty alone, of course). It certainly wasn't intended as an accusation of any purposeful promotion of a pov, merely that it seemed one had occurred, as being under-inclusive leaves one begging the question: why was Britain highlighted with favour over all the others? I believe that sometimes what one doesn't say can have as much meaning as what one says. --Miesianiacal (talk) 23:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

But even your language here, "one particular national descriptor was being singled out for no apparent reason other than personal choices", implies an intentionality, which implication is not warranted. The point is that most people, if put in the position of having to qualify the claim that she was the first monarch to circle the globe after learning that another country's monarch did it first, would use the term "British" or even "English" without second thought. It is by no means a conscious choice, but rather a reflection that she is most closely associated with the UK and that in her day-to-day life, she acts mostly within her role as Queen of the UK rather than Queen of any other realm or all of those realms put together. To be clear, it is not an attempt to disguise her associations with the other realms because of the major association with Britain, rather it is an unconscious reflection of the latter.

It's been a long time since I've read WP:NPOV, but I vaguely recall that it is not just about intentional POV-pushing, but also about unconscious expressions of one's point of view. None the less, as the terms "POV" and "NPOV" are used on talk pages, they generally refer to intentional acts, and are going to be understood that way by editors. That is especially the case on talk pages with many UK-Commonwealth, monarchy-republican, and unionist-separatists discussions. I can maintain a sense of humour about allegations of POV in these debates because I am an American, but on a broader level, I think the best if we try not to throw around those terms. Anyway, pontificating over, carry on. -Rrius (talk) 00:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

If I may reiterate my previous statement: It certainly wasn't intended as an accusation of any purposeful promotion of a pov. We all harbour our own povs, and no doubt express them even when unaware of doing do; I'm sure I'm no less guilty of doing so than anyone else. My apologies if the way I expressed my observations was muddied enough to cause misinterpretation. --Miesianiacal (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No offence was taken, and I don't believe you intended to cause any. I just wanted to make the broader point because Wikipedia became more combative and less fun for me a couple months ago. -Rrius (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough; I understand. --Miesianiacal (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Rrius, I don't have any reliable or academic sources for George V, but the Wikipedia page for George V (as well as his brother's one) lists the country where he went while in the Navy (including North America, Australia etc.) 92.143.83.199 (talk) 23:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Wonderful, but going all kinds of places on multiple trips (it was as a boy, not in while serving in the Royal Navy), does not mean circumnavigating the globe. Circumnavigating means going from point A back to point A in a path that circles the globe. I have put in a reference to a site saying EII was the first of them to circle the world. It is of course possible that it is wrong, but it is on you to prove that, not merely to raise the possibility that it is. So, once again, if you have any evidence, have at it. -Rrius (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Rrius, is the site you put in reference an academic source? On the "Royal visit in Australia" Wikipedia page, I can read: "The first visit was by Prince Alfred, son of Queen Victoria, in 1867, during his 'round-the-world voyage. (...) Prince George, aged 15, visited Australia with his older brother Prince Albert - age 17, in 1881, as midshipmen in training on the HMS Bacchante." The same story is written on the British Royal Family official website at [12]: "The very first Royal visitor to Australia was Prince Alfred, Queen Victoria's second son, and later Duke of Edinburgh" (...) "In 1901, the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and York (later King George V and Queen Mary) visited Melbourne to open the first Federal Parliament" (...) "Edward, the Prince of Wales arrived in Victoria on 2 April 1920 representing his father, King George V". Obviously, Prince Alfred never became a Monarch. What about Prince George (future King George V)? "For three years from 1879 the royal brothers served as midshipmen on HMS Bacchante, accompanied by Dalton. They toured the British Empire, visiting Norfolk, Virginia, the colonies in the Caribbean, South Africa and Australia, as well as the Mediterranean, South America, the Far East, and Egypt." From London to the West Indies, South Africa, Australia, South America, OK. Does it mean they circumnavigated? I don't know. I can't say. 92.143.83.199 (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I imagine that the Biography Channel has some standing as a reliable source. The other royals you mention - besides there not being any hard evidence that they circumnavigated the globe in reaching and returning from Australia - were not monarchs when they undertook those voyages. Is it necessary to say "first reigning monarch" in order to avoid any potential problems? --Miesianiacal (talk) 00:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

William N. Armstrong's Around the World with a King is just one of many sources for Kalakaua's journey. The source provided for Elizabeth's claim does not say "first Commonwealth monarch"; it says "first monarch", which is wrong. I think the phrase should be removed. I've never had much time for the "reliability, not truth" dictat. We should aim for truth; just because someone in authority makes a mistake, does not mean that we have to slavishly follow their errors. DrKiernan (talk) 08:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, British should be re-inserted as Elizabeth II is known internationally as Queen of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 15:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)