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)

• • • added***

(since i dont think i can create a separate archive, let me please post my concern here)

at the start of the article, it is written that the Queen had control over Pakistan in 1952. Pakistan was declared an independent country and isolated from the British Rule, which is why Queen Elizabeth could NOT have been the sovereign of Pakistan. Please correct this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.154.45.71 (talk) 19:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

There can hardly be any doubt that the Dominion of Pakistan (1947–1956) shared head of state with the UK. —JAO • T • C 23:30, 30 May 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)

or perhaps better worded as attempts to assasinate EIIR - as the other way round has a slightly different conotation, and I don't beleive she has ever actually bumped anyone off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.75.37.250 (talk) 16:00, 28 May 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)

It would be very ungrateful of him to insult his mother that way. 67.100.203.155 (talk) 04:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.203.247 (talk)

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)

I would question that the Queen and her Consort attend St George's Chapel, Windsor regularly; I have spoken to one of her personal Chaplains [who used to live locally to me] on the subject and I gather that the Chapel is far too "high Church" for them and "The Royal Chapel of All Saints, Windsor Great Park, is regularly used by The Queen.", to quote from an unnamed website source. They much prefer a simple Book of Common Prayer style of service with Mattins rather than Holy Communion every week - the latter to be preferred for high Holy Days like Chrismas and Easter. [DSB 9/05/09] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.100.104 (talk) 03:50, 9 May 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)

The one quotation you provide that refers to circumnavigation is from Wikipedia. Try again. The others only suggest that these people traveled. You seem to acknowledge that they do not establish the George V or anyone else circumnavigated the globe, so what was the point of listing them? -Rrius (talk) 14:47, 27 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)

You are assuming that the source has no context. I don't think it is supposed to mean the first monarch from any country. Without a good reason to challenge the veracity of the statement, we should let it be for the time being. -Rrius (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The two statements bracketing the claim in the source indicate a global context. Note also that she is called the first reigning monarch of Fiji, though supporters of Cakobau's claim to that title will disagree. It ignores the achievements of native kings, and concentrates solely on a traditional white European interpretation. Our article should be neutral as well as factual. I appreciate that the inherent racism is both unintentional and a matter of perception, but I don't think there's a need to include dubious and potentially offensive claims when they are unnecessary and the article can quite happily exist without them. DrKiernan (talk) 15:23, 27 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)

Issue

Is it normal to refer the the children of the UK royal family as Issue. Perhaps this can be changed to Children instead. scope_creep (talk) 13:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Its normal --Snowded (talk) 13:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Normal, if you're British.... Tvoz/talk 21:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to say hello!

I've just found this site and really impressed with the information it provides. At least now I know when Elizabeth was born.

Larissa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.56.214 (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Contradictory info in article

In the introduction it says She is the fourth longest-reigning British monarch, after Victoria (who reigned over the United Kingdom for 63 years), George III (who reigned over Great Britain for 59 years), and James VI (who reigned over Scotland for over 57 years).

Yet in the subsection "Health and reduced duties" it says: after which she became the third longest reigning British or English monarch.

I am guessing there are differing interpretations of whether Scotland is to be included in "British" here, but as an American reader, it appears to be contradictory. So, perhaps it should be re-worded. Tvoz/talk 21:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

She is currently the fourth longest. 4: Herself. 3: Victoria. 2: George III. 1: James VI. ðarkuncoll 23:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Nothing on protocol when meeting the Monarch.

Hmmm. I just heard a commentator on CNN says that there was "no protocol when meeting the Queen." So I decided to check here if Wikipedia had anything on protocol. What does everyone think? is it worth it to start compiling?

• For example you're not supposed to extend your hand out to shake the Queen's(or Monarch's hand) unless they extend theirs first.
• Michelle Obama did a big "no-no". You're really not supposed to hug the Queen or touch the Monarch in anyway outside of their hand.

