Talk:Elizabeth II

Is Elizabeth II the proper article heading?

She's Elizabeth I of Scotland, after all, and some Scots at least get shirty about this. Paul Magnussen (talk) 21:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

She's not Elizabeth I of Scotland any more than she is, say, of Australia. A monarch's regnal number is a matter for the royal prerogative, and need have no real connection with the actual number of monarchs of that name who have reigned. There have, for example, been 11 kings of England/Great Britain named Edward, and 9 named Henry. ðarkuncoll 21:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for filling a gap in my education. Who was the extra Henry? Paul Magnussen (talk) 22:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Henry the Young King. ðarkuncoll 22:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Who are Edwards IX-XI? 101090ABC (talk) 12:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Edward the Confessor, Edward the Martyr, and Edward the Elder. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Should have remembered the Confessor. By the way, why aren't ordinal numbers used for these Edwards? 101090ABC (talk) 10:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Using ordinal numbers was a French fashion, not practiced by the English. When, later, ordinal numbers were adopted, the formula "since the conquest" was added. ðarkuncoll 11:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Although subject to the Royal Prerogative, an agreement was reached with regard to ordinal numbers in relation to the Kingdoms of England and Scotland by an Order in Council of the Privy Council in 1952. It was agreed that the highest number would be taken from either list of monarchs from the Kingdoms of England and Scotland up to the Acts of Union of 1707. So a future James would be James VIII of the United Kingdom, or a David would be David III of the United Kingdom. Either way the Scottish nationalsist will have it their own way regardless of what is agreed.

As far as the numbering of Edward's is concerned, King Henry III very much wished for his son to be crowned Edward IV, since he reverred his ancestor Edward the Confessor and all the Anglo-Saxon kings, and indeed not only rebuilt Westminster Abbey in the French gothic style but also made the shrine of the Confessor the absolute hub and pinnacle of the building. When Edward became king he simply disregarded his father's wishes and insisted, in his inimitable and brutal way, that he should be Edward I.

Taking this one step even further (and here we enter the realms of fantasy), Henry VII named his eldest son Arthur Prince of Wales, and being imbued with the Arthurian legend insisted his eldest son be crowned Arthur II. Of course this never happened as Arthur died young, but it does illustrate the flexibility of the ordinal numbering system and the force of the Royal prerogative.Ds1994 (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't "of the United Kingdom" be added? - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 23:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

"Of the United Kingdom" was dropped in 2010 after years of debate. --Ibagli (Talk) 03:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Records of Queen Elizabeth II.

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: Queen Elizabeth II. is in 85 years and 60 years of the reign of Prime Minister witnessed the change of 12, 12 American presidents and the Pope as much as 6. Only three years missing to reach Queen Victoria and become the longest-lived queen in history. God Save the Queen! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.2.119.173 (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

When to feature on the main page?

When are the authors of this excellent article thinking of submitting it to be featured on the main page? The Jubilee is coming up. --Inops (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The Jubilee has been underway since February. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, the bank holiday at least. --Inops (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Closer is her official birthday in Canada, next Monday; the Prince of Wales will be to celebrate it and the Diamond Jubilee. ;)

More seriously: Accession Day was likely the day the article should've been on the main page. Too many events in different countries on different dates to pick just one now, I think. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

See WP:TFAR#June 5. DrKiernan (talk) 09:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick heads up - I've rescheduled this article's main page appearance for June 2, the first day of the jubilee celebration. (I did it so June 5 could go to Transit of Venus) Raul654 (talk) 01:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

As that's the anniversary of the Coronation it seems the most appropriate date. Richerman (talk) 01:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Supreme Governor

I think the second sentence of the lead: "In her specific role as the monarch of the United Kingdom, one of her 16 realms, she is Supreme Governor of the Church of England." should be removed. The lead paragraph should be for the most important points, but it is not a point of tremendous relevance. She is not known as a religious leader, and has no real power in the Church of England. The role derives from her position as head of state rather than something she is appointed to as a separate office. The sentence contains caveats that are repetitive and cumbersome. DrKiernan (talk) 09:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Diamond Jubilee portrait

