Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 35

Over 120 categories

Previous discussion: Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 27#Over-categorisation

See also: Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Award recipients

Can we move the honors categories to List of titles and honours of Queen Elizabeth II? That would move 69 from here to there, reducing the number here to 53. DrKiernan (talk) 09:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Link to British Monarchy page

I would suggest to add a link to the Monarchy of the United Kingdom page. I have not found the perfect place (somewhere at the top of the page) to add this, or link a word to it. Maybe a link through the word Queen in the line "Queen of the Commonwealth realms" would work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fingolfin86 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe changing the first sentence to: Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926)^{[note 1]} is the constitutional monarch of the United Kingdom and 15 more sovereign states (together known as the Commonwealth realms) and their territories and dependencies, as well as head of the 54-member Commonwealth of Nations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fingolfin86 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that sentence is too long, but we could maybe add it to the infobox. DrKiernan (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you undo that edit, since it was your fourth revert on this page in less than 24 hours; see [2]. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Rewriting some lines

Earlier, I tried to rewrite the line of Elizabeth's early life stating, "She had a sister. ... who is four years younger". Unfortunately, another editor continually reverted it stating the fact that she only has one sibling (a younger sister) is important and so now it reads, "Elizabeth's only sibling. ... was born in 1930". IMO, the fact that she only has one sister is quite obvious because if Elizabeth had any other siblings, they would be listed. Also, "a 1950 autobiography" was rejected out of misunderstanding and they kept rewriting, "autobiography published in 1950"; the former is actually standard and I've seen it used many times. I spoke to another editor about this and I was told to post on the talk page. Thoughts? Spelling Style (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The number of her brothers and sisters is not obvious unless it is explicit. For example, the article on George V only mentions his elder brother, but that doesn't mean his elder brother was his only sibling. The words "only sibling" provide extra information that clarifies the context.

Dates are generally used as nouns rather than adjectives. I see no reason to change that. DrKiernan (talk) 07:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

That's strange to me. I read a lot of the other articles and they don't actually note that the person only had an "only sibling", though. Spelling Style (talk) 04:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, User_talk:Spelling_Style#RE_Elizabeth_II_word_usage. Spelling Style (talk) 04:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Explanation required

For this. The edit summary is insufficient. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Disruptive editing: Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging". No-one seriously questions that she adopted the royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom on her accession. DrKiernan (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a bit hard to swallow sanctimonious accusations of disruption when they come from a habitual edit warrior like yourself. It was you who raised the subject of citations as justification for reverting part of my edits. Apparently it's only material you disapprove of that requires cites.

Is there a forthcoming explanation for why the rest of my work was reverted? Your edit summary was insufficient. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Note that you were unable to provide cites for the material I removed. DrKiernan (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Your refusal to answer the question asked above is in itself disruptive. I hope you're aware of that. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, since it seems you indeed do not have any legitimate explanation for

• deleting the cited material,
• undoing the assemblage of mentions of royal standards and shields into one sentence and the separation from there of the mention of the personal flag, or
• removing the direct link to the "Sovereign's standard" section of Royal standards of Canada,

I shall restore the aforementioned, unless you finally do express yourself. The paragraph should thus read:

From 21 April 1944 until her accession, Elizabeth's arms consisted of a lozenge bearing the royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom, differenced with a label of three points argent, the centre point bearing a Tudor rose and the first and third a cross of St George. After her accession as sovereign, she adopted the coats of arms of both the United Kingdom and of Canada, both undifferenced. The Queen's royal standards for the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, and Barbados use the shields of those countries' arms. Elizabeth also possesses a personal flag for use elsewhere.

--Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

It is unnecessary and ill-advised to expand an already very lengthy article when the details are already given in a sub-article that is already linked from this article. The way your paragraph is phrased implies that she did not adopt the arms of Australia, New Zealand, etc., which may well be true. But it also may not be true. DrKiernan (talk) 17:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

In the same way, the present wording of the paragraph in the article implies she only adopted the arms of the UK. If brevity is now paramount (as opposed to sources), and neutrality and balance is always important, then the sentence "After her accession as sovereign, she adopted the coats of arms of both the United Kingdom and of Canada, both undifferenced" can be reduced to "Upon her accession, she inherited the various arms her father held as sovereign." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

"various" should be avoided as imprecise, but I don't object to "On her accession, she adopted the coats of arms her father held as sovereign." DrKiernan (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The last two sentences can be reduced to "There are royal standards or personal flags for use in the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, and elsewhere." DrKiernan (talk) 18:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I am fine with those amendments, except I would tweak your last two sentences amendment to read: "The Queen possesses royal standards for use in the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, and Barbados, and a personal flag for use elsewhere." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The latter aren't royal standards. They are personal flags. DrKiernan (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

If the British and Canadian ones are standards, why aren't the Australian, New Zealand, Jamaican, and Barbadian? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Presumably because a royal standard is the banner of arms used by successive sovereigns[3] while a personal flag is used by Elizabeth only[4]. In this case the personal flags have Elizabeth's monogram on them, so would be unsuitable for previous or succeeding monarchs. We can only guess why Canada uses both names. DrKiernan (talk) 23:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The Canadian flag is a standard, regardless of the device defacing the shield: [5] --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Exhibition - The Queen: Art and Image

There is an exhibition with the displays Queen Elizabeth's formal painted portraits, official photographs and press images by contemporary artists, including Pietro Annigoni, Cecil Beaton, Lord Lichfield, Andy Warhol, Lucian Freud and Gerhard Richter, Chris Levine, Ralph Heimans, Rolf Harris, Phil Richards, Annie Leibovitz during the sixty years of her reign.

Just a suggestion for an article about the portraits. There are a lot of really famous ones like the Warhol, Freud and Leibovitz ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.242.76 (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Primogeniture amendment

Anyone here who's British can double check me on this, but apparently she just finalized an amendment to switch her successors to a different type of primogeniture, namely from male-preference to neutral primogeniture. This means that Kate Middleton's new baby will succeed the still-future King William V as eldest child, regardless of his or her sex.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/03/kate-middleton-pregnant_n_1877636.html?utm_hp_ref=style&ir=Style&icid=maing-grid7

I heard this in a video on the Huffington Post. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

See 2011 proposals to change the rules of royal succession in the Commonwealth realms. That is certainly the intention, but the proposals have not yet been ratified through the various legislatures. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I just heard yesterday (the day after you posted that reply) on ABC World News Tonight that those legislatures had just ratified the primogeniture amendment that day. Again, though, if you're British I'll trust what you hear from your domestic news agencies. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand that the current position is that they have all said that they intend to implement the proposals, but they have not yet formally done so as it will require legislation. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I heard a TV news report that the 16 ratifications will all be occurring "this Friday", which means Friday 7 December. I think that that is total and utter bollocks, and I cannot even begin to imagine where they got the story from. For starters, the Australian parliament has not even begun to consider these issues, let alone made any decisions, and it rose last week and is not due to resume until (?) February 2013. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

3D Christmas speech of Queen Elizabeth II

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: Queen Elizabeth II is the first time in 3D gave her traditional Christmas speech on the occasion in which she paid tribute to athletes, the Olympic and Paraolympic Games and thanked the British for her jubilee celebrations, reports the Croatian news agency HINA. 93.137.54.210 (talk) 16:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 January 2013

Please change: the death in 1997 of her daughter-in-law to read the death in 1997 of her former daughter-in-law Alexander06 (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Windsor surname

"George V specifically adopted Windsor, not only as the name of the 'House' or dynasty, but also as the surname of his family." (emphasis added) ‎is stated explicitly on the page of the "Official Website of the British Royal Family" which is dedicated to explaining to the public the surname of the Queen, and which is there labelled The Royal Family name". That explanation derives from and is consistent with the proclamation of George V issued in 1917, which says "We, out of Our Royal Will and Authority, do hereby declare and announce that as from the date of this Our Royal Proclamation Our House and Family shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that all the descendants in the male line of Our said Grandmother Queen Victoria who are subjects of these Realms, other than female descendants who may marry or may have married, shall bear the said Name of Windsor..." (emphasis added) The Royal Website is also consistent with the Orders-in-Council of Elizabeth II issued: 9 April 1952 (which states "I hereby declare 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") (emphasis added) and 8 February 1960 ("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.") The notion that "Royals don't have surnames" is popular to the point of being an urban legend among monarchists and history-buffs, but it simply isn't true. The reliable citations, above, documenting Windsor as Elizabeth II's declared surname have not been refuted by any authority comparable to that of the royal decrees as clarified on the Royal Website. People come to an encyclopedia to have popular misconceptions corrected. That is what affixing "Windsor" to Elizabeth II's name in this article does. FactStraight (talk) 05:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Being a member of the Family of Windsor is not the same thing as having Windsor as a surname, or even having a surname at all. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