I also thought it was funny they gave HM an IPod but she has already done quite a few Podcasts. CaribDigita (talk) 21:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If memory serves Her Majesty already had an iPod. As protocol isn't really a set of written rules, I don't think we need an article on it. However I do find it rather nice to see the president bowing to The Queen...especially as nowadays Brits aren't 'expected' to let alone foreigners. --Cameron* 22:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh, Obama bowed? He weren't suppose to, as he's also a Head of State (or as the US calls it, Chief of State). GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean, "as the US calls it"? Since when? -Rrius (talk) 03:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The President of the USA is described as Chief of State. I'm sure I read this somewhere. GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

He's also Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm very surprised Obama bowed. There was a minor kerfuffle when Ronald Reagan declined to bow and some palace official got his knickers in a twist about it; Reagan explained that the U.S. President is head of state of a sovereign country and does not bow to other heads of state. The rules about who should bow/curtsey surely do not extend to people who are not subjects of the Queen, and certainly not to heads of state. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I remember the exact opposite. Reagan did bow, which caused some surprise because the official protocol was for him not to bow (nor the Queen to bow to him). DrKiernan (talk) 07:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, one of us is mis-remembering. I wonder which one it is.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 09:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Who says Obama bowed to the Queen? I've only heard about his bowing to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. -Rrius (talk) 08:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You can see a video of the "bow" on the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7977618.stm . DrKiernan (talk) 08:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Concerning protocol for addressing royals -

• Nod, bow, curtsey... but never kow-tow
• THE WORLD; The President's Inclination: No, It Wasn't a Bow-Bow

What I find is not about Reagan bowing but Nancy refusing to do so...and the palace's official position is that there is no protocol for foreigners meeting the royals..please see this.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 10:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Queen's dogs

Please can someone assist? What's the name of the breed of her Majesties dogs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.186.189.87 (talk) 10:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

They are called Pembroke Welsh corgis. -Rrius (talk) 11:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

See also HM's own dog breed (actually a hybrid), presenting the Dorgi...the result of her Corgi's liason with a Dachshund! --Cameron* 19:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

"of the United Kingdom"

Why does the title read... Elizabeth of the UK? Isn't she monarch of sixteen independent realms? Surely it should be: "Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth"?

This comes up from time-to-time. "of the Commonwealth" would be rather in an invention, she isnever referred to as such. Yes she is Queen of 16 independent countries but the UK is where she is largely based, in the other 15 coutnries the duties and powers are exercised by the relevant Governor-General in her name. The article can only exist at one title, all the other relevant national titles redirect here anyway. David Underdown (talk) 10:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It would be alot easier if we could just have Queen Elizabeth II as the title, but stupid wikipedia naming conventions come into play. This articles name isnt as bad as James I of England though, he was the Scottish King and yet it is placed under an English title, very misleading and offensive. But wikipedia doesnt operate via commonsense sadly. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You have to remember that James I of England and James I of Scotland were completely different people. James I of England also happened to be James VI of Scotland, but we can't have 2 articles on the same person. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Archive 14#Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth Realms for a list of links to previous discussions. —JAO • T • C 19:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to end the "unjustice" and/or "offensivness". If historians tend to call one man James I of England more often than James VI of Scotland, why should Wikipedia call him the way we think is "fair"? Historians tend to refer to Elizabeth II as Queen of the United Kingdom much more often than as Queen of Tuvalu or Queen of Commonwealth (which is a non-existing title). Wikipedia relies on secondary sources, not on "commonsense" or "fairness". Surtsicna (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

cromwell

There is an error re. her being the longest running head of state - it says she will overtake Richard Cromwell in 2012...

can someone correct it please! Thanks. S —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.169.153.190 (talk) 22:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not clear what you think the error is? Richard Cromwell was Oliver's son and briefly acceded as lord Protector following Oliver's death and prior to the Restoration. David Underdown (talk) 08:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand, 94.169.153.190. In 2012, she would be the longest-lived British head of state. While R. Cromwell was only briefly head of state, he lived to a ripe old age. -Rrius (talk) 08:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that the whole paragraph containing the Richard Cromwell remark is a paragraph of hypothetical statistical matter of little interest which is well below the general standard of the Elizabeth II article. It reads