Hi again, guys. I'm so glad this article made it to FA status, and I'm really excited for when it's featured. If any of you are interested, two official photographs of the Queen were released especially for the Diamond jubilee. I think this one could make a good infobox picture. The photographs are free for all non-commercial use, so downloading them onto Commons should be rather easy. They have watermarks, but I think those could be cropped out as long as copyright information is provided. You can find all that here. Rockhead126 (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Commercial use of the work must be allowed for images to be hosted on commons. Same here, it seems. DrKiernan (talk) 15:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Need to get in the infobox list of the governor generals in all the realms — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.201.47 (talk) 10:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

That information's easily found in a number of other places and not at all necessary in this article. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Diamond Jubilee

I'm surprised that there is a section 'Golden jubilee and beyond' which has a mention of the Diamond Jubilee but there isn't a seperate section for the Diamond Jubilee with a pointer to the main article Diamond Jubilee of Elizabeth II and a summary of the plans for the celebrations. Is there a reason why not? Richerman (talk) 22:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

A summary of celebration plans is far too detailed for this article. The golden jubilee is simply an easy place to make a divide. CMD (talk) 23:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think I'm making myself clear. I'm talking about a seperate section with a couple of sentences saying that the Jubilee will be celebrated in Britain and around the commonwealth. Surely that's not too detailed? At the moment the only mention is half a sentence in the lead and a sentence that says "Elizabeth plans to celebrate her Diamond Jubilee in 2012, marking 60 years as Queen." That seems hardly adequate to me for an event that is so rare and is being celebrated in many countries around the world. And as as we're already nearly half way through the Jubilee year and celebrations have already started it's not even accurate. Richerman (talk) 00:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

A couple of sentences don't need their own section. We already have "Elizabeth's Diamond Jubilee in 2012 marks 60 years as Queen. She is the longest-lived and second-longest-reigning monarch of the United Kingdom, and the second-longest-serving current head of state (after King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand)" which demonstrates the rarity of the event. What else do you think needs to be added? CMD (talk) 09:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Rather than try to explain I've added something. If you don't like the change feel free to revert it, but when the whole reason for this article appearing on the main page is the jubilee it would seem bizarre to me not to find a heading referring to it in the contents section. I'm sure that if there isn't something under its own headng with a clear pointer to the article aout the celebrations, then on the day well-meaning people will be making all sorts of inappropriate additions because they think the article is missing something. Richerman (talk) 11:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Its a bit bizarre that the Diamond Jubilee is a subsection of the Golden Jubilee section? Yes the Golden Jubilee section says "and beyond" but still its an odd placement? beardybloke (talk) 10:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Montreal DJ trick

I wonder if DrKiernan could here offer a proper explanation as to why he repeatedly deletes from the article mention of the 1995 prank call made to the Queen by a Montreal radio station DJ in which he managed to get her to unknowingly give her opinion on the outcome of a major referendum in Canada (namely, that on the separation of Quebec); his edit summary of "trivial" simply doesn't cut it. A constitutional monarch making public experssion of his or her personal opinion on a political matter is quite significant, even if deceit was the cause; perhaps the trickery makes the particular event more significant. Such a thing has never happened to Elizabeth before that day or after. It deserves its small place in the article. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

It worsens the prose by breaking up the flow of the annus horribilis section.

It associates the prank call with annus horribilis even though the events are unrelated.

It's trivial. The article should cover material in due proportion to its importance. If every biography of Elizabeth II mentions something, then it should be in the article; but if no biography of her ever mentions it, then it should be cut as irrelevant. This is never mentioned. If you do a google news search for example, your source is the only news article that comes up, and if you do a book search you just get wikipedia ripoffs and one or two books on famous pranks. If you do a general google search the websites found relate to Brassard or prank calls not to the Queen. It is famous and notable with regard to Brassard, and possibly as a prank call, but it is not notable from the royal angle. DrKiernan (talk) 17:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it is trivial at best. I say cut it. Mediatech492 (talk) 18:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, after about five minutes of searching, I've five sources that cover the affair (six, if we count a link that I know had information on it but is now dead, though possibly recoverable): [1],[2], [3], [4], [5]

The requirement that all content of this article must be first mentioned in another biography is one of your own creation; it is not a Wikipedai policy or guideline.

"Trivial" remains a bit of a feeble criticism; compared to what? The political leanings of the Queen's sisters-in-law's husbands? The embroidery on Elizabeth's wedding dress? I think not. As I said, she publicly (without knowing it was so) expressed her opinion on a major political matter. That's notable for a constitutional monarch like Elizabeth; that she made her feelings known is noted in some of the links I provided, though so was it deemed worthy to mention the odd absence of any backlash against the Queen and a few theories as to why that was the case.