You're right, which is why we need not focus on anything so vague as "being a member of the Family of Windsor". Rather, George V was quite specific: "all the descendants in the male line of Our said Grandmother Queen Victoria who are subjects of these Realms, other than female descendants who may marry or may have married, shall bear the said Name of Windsor..." Elizabeth II has also been specific: "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." Are there any reliable sources which refute these declarations? Or that authoritatively refute the Royal Website, which reads: "George V specifically adopted Windsor, not only as the name of the 'House' or dynasty, but also as the surname of his family"? FactStraight (talk) 02:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, you seem to be picking and choosing from the article you cited to, which says, "For the most part, members of the Royal Family who are entitled to the style and dignity of HRH Prince or Princess do not need a surname". You are also ascribing a lot of weight to the article even though it is at a site with limited value. For the most part, the site tries to explain things in very simple terms, which often has a profound effect on accuracy and precision. -Rrius (talk) 04:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not asserting that British royals use a surname, at least not often. I'm saying that they have one, and that Wikipedia should acknowledge that fact precisely because there is a widespread myth -- bordering on an idée fixe among some Wikipedia editors -- that, because they seldom use a surname, that omission is proof they lack one. It isn't. I'm not sure I understand your other point: Are you implying that the Official Royal Website is somehow not accurate or precise in stating that they have a surname? Based on what evidence? FactStraight (talk) 06:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

If you go here: [6] and click on the link "View the original" (part way down on the left), you can see the original scan of the official England and Wales birth register index for April-June 1926. She is listed as Windsor, Elizabeth A. M. DrKiernan (talk) 10:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The Queen's Last Name

The article fails to mention her majesty’s last name at the start. I think that is rather essential; don’t you? Did she take the name of the guy she married or does she keep her surname since she is after all the Queen? Or did she take his name like any other woman would? If she took his name than the royal family will have a different last name from there on. --68.118.201.68 (talk) 22:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

She could make use the surname Windsor (it became a possible surname in 1917 when the name of the royal house changed), but she's never used a surname. If you read the article you'll see that the royal house remained the House of Windsor and not the House of Mountbatten (she didn't take Philip's 'surname') -- Hazhk ^{Talk to me} 16:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 February 2013

The choice of name I see for this queen is:

"Elizabeth, 'of course'"

OK, but could someone add that this resulted in the "I" being added to the name of the previous Elizabeth? (Elizabeth I's article has her as simply Elizabeth before the explicitly-stated accession of Elizabeth II.)

Suggested new sentence: (Therefore, she became Elizabeth II, and the previous queen Elizabeth was given the number "I".)

128.63.16.20 (talk) 18:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Not done: This is already mentioned in the first sentence of Elizabeth I which is probably the more appropriatae place for it. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 23:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Women's Hour Power list

I'm not convinced that being top in the Women's Hour "power list" is a valuable addition to the article. She is after all the head of state, and the source is not an especially distinguished one. DrKiernan (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. That's just a glorified popularity contest because, as you say, she is the head of state so she is the most powerful woman in Britain regardless. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Church of England/Church of Scotland

The Church of Scotland is presbyterian. The Queen is clearly Anglican. See here[7]. While she is the ceremonial head of the CofS, she is the literal head of the CoE. The CoS website even states that she is not an adherent. See here[8]. Revmqo (talk) 06:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Further "Church of England" and "Church of Scotland" are not religions. They are religious bodies. The religions are Anglican and Presbyterian, both forms of Christianity.... but different forms.Revmqo (talk) 06:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