"To become the longest-lived British head of state, Elizabeth would have to live to 29 January 2012 when she would overtake Richard Cromwell. If Elizabeth lives until 19 September 2013, and her son Charles, the Prince of Wales succeeds her, he would become the oldest ever to succeed to the throne, surpassing William IV, who was 64. To overtake Queen Victoria and become the longest reigning monarch in British history, Elizabeth would have to live to 10 September 2015, when she would be 89. To surpass the reign of King Louis XIV of France, and become the longest reigning monarch in European history, Elizabeth would have to live until 26 May 2024, when she would be 98."

Let's delete this, please.

Ambrose H. Field (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Whereas others find it interesting, notable, and worthy of inclusion. Let's keep it in. -Rrius (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Could be shortened to:

"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 Victoria on 10 September 2015, and the longest reigning monarch in European history surpassing Louis XIV of France on 26 May 2024."

Sounds good; it might be good though to include her age (89) for the middle one to help people calculate ages in their heads for the other two. -Rrius (talk) 08:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I found it difficult to put that into the sentence without it becoming confusing. So, I've put her age for the final one instead. DrKiernan (talk) 08:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Records

when will the queen breack the record of longest ruling monarch in europe? or even all time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.237.54.62 (talk) 06:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

See List of longest reigning monarchs of all time article. GoodDay (talk) 14:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Valid link for Prince Charles

In right side info bar. Prince Charles is not linked. Someone forgot to put the brackets around his name, therefore rendering it not hyperlinked to a subsequent page. I'd do it myself, but it won't allow me to edit even though I'm logged in. Thanks. Dferg47 (talk) 05:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

He is linked a few lines further up though, under "heir apparent". I guess that avoiding double-linking is why the one under "issue" has not been linked, although I wouldn't see any harm in the extra link here. (By the way, if you're interested, see WP:AUTOCONFIRM for the reason that creating an account in is not enough to edit this article.) —JAO • T • C 08:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Well done

I have just read the article for the first time today and think it's very good indeed. Why it's not a featured article is a puzzle, but thanks to everyone who has contributed to it anyway. Taam (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth the first of Britain

When King James VI of Scotland unified the crowns of England and Scotland in 1603 he became James I of Britain. Therefore really the present Queen should only be Queen Elizabeth I of Britain as the previous Elizabeth was only Queen of England not Britain. Neil MacCormick a Scottish solicitor famously argued this in court in the 1950's and in Scotland she should be styled Queen Elizabeth I. Stevephillip (talk) 14:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, he didn't argue it successfully. Convention is to use the highest number throughout the Commonwealth, so, although there has only be one Queen Elizabeth of New Zealand, since there has already been a Queen Elizabeth elsewhere in the Commonwealth, she is referred to as Queen Elizabeth II of New Zealand. There are several Scottish kings' names for whom the same rule would apply were there to be a monarch with that name. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

There is an article about the case: MacCormick v. Lord Advocate. The case was dismissed because the crown cannot be sued, and the numbering is a Royal Prerogative. Another point: King James VI of Scotland didn't actually became James I of (Great) Britain, although he wanted to be styled as such; both England and Scotland were independent of each other albeit in a personal union. He was James VI in Scotland and James I in England. --Joshua ^{Say "hi" to me!}_{What I've done?} 18:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Right, James VI was before the Act of Union (but after the Union of the crowns) - there was no united kingdom for James to be king of (despite his best efforts to claim otherwise, "Great Britain" remained a dream and the separate kingdoms of England and Scotland resisted his dream). "James" was actually the name I was thinking of: it's been speculated that Charles will be "King James VIII" - I'll see if I can dig out a ref (and if anyone can tell me why monarchs don't use their real names it would be appreciated!) Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• You might be interested in this Highfields (talk, contribs, review) 17:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Monarchs do use their own names. They use one of their baptismal names as their regnal name. The Prince of Wales's real names are Charles, Philip, Arthur, and George. That means that he could reign as King Charles III, King Philip (II, if King Philip of England is considered a monarch), King Arthur, and King George VII. Princess Beatrice could reign as Queen Beatrice, Queen Elizabeth III and Queen Mary III, etc. Surtsicna (talk) 21:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Nationality