Anyone can note that no mention of Brassard was made in the sentence deleted from this article; the sentence was brief and the focus all on Elizabeth. There are better ways to work in information that's misplaced (if indeed it is) than deleting it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I saw those four links (one is duplicated) earlier in your sandbox, but they're insignificant. To demonstrate, it is easy to find sources that say Elizabeth wore a cerise cashmere coat on the 8th March 2012 [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] but that does not mean that we should put "Elizabeth wore a cerise cashmere coat on 8 March 2012" in the article. These are transient news items that soon pass into oblivion. What you need is proof that this is a lasting and notable event that often draws academic comment or serious coverage. It only draws such comment highly infrequently if at all, so it isn't notable enough for the main article. DrKiernan (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

What a spurious argument. The links were never provided to show how many links there are; they were provided to counter your claim that "[my] source is the only news article that comes up, and if you do a book search you just get wikipedia ripoffs and one or two books on famous pranks." That statement simply wasn't true. If you want only books (even though newspapers, like the New York Times, which is among the links provided, meet WP:RS just fine; it's only you who's deemed them inadmissible), I've given you already a book it's mentioned in; it's also covered in Jean Chretien's autobiography. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't call me a liar. I did a google news search for "Pierre Brassard" "Elizabeth II" and I got one link. Your "argument" for inclusion is unconvincing. If you think it relevant to Chretien's life then try putting it in his article, though autobiographical sources are generally frowned upon when third-party sources are available. DrKiernan (talk) 20:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Who are you conversing with? Nobody called you a liar. You made an untrue statement; I'm not either so naive or dishonest myself as to jump to the conclusion you deliberately uttered what you knew to be false.

Your argument for exclusion - "If it's not in a biographical book, it's trivial, it's trivial, it's trivial!" - is unconvincing; it's a rule you made up and which isn't even applied consistently to the content of this article. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Empress of Pakistan?

Folks, I'm pretty sure Pakistan became a republic quite a long time ago. E3 is not empress of Pakistan any longer, and the article needs to be amended to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.38.194 (talk) 02:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• "The whole line reads "On the death of her father in 1952, she became Head of the Commonwealth and queen regnant of seven independent Commonwealth countries: the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon". That means that at that time she was the queen of Pakistan. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

In addition the subsequent sentence makes the situation quite clear: "Since her accession, the number of her realms has varied as territories gained independence and some realms became republics." Manning (talk) 05:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The Queen

Queen Elizabeth is commonly referred to as "The Queen". For example, Google currently has a doodle which it calls "The Queen's Diamond Jubilee". I found that the lead hardly used the word Queen and instead had lots of jargon such as "constitutional monarch" and "queen regnant". A lead is supposed to write in simple, accessible language and use the common name for subjects. I have therefore updated the lead sentence to make it clear that we're talking about The Queen. Andrew Davidson (talk) 08:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

She may be commonly known as The Queen in the UK but I suspect that isn't the case around the world as there are a number of other monarchs with that title Do you think she will be known as The Queen in Denmark or Tonga for instance? Richerman (talk) 08:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec) While I agree that "queen regnant" is unnecessarily obscure, I've removed at least one of the Queens from the lead. It shouldn't be over-played repetitively. DrKiernan (talk) 08:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I would have left it as "Queen Elizabeth II" and removed the "commonly known as The Queen" phrase as it's too specific to the UK Richerman (talk) 08:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I made my edit before I saw your comment. I've no strong opinion on which Queen to keep. DrKiernan (talk) 09:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I've done the switch. I agree with Richerman's comment that "commonly known as The Queen" is UK-specific. All UK queens, during their or their husband's reign, have been commonly known as "the Queen" - just as all UK kings have been commonly known as "the King" during their reigns. It's like saying that Barack Obama is commonly known as "the President" or that David Cameron is commonly known as "the Prime Minister". Kahastok talk 09:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be Elizabeth II, not Queen Elizabeth II, none of her predecessors pages have the prefix 'King' or 'Queen' except Victoria, but that's because she's the only British Sovereign called Victoria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.237.93 (talk) 09:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)