As I said in an edit summary, there are reliable academic sources saying she is a member of the Church of Scotland. DrKiernan (talk) 06:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Religion as listed in info boxes is generally the theology of practice of the individual, not the name of a church. As such, it should be listed as Anglican or Presbyterian (for the Church of Scotland). It doesn't take a lot of research to determine the Elizabeth is an Anglican by practice and only attends the CofS when required as part of her job as monarch. The theologies are quite different forms of Christianity and she is clearly Anglican. Evidence of her Anglicanism as her actual personal faith practice. [9], [10], [11], and [12] Revmqo (talk) 07:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

That she is Anglican is not in question. The official website[13] and academic books[14] state explicitly that she is a member of the Church of Scotland. She attends the Church of Scotland when in Scotland on private visits, at Balmoral for example. I have suggested two alternatives:

(1) Use an all-encompassing term like "Protestantism".

(2) Remove religion from the infobox. DrKiernan (talk) 07:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Being a "member" of the Church of Scotland is not in doubt. Yet she is only a member because of her office, not because of her practice of faith. My argument is that the "religion" line in infoboxes is for personal religious practice. Admittedly, the Queen is in a unique position since different countries in the commonwealth have different official religions.

First, we must come to consensus to what the information provided by the "religion" line item means

Second, we should consider changing the words to adjectives, not Proper Nouns - since this is more consistent with other similar pages

Third, if consensus ends up being the listing of both, I would argue for an * on the second listing

• I don't believe that removing the information is the appropriate approach. Also, if you read the sources carefully, you will see that she attends Presbyterian services while in Scotland, but that she also attends Anglican ones. I believe this indicates her willingness to perform her official function, but also to practice her own personal faith at the same time. Revmqo (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• So would that mean by virtue of somewhere having a state religion, and QEII being Sovereign, she'd automatically be a member of that church? Why not just change it to "Christianity" CaribDigita (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• We can be more precise than "Christianity" by using "Protestantism" (or the two individual churches). DrKiernan (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

King Edward VII hospitalisation

Her Majesty has been hospitalised at King Edward VII Hospital for treatment of gastrointenteritis. 74.69.11.229 (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Do we report everytime a Royal goes into hospital? This is not news. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually it is news and yes, we do, especially the Queen, because it is so rare. 74.69.121.132 (talk) 00:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. Just because something is "news" does not mean it is worthy of inclusion in an encylopaedic source. Lee McLernon 07:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbombbardier (talk • contribs)

Facts about the reign

Its a good article but thats the Queen and there should be more facts about her and the reign. Not just some information. There are so many facts online like on this two websites:

http://www.thediamondjubilee.org/60-facts-about-queen http://www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDiary/Factfiles/80factsaboutTheQueen.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.242.76 (talk) 06:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC) http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2114386_2114388_2115566,00.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.242.76 (talk) 06:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Age needs changing.

Her age needs changing, today is her birthday. She's now 87. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JLPark731 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Age

Her Majesty the Queen is now 88 years old, not 87. Jules Grant (talk) 11:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

What sort of maths are you using? She was born 21 April 1926. That was 87 years and 3 weeks ago. She is now into her 88th year, but convention in the anglosphere is to count only completed years. Having recently turned 87, she is, well, 87. She can thank her lucky stars she's not an Australian test cricketer. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 12:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

My mistake. I counted years began and finished, sorry. Haha, such a simple error. Jules Grant (talk) 14:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Succession box

Recent removal of her past position as heir apparent to the throne has been accompanied by the assertion that it is "absurd" here and here. Whether or not that evaluation is true is beside the point, we have the article List of heirs to the British throne to show that is certainly something that readers have found to be of interest. Indeed, that article has been viewed well over 3,000 times per month every month in 2013 and 2012 (where I stopped looking). Feel free to examine further here. Any thoughts?  Frank  |  talk  13:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

She was never heir apparent. Technically, she was not even "heir to the throne" during her father's lifetime - he was the heir, she was the heir presumptive, but that may be nitpicking. Either way, having a succession box for a "position" that basically means that someone is close to having an actual position is absurd. Has any historian (or anyone whatsoever) ever asserted that "The Princess Elizabeth" succeeded "The Prince Albert, Duke of York" as "heir to the Throne" (or as anything whatsoever)? No. Why? Because that is a hardcore piece of trivia. We may as well have a box that says "Second in line to the throne" - the justification would be the same. Heck, even the sacred list of heirs to the British throne contains the names of those second in line. So why not? Because it is absurd. Surtsicna (talk) 13:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