Elizabeth II was the Time Person of the Year in 1952. What flag should be used to signify her nationality? I think that it should obviously be United Kingdom, but someone thinks that she has no citizenship and the flags of UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and every other commonwealth realm should all be used, which is excessive. The other was to use her personal flag, which is not representative of a country like for others on the list, so no flag would be better than that. Since she was born in and lives in the UK and likely has only a UK passport, I think it would be common sense to use that flag. What do you say? Reywas92^Talk 16:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It's true that the Queen holds no citizenship, or passport, in any of the countries of which she is sovereign.[13] This obviously makes Elizabeth a very unique person. I agree that 16 flags is excessive, to say the least, but also see that the UK flag alone is a WP:POV violation. If her personal flag is not acceptable as an identifier, then I'd suggest no flag is the best alternative. Either way, a footnote should be provided to explain the anomoly. --Miesianiacal (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The citation you provided does not support your assertion. It merely says that she has no passport. The Queen is a British citizen - she was born in the UK, as were both her parents, and under British nationality law she is, therefore, unequivically a British citizen. So the Union Jack is perfectly appropriate to identify her nationality. ðarkuncoll 07:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The argument you present is merely that: an argument. To avoid committing WP:OR, you'll need a reliable source to support your claim. --Miesianiacal (talk) 11:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, it's you who'll need to supply a reliable source - such as an Act of Parliament or amendment thereto - for the extraordinary claim that she was somehow exluded from the British Nationality Act. As I said, she may well be Queen of loads of countries, but her personal nationality is British. ðarkuncoll 12:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't claim she was excluded from the Nationality Act. I didn't claim she wasn't, either. Please be careful not to read into my comments things I didn't say. --Miesianiacal (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You did state - without apparent foundation - that she had no citizenship, which runs contrary to the British Nationality Act. It was a reasonable inference, and one TharkunColl was not alone in making. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You do realise we're dealing with a sovereign here, don't you? She's exempt from her own passport regulations, so what's to say she isn't exempt from her own Nationality Act as well? That's not to say definitively that she is (I earlier misinterpreted the Buck House site), but there's so far no source to say that it applies to her either. Further, citizenship and nationality are not synonyms. Further still, you're dealing with a sovereign of sixteen countries, not one, where concepts of foreignness and subjection come into play. This isn't a cut and dry issue, I'm afraid. --Miesianiacal (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

To be exempt from the Nationality Act of 1948 would require a specific clause in that Act, or a subsequent Act of Parliament. If you believe such a thing exists, you will have to find it (hint: it doesn't). In any case - not that it's particularly relevant - it wasn't her Act, but an Act of her father's. No clause excludes the monarch from the Act, and the Queen has not renounced her British citizenship. Indeed, quite the contrary - Philip was naturalised as a British citizen prior to their marriage in 1947 precisely so that no doubts, however tenuous, could later be cast on the Queen's Britishness, under the provision for women marrying foreigners of the 1914 Act then still in force. ðarkuncoll 15:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That still isn't a reference to support that the Queen's sole nationality is British. --Miesianiacal (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is. The British Nationality Act. It's you who needs to show that it doesn't apply to her. ðarkuncoll 15:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're asking us to prove a negative. Do you have any sources that state the Queen has any nationality other than British? A positive should be considerably easier to prove than a negative. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] Not at all. I'm saying proof is required to affirm that the Queen's sole nationality is British. You must prove that she is foreign to the countries she is sovereign of. A source was already provided that says she's not a foreigner of Canada, at least. In the absence of evidence that the Queen is a foreigner to 15 of her 16 countries, nobody can claim that she is. --Miesianiacal (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you're mixing up two concepts here. Citizens of Commonwealth countries are not considered "foreigners" under British law, and have certain rights that actual foreigners don't. It's at least possible that Canada has a similar set up. But whatever the case, being a citizen and not being foreign are not equivalent. ðarkuncoll 15:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you give me a pointer to that source? I've scanned the discussion but can't see it. I don't feel comfortable replying further until I know what I'm talking about ;-) Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed; sorry, I forgot I left the source not here but at the other symmetrical discussion that was taking place elsewhere. In this Federal Court ruling, the sovereign and royal family are twice separated from foreign royalty and heads of state ("In Canada, military compliments are paid only to the Sovereign, the Governor-General, members of the Royal Family, recognized foreign royalty, foreign heads of state..."[14.4, 23]), and says the Queen specifically is "more than a foreign monarch, she is the Queen of Canada."[14.5] Also, the Department of National Defence differentiates between the Queen and foreign heads of state and royalty here[pp.4-3-11, 12.2.2].--Miesianiacal (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting use of wording there - "more than a foreign monarch" implies that she is a foreign monarch, whatever else she might be. ðarkuncoll 18:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No worries! Again, though, there is a difference within the Commonwealth between "foreign" and "not a citizen of". The Queen is "not a foreign monarch" (indeed, she is Queen of Canada), but I can't see anything that states she is a Canadian citizen (I searched the PDF for "citizen" - it did occur, but not in relation to the Queen). As an aside, I'm not a foreigner in Britain; for example, I have the right to vote (as do all Commonwealth citizens). I am not, however, a UK citizen but a citizen of New Zealand. So far as I'm aware there is nothing in NZ law making the head of state (or any previous head of state) a New Zealand citizen, nor requiring that the head of state be a Kiwi. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

We're not talking about citizenship, though. The list in question places numerous flags for some individuals based not on their citizenship, but their nationality instead - Wallis Simpson (American and British), Pope John XXIII (Vatican and Italian), Pope John Paul II (Vatican and Polish). One user tried the solution of using the flags of all countries of which Elizabeth II is queen, but it was (rightly, I think) decided that it was a bit too much. Hence, the no-flag-with-an-explanatory-note solution was reached as a neutral compromise. I still see no reason why that compromise should be violated. --Miesianiacal (talk) 17:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

In terms of nationality, there seems to be a decent consensus that the Queen is British; I did think that nationality was far more clear-cut than citizenship, as we're all agreed that the Queen was born in Britain and primarily resides in Britain. The examples you list all seem equally clear-cut - Wallis Simpson was a US citizen who obtained British citizenship (or vice versa - was she British before she married her first husband?), Pope John XXIII was an Italian who became head of state of Vatican City, and likewise (via Poland) for Pope John Paul II. In the case of the Queen she was a British national before she became the British head of state. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

But of course she is British! I think one would have a very hard time proving that she is not. However, the question is: is she only British?

Not to get too OT, but was Wallis Simpson ever granted British citizenship? And is the Pope a citizen of the Vatican? If not, there may be parallels between popes and the Queen: head of state of a nation but not a citizen of it, could the Pope somehow therefore be foreign to the Vatican state? --Miesianiacal (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent - getting dangerously close to a different sub-thread...!) In the absence of sources saying she's a Canadian/Aus/Kiwi national, then yes, she is only British.

There already are sources to say she's not foreign to Canada; if she's not foreign to a nation, what can she be other than part of it? --Miesianiacal (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

If you're referring to the earlier PDF, it drew a distinction between the Queen and "foreign heads of state" - which is quite natural, given that the Queen is head of state of Canada. But regardless, I'm not foreign to Canada, either, but I'm not a Canadian national (or a Canadian citizen). Within the Commonwealth "foreign" refers to non-Commonwealth. I can vote - as a Kiwi - in the UK, for example. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The sources make no distinction between Commonwealth and non-Commonwealth, only Canadian and not-Canadian. The President of South Africa, for instance, though head of a Commonwealth country, would be treated as a foreign head of state in Canada. Heck, even I - a Canadian citizen - am treated as a foreigner by the UK. The Queen, however, is not regarded as a foreigner in Canada. As the Canadian head of state, not foreign to the Canadian nation, how can she not then be of Canadian nationality in the same way she is of British nationality (note: not citizenship)?