[15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20] , [21], [22], and [23] suggest otherwise. On the first point, of her never being heir apparent, the sources are clear that she was referred to as such. On the second point, whether anyone asserted the succession itself, the links support it without explicitly stating the words you ask. Nevertheless, the implication is quite clear, and all but one of those links are contemporary to the events, so it's not even a modern re-imagination of the matter.  Frank  |  talk  13:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not going to argue with you about whether she was heir apparent or heir presumptive. She was clearly heir presumptive, as you will see if you read about it. (I will make an effort to produce one source that confirms the obvious: The official website of The British Monarchy) Her husband is referred to as god by some, which does not mean that he is a god. That is besides the point. The fact that nobody explicitly stated what the succession box states (or anything similar) indicates that having a succession box for something like that is ridiculous. We might as well have a box that says "Eldest daughter of the monarch" - we have a list of those as well, and it seems to be as visited as the list of heirs (which is your citerion for notability). Having succession boxes for the "position" of "heir to the [British] throne" opens a giant can of worms, encouraging editors to add boxes such as "Heir to the Saxe-Coburg and Gotha throne", "Heir to the Poitou throne", "Heir to the Galician throne", thus cluttering aricles with senseless trivia. Surtsicna (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The point I would make is that the three people in the succession box: George VI, Elizabeth II and Prince Charles are the same three people in the top succession box, and indeed most of the other boxes. There seems to be a lot of redundancy in having so many succession boxes where the successor and predecessor are the same. I think a succession box of this type is more useful where the heir did not succeed, because the main reason for that person's notability will be that they were the heir. I'm not entirely convinced it's useful for someone who actually succeeded because the key information on who they followed and who will follow or followed them would seem implicit in other boxes. DrKiernan (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and prefer not to argue about anything; this is supposed to be a discussion. It seems to me you are putting forth a new line, though, by discussing the difference between heir apparent and heir presumptive; it matters not to me which term is more correct, as your objection is that it is absurd to have the information in the first place. I have produced evidence from reliable sources contemporary to the individuals in question that disputes that, and indeed some also state explicitly that she was referred to as heir apparent. (Let's keep in mind WP:V and, to a lesser degree, the nuance associated with WP:VNT.) On the point of just how many succession boxes there are: Elizabeth, Charles, and William are all quite public figures with detailed, highly-visited and highly-watched articles. Whether we find it reasonable or not, that is the tendency with such articles around here. And, as has been pointed out, not all heirs [apparent | presumptive] ascend, not that it is really the point here.  Frank  |  talk  15:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources assert that she was heir presumptive, as do the very definitions of the terms heir presumptive and heir apparent. She may have been referred to as heir apparent in the newspapers, but that was not correct. Her husband has been called a god, but we are not describing him as such. Anyway, your argument is that, since British royals are public figures and the articles about them are highly-visited and higly-watched, we should tolerate all kinds of trivia inserted here, even if it is redundant and useless (even for trivia)? Since the "tendency with such articles" is to accumulate the said trivia, we should not try to do anything about it? I hope you see how little sense that makes. Surtsicna (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree that how much sense it makes to two or three editors is the relevant point; consensus is how things work around here, as I know you are aware. I saw a change that looked like it removed a useful list and changed it back. Having said that, while I'm not sure I agree with the change, I don't see a reason to continue to object, since i don't feel strongly about it and can't really say it's a "big deal". I will not object to its further removal. Indeed, as I reflect on this entry, I have to agree that I feel more strongly about removing trivia than I do about maintaining status quo. (I do think the standalone article should remain, though, for whatever that is worth.)  Frank  |  talk  18:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused as to the whole reason for this discussion. She was the heir(ess) presumptive as Her Royal Highness the Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh to the British throne from December 11, 1936 to February 6, 1952. She is referred to as such by the British monarchy website http://www.royal.gov.uk/HMTheQueen/Education/Overview.aspx. If they say she was, she was. Period. No need for everyone to get so bent out of shape about it. Now replace the bloody box where it was and let's get on with life. 74.69.121.132 (talk) 00:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Where is the evidence?

The end of the fifth paragraph states that 'The Queen has occasionally faced severe press criticism of the royal family and republican sentiments, but support for the monarchy and her personal popularity remain high.' There is no evidence to back up the fact that both support for her and the monarchy remain high. Without this, it is the author's opinion only. The statement also suggests that the only criticism she has received has been from the press, but there's no evidence of this either. 86.171.51.23 (talk) 09:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

References are given in hidden comments and in the body of the article. DrKiernan (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Full title?

According to this article, her full and official title is 'Queen Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith'. Should this be included in the article? Crazy Eddy (talk) 10:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

She is monarch of no less than 16 independent countries, and has a different title for each one. We have an entire article just about her various titles - List of titles and honours of Queen Elizabeth II.

So, to answer your question: in a word, no. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 10:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

In any event, the article is incorrect! Lee McLernon 07:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbombbardier (talk • contribs)

In Scotland, she is never referred to as the Second - because there was no First. The pillar boxes do not include "II" after the bombs in 1952/53. Sebmelmoth (talk) 15:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Michael Fagan Incident

This article's description of the Fagan Incident is not entirely consistent with the incident's own article. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Fagan_incident) — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Parcae (talk • contribs) 09:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Horses

Hi all. I just wrote the article Queen Elizabeth's horses, but can't seem to edit this page to add a link to it. Can anyone assist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captitan Obvious (talk • contribs) 19:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Portraits

Is there a list of painted portraits that the Queen has sat for? Or official portraits? I do so want to grab together the disparate artists into a list. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 23:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

former daughter-in-law?

Is this expression correct? I am not a lawyer, or linguist, but I do happen to know that in United States income tax law (partly derived from English common law) divorce or death does not end the relationship between father or mother in law and son or daughter in law. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

It is a term used by NYT and USA Today. The monarchy's own website avoids the question by never using a pronoun. EBY (talk) 16:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I would rather see "her son's former wife." But I don't think most people see the other as a problem so I don't expect it to be changed. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Then again, it does save a word. I'll give it a try. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Diamond Jubilee Celebrations

Although the article states that there were celebrations throughout her realms, it paints a slightly distorted picture since, in Scotland there were only about 100 street parties, compared to nearly 10,000 in England. The feeling in Scotland and England was totally different, and I cannot comment on other countries, but would be interested to know.86.14.187.220 (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Lance Tyrell

Regardless of the outcome on the RFC below - whether she is determined to be referred to as Queen of the Commonwealth realms or Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms the reality is that the only celebrations in Australia were government & mass media driven. I live in Melbourne (Australia's) inner city & know people all over Australia. Having noticed your question, I've asked a few whether they were any parties surrounding the event they were aware of (other than that depicted in the mass media). The response has been an unqualified & resounding, "No." In lay terms, one answer that came back was, "Does anyone give a toss?" Naturally, in the context of this article, this is a political issue which doesn't merit being brought up. In broader terms, being how HRH is perceived in the Commonwealth countries, it does reflect that neither she, nor the British monarchy, whip up any sense of patriotism(?) as they may have done many years ago. In fact, the sacking of the Whitlam Government in 1975 toppled the last of any palpable sense of allegiance to, as well as a reassessment of the true role of the British monarchy in Australia (most of us being unaware of the 'actual' powers of the Governor General and various arcane laws attached to what were perceived to be predominantly anachronistic titles).

That being said, the vote against becoming a Republic via a referendum in 1999 was presented to the world at large as a desire to remain subjects of HRH. The reality, again, was something altogether different. The referendum foisted an absolute structure for how a Republican government would be put it place before the issue had even been discussed. Ultimately, the result (not to break with the monarchy) was presented as being a majority desire to remain subjects. The reality was that it was a vote against a contentious form of Republican government. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Infobox

User:DrKiernan on 18 November 2012 changed the words "Queen of the Commonwealth realms" in the infobox to "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms", and has today reverted it to that--his preferred version. "Queen of the Commonwealthr realms" had, before 18 November 2012, been in place for nine months, after it was restored on 15 February 2012, having by then stood for two years, between April 2010 and February 2012, since consensus for "Queen of the Commonwealth realms" won consensus after lengthy discussion at talk (subsequent history outlined here).