Regardless, as interesting a debate as this is, it's most important illustration is that there is doubt circling around the claim that the Queen has one nationality only. As long as doubt in the assertion exists, the assertion cannot be made with certainty. Hence, I say leave the list with no flag for EIIR, exactly as is done with other international persons/groups/organizations listed. --Miesianiacal (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

With respect, the only doubt seems to be yours. You've not provided any references stating that the Queen is a national of any country other than Britain. We can all agree that she's head of state of Canada (and Australia, and New Zealand): that doesn't - so far as the references thus far provided show - make her a national of those countries. Britain has had German heads of state before, for example.

(off topic) Would the RSA President be treated as a foreign head of state in Canada? In New Zealand Commonwealth heads are treated differently to non-Commonwealth heads (genuine question - I'm unsure how Canada treats the Commonwealth). As regards you being treated "as" a foreigner in the UK - you certainly won't be treated as a UK citizen would be, but equally you would have more rights than a non-Commonwealth (and non-EU - EU citizens trump Commonwealth citizens) citizen. You may feel you are being treated "as a foreigner", but as a Commonwealth citizen you have more rights than many other visitors.

At this point I believe there's consensus that (a) the Queen is a British national; (b) there are no sources claiming that she is a national of any other country - in the absence of sources I don't believe there is any justifiable doubt.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not see a clause in the British Nationality Act that explicitly says the Crown is bound by the act. Without such, it doesn't apply to the Queen. ([14] "Legislation does not presently bind the Crown unless there is express provision to say that it does." Also [15] "The general principle in law that statutes do not bind the Crown unless by express provision...") --Miesianiacal (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Would it be reasonable to say, then, that everyone apart from Miesianiacal agrees that the Queen is a British national, by virtue of her having been born in and continuing to reside in Britain, and that there is no evidence to suggest that she is a national of any other country? Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 21:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, now that the proof that she is a UK citizen has been put to rest as invalid, we're going to start to create facts via the consensus of a minute group of editors? Wikipedia, does not work that way, alas. --Miesianiacal (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed not. You have posited not one but two extraordinary claims - (1) that the British head of state, someone who resides in Britain, a descendent of the first British monarch of the House of Windsor, is not British, and (2) that she is/isn't/may be/which way is the wind blowing? a national of one/some/all Commonwealth countries. You've offered no references to support either claim. Numerous editors have tried to explain why the few references you've provided don't state what you believe them to, with varying degrees of success. Right now there doesn't seem any doubt apart from Miesianiacal that the Queen is a British national; the onus is on you to prove a negative, not on everyone else to prove what seems crystal clear. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 21:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Please don't pull the focus away to trivial and inaccurate slander. You know full well that I have never contested that the Queen is of British nationality; I feel such to be true because as Queen of the UK she must be of that country's nationality. You, however, have asserted that she is only of British nationality, relying not on feeling, but on the British Nationality Act as the sole proof of this claim. You thus demanded the same kind of proof to show she is a national of her other countries. Now that your lone piece of evidence has been discounted, the bar has suddenly lowered? Sorry; either you need legislation or other official papers, or you don't. Do make up your mind. --Miesianiacal (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe Wallis Simpson may have become British as a result of being the wife of the Governor of the Bahamas (and a resident in the Bahamas), but the article doesn't mention that, and I'm dredging up memories of long-past documentaries (her second husband was British, and it's possible that she had dual-nationality at the time of the abdication crisis - the British press might well have preferred "American divorcee" to "partly British divorcee"!) Regarding Popes, the Vatican City article does say that Popes are included among the state's citizens.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

We can cite that she doesn't have a passport; beyond that anything else is currently original research. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources; so far there are no sources. That said, I agree with the solution outlined below - she is undeniably a UK national, and the UK flag is perfectly acceptable to represent UK nationals as well as citizens. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 14:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims do indeed need extraordinary sources; so, such a source is needed to confirm the Queen is only of UK nationality. There have already been sources presented that, at least, put the claim into doubt. --Miesianiacal (talk) 14:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Liz must have British citizenship. Surely, the UK 'head of state' isn't a foreigner in the UK. GoodDay (talk) 13:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The same would then apply to all other countries of which she is head of state. But all this remains mere argument, from all of us. We need sources, folks. --Miesianiacal (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources, anybody? I'm too lazy to look. GoodDay (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, and no time right now. So far as I'm aware, the only requirement for New Zealand's head of state is that they're not Catholic (the relevant law being inherited from the UK, rather than passed at Parliament). Bloody stupid law, but I gather the argument is that it would need to be repealed in all Commonwealth realms in order to get rid of it. I'd be highly surprised if the UK had any law specifying that its head of state had to be of a given nationality - if for no other reason than the UK has had "foreign" monarchs in the past, and it might be useful to have them in the future. Nationality is a relatively modern concept. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

If anyone can be bothered, here's the contact address from her website webeditor@royal.gsx.gov.uk - just ask them what the Queen's legal nationality is. ðarkuncoll 15:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

And here's the citation British Nationality Act of 1948.

12.—(1) A person who was a British subject immediately before the date of the commencement of this Act shall on that date become a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies if he possesses any of the following qualifications, that is to say—

(a) that he was born within the territories comprised at the commencement of this Act in the United Kingdom and Colonies, and would have been such a citizen if section four of this Act had been in force at the time of his birth;

The onus is now on those who dispute the Queen's nationality to find the clause excluding her from this Act - or, for example, to find an Act of, say, the Canadian parliament granting her Canadian citizenship. Good luck - you'll need it! ðarkuncoll 16:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That's still not proof that her sole nationality is British. --Miesianiacal (talk) 17:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Please prove that she has another nationality then. It's not my job to prove a negative. Without citations, you have nothing at all. ðarkuncoll 18:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Detailed examination of the Queen's nationality

Further to the above, the relevant points are covered here History_of_British_nationality_law#British_Nationality_and_Status_of_Aliens_Act_1914 and here History_of_British_nationality_law#British_Nationality_Act_1948.

In brief, when the Queen was born in 1926 (when the 1914 Act was in force), she automatically became a British National by virtue of the fact that she was born in a dominion of King George V. This was not affected by her marriage to Philip in 1947 because (a) he had already become a naturalised British subject and (b) the marriage took place after 1933 (prior to that a woman lost British nationality if she married a foreigner, even if she didn't take on his nationality).

The 1948 Act divided British Nationality between the dominions. All those who had been born in the UK and its remaining dependencies automatically became what were now called Citizens of the UK and Colonies. This included the Queen of course. ðarkuncoll 08:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it might even have gone back further than that. The UK Aliens Act 1905 was I believe the first act that separated nationality in the once unified British Empire. It allowed the UK to determine who could move to the British Isles. It give the U.K. the right to deny "Right of Abode" esp. in cases if a person was deem to be an "Idiot", "undesirable", or other reasons. That is seen as one of the first moves of separating the Mother Country and its inhabitants from the rest of the empire. CaribDigita (talk) 13:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there a way of contacting Buckingham Palace, for clarification? GoodDay (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The OP refers to both nationality and citizenship in the question. It might be best to stick to nationality, as citizenship for a monarch is a tricky question we don't need to get into. That makes it a much easier question to answer: her nationality is British, and we don't need any expert reference to tell us that. Why is it British? Because she was born there, has lived there all her life apart from official trips o/s, reigns over the country ... What more do we need to establish nationality? That fact that she is also head of state of 15 other countries is beside the point. Her personal nationality is British. The flag of the UK is a symbol that can be used to indicate either British nationality or UK citizenship or both, so use it to mean the former only, and problem solved. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I've no problem with using the Union Jack, or calling her British. GoodDay (talk) 13:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Likewise. From a Commonwealth perspective, the flag "retains an official or semi-official status in some Commonwealth Realms, e.g. in Canada, where it is known as the Royal Union Flag". It flies over the flagstaff at Waitangi, for example, alongside the flag of the United Tribes, and beneath the Flag of New Zealand. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

My, my; a lot of people here seem to feel they're in a position to speak for the Queen. --Miesianiacal (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

My taxes (without my permission) pay for her Canadian trips. GoodDay (talk) 13:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I know! Just a while back someone was even claiming she wasn't a UK citizen! Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) If we can't find reliable sources for either side of this dispute? then we should consider that internationally, Liz II is recognized as British. GoodDay (talk) 14:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. In fact, ask a random person not from the UK "Which country is Elizabeth II the queen of?", and in most cases the answer will be "She's the Queen of England". Then tell them she's queen of more countries than just England, and they'll correct themselves "OH, ok, she's Queen of Great Britain". They still haven't even got to Northern Island, let alone the rest of the Commonwealth realms. (Not that NI is a CR per se, but you know what I'm getting at.) Whatever her constitutional status in her overseas realms may be, she is most intimately associated with the UK (or parts thereof), in the minds of the vast number of people. And that includes her subjects overseas. Australia had a referendum in 1997 about whether or not to become a republic, and one of the strongest arguments for the Yes case was that it was inappropriate to have a person as monarch who is not in any sense of the term an Australian and does not live here. We never, never think of her as Australian - always as British. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, then we should label her as English. That's what she's most widely recognized as, after all. --Miesianiacal (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Queen's role in american countries of the British Empire

What is the Queen's role in american countries of the British Empire?

I don't see any reference of America anywhere in the article... Can we add some more info please?

Kind Regards, American(Can) (talk) 06:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

She's Queen of Canada and a number of states in the Caribbean, all of which are in America. ðarkuncoll 07:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

In the Americas the Governors-General tend perform all the duties of the Queen. In the British overseas territories the Chief Ministers or Governors do the same on behalf of the British government. The powers of the Queen have been widdled-away over time. Currently she is mainly a Figurehead as opposed to an executive head of state.(Like the U.S. president is.)

Antigua and Barbuda - "Her Majesty is represented in Antigua and Barbuda on a day-to-day basis by a Governor-General."[16]

"The Queen maintains direct contact with the Governor-General, although she delegates executive power to the Governor-General in virtually every respect."[17]

You'll see this on almost all pages. CaribDigita (talk) 08:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

There are no "American countries" in the British Empire; if, indeed, there's any British Empire to speak of any more. --Miesianiacal (talk) 11:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, if there is a British Empire, then the British overseas territories are certainly part of it, and many of them are clearly American, while their status as countries are much less certain. —JAO • T • C 18:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

American countries of the British Empire? Holy smokers, it's gaulling enough that my country is a monarchy. GoodDay (talk) 13:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Gaulling? Heh, there are no British countries in Gaul, either.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks, I just thought we could include America as it only applies to the British Empire and Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II anyway, we just need more info on her role in America thats all. Kind Regards, American(Can) (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't Queen Elizabeth II of England Queen Elizabeth I of the United Kingdom?

Good Queen Bess, (Queen Elizabeth I of England) never reigned over Scotland.

As with the Kings Charles and James, why hasn't she adopted different numbers for the different kingdoms?

Should the Prince of Wales become King with his present name, this question will also arise.

SeryyVolk (talk) 21:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

See above. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 21:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Because the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland do not exist since 1707. Therefore, she rules only one European kingdom and is only Elizabeth II of that kingdom. BTW, kings named Charles had the same regnal number in England and Scotland, because the first king named Charles was born after the Union of the Crowns. Only kings named James had different numbers. Coincidentally, there was a Mary in England and a Mary in Scotland before the union of the Crowns, so Mary II of England was also Mary II of Scotland. Should Prince Henry of Wales succeed to the throne, he could choose to reign as David III, although no David has ruled England. Surtsicna (talk) 22:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)