The reasoning for the 18 November 2012 change was that it was per a discussion at talk that took place in November 2012. But, there was no actual consensus established there to make the change DrKiernan made at that time; he merely suggested adding "constitutional monarch of the United Kingdom and 15 more sovereign states (together known as the Commonwealth realms) and their territories and dependencies" to the infobox and then changed the infobox to read "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms" (thereby making his 4th revert to this article on that day). I contested the edit, but could not revert it, given that doing so would put me over 3RR as well.

Given that the wording "Queen of the Commonwealth realms" has, as demonstrated above, always had more support and has, over four years, been in the article longer than "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms", it should be restored again to the infobox. Further, "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realm" both gives a biased specialness to the UK and duplicates the words "United Kingdom" found at the head of the drop-down list of countries immediately below. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that there was no breach of the three-revert rule by either party on 18 November last year. In "fourth revert", Miesianiacal is counting consecutive edits, and the words "as well" are a mistake on his part. DrKiernan (talk) 17:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Consensus can change, though it's nicest when it's done by discussion rather than edits. EBY (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Should the infobox describe Elizabeth II as "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms"? DrKiernan (talk) 17:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes

1. Material should be covered with due weight. The United Kingdom is the realm in which Elizabeth II was born, has spent most time, and with which she is most intimately involved. The other realms have governor generals who act as head of state on a day-to-day basis, whereas her functions as head of state of the United Kingdom are exercised directly. It is clear to any neutral observer that it is the country of first importance when discussing the 50 or so realms and territories she has reigned over. In an article that already excludes "United Kingdom" from the article title and the first paragraph it is reasonable to include it in the infobox. The claim that mention of the United Kingdom is bias stretches NPOV to an extreme that was not intended by its designers. DrKiernan (talk) 17:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

   You have made a 180 degree shift in your opinion since 2009, apparently: "[P]ersonally, I don't have a problem with "Queen of the Commonwealth realms and their territories", which I think would cover all bases."[24] --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

   At the time the infobox read "Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the other Commonwealth realms", which I said looked racist. It was inappropriate then. It is inappropriate now. DrKiernan (talk) 06:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

2. Weak Support This seemed obvious based on the sources & the history, but I have to admit that once we've dug down, it looks like there is a rapidly growing consensus that the British Queen might NOT be the "Queen of England & everything else, too." Reading this & this and the Oppose arguments has me on the fence. EBY (talk) 21:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC) Strong Support - Basing my !vote on 2 criteria: 1) A matter of consistency: on Wikipedia, her father is "King of the United Kingdom and the Dominions of the British Commonwealth" and "King of the United Kingdom and the British Dominions, Emperor of India" in the infobox, her grandmother is "monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" and "Queen of the United Kingdom" in the infobox. And the dominion itself is called "the monarchy of the United Kingdom (commonly referred to as the British monarchy)" 2) A matter of reliable sources: the New York Times refers to her as "Elizabeth II, Queen of Great Britain", the official .gov.uk website refers to her as "The Queen is Head of State of the UK and 15 other Commonwealth realms," "The UK's current monarch is Queen Elizabeth II," and the "British Monarchy." Forbes describes her as "Monarch, United Kingdom." EBY (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Most people (and most sources) associate her primarily with her British realm, and her own website does so as well when it comes to her title. It is not Wikipedia's role to attempt to change how she is viewed globally, but to reflect how she is viewed globally: When reliable sources refer to her more often as "Queen of the Commonwealth Realms" than as Queen of the UK or of Great Britain, we should do so. Doing so prior to then is undue weight and yielding to soapboxing. FactStraight (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

   Can you point out which of her websites "associates her primarily with her British realm...when it comes to her title"?

   Also, where is the policy that dictates Wikipedia does what's biased and popular, rather than what's unbiased and accurate? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

   It isn't biased. If anything, removing further information about Britain (after already removing it from the article title and the first paragraph) is biasing the article towards a viewpoint that is not reflected either in reality or in the majority of sources. The article should not be pushed too far either way, neither too far towards being UK-centric nor too far to being UK-phobic. Trying to remove all visible mention of Britain from the article title, the first paragraph and the infobox is pushing the article too far one way. DrKiernan (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

   The common habit of referring to EIIR as Queen of the UK (often in total contradiction to the role she's actually fulfilling at the time) is biased; it gives primacy to the UK and either completely forgets the other realms or, at best, relegates them to a second class status as former British colonies still with the British monarch as their head of state. That may be what the majority of sources put forward, but, the question is: The majority of what kind of sources? And is accuracy determined by the number of times something's repeated?

   You can snidely denigrate the other viewpoint as unreal if you wish, but there are a slew of sources used in a number of articles in Wikipedia that prove you wrong (see my post under the "No" header for just a few), that attest to the equality of the realms (thereby giving no supremacy to the UK). These werent' written by crackpots or "UK-phobic" people; many of the authors are themselves British. (Go look through the references used in the article Commonwealth realm.) These are reliable sources. Where are the same for the theory that the UK is the Queen's "real" realm and the others are just, well, the others? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

   I am neither snide nor wrong. I never called anyone a crackpot. If you recall, I was instrumental in getting the name of this article changed; in fact, I don't think it either immodest or unreasonable to suppose that the name would never have been changed without my input. You are losing, not gaining, support by pushing too hard. DrKiernan (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

   You can judge however you wish the act of saying a well sourced viewpoint that contradicts your own is "not reflected in reality". I think it was rather snide; an obvious attempt to delegitimise the fact. I've always throughout this recalled your contributions to prior discussions on matters similar to this one (I'm not sure they were as influential as you say they were, but I did just re-read some of them going back through prior debates while engaged in this one), which is why I'm surprised by your opposing stance now. Regardless, here we are on opposite sides this time. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

4. Support Her title in the UK is "Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith." Perhaps a good summary would be "Queen of of the United Kingdom and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth." I see no reason to include the realms but not the territories and her role as Head of the Commonwealth. Note also that she carries out her role directly in the UK, while elsewhere it is carried out by viceroys. TFD (talk) 21:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
5. "Queen of the Commonwealth realms" suggests to the uninitiated that she is not Queen of the United Kingdom. There is no reason to assume that the casual reader knows the UK is one of the Commonwealth realms. The lead doesn't even state plainly that she is Queen of the United Kingdom, only that in 1952 she "became...queen regnant of seven independent Commonwealth countries", of which the UK was then one. Why can't we call a spade a spade? Scolaire (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

   It suggests she is not Queen of the United Kingdom no more than it suggests she is not Queen of Australia. There is no reason to assume that the causual reader knows Australia is one of the Commonwealth realms. But, there's a link to Commonwealth realm right in that field in the infobox and, more pertinently, there's a drop down list right below that lets anyone know which countries are presently Commonwealth realms, under HM's reign, with the UK right at the top. Highlighting the UK any further than that suggests that it is somehow special among, above the other Commonwealth realms, entirely contrary to the Balfour Declaration and the Statute of Westminster. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

   So is she better known as Queen of the United Kingdom or Queen of Australia? This is an encyclopaedia, not a law textbook. Scolaire (talk) 08:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

   Yes, this is an encyclopaedia, not the Associated Press. She is both Queen of Australia and Queen of the United Kingdom, equally. We follow the facts (whether or not they be found in law textbooks), not popular culture. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

6. Support Most reliable sources associate her primarily with the UK, and we should follow suite. FurrySings (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
7. Support Yes, I agree with Dr. Kiernan. I very much prefer having United Kingdom mentioned. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

   Clarification: Yes, the info box should say all that. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

   The United Kingdom is mentioned. See the first country in the drop-down list beneath the words we're discussing here. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

8. Support The controversy is past the Homer Simpson level. Collect (talk) 15:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
9. Weak Support I prefer to list all of the nations, with the UK first on the list. As a second choice, I'm fine with saying she is Queen of both the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth realms. I'm opposed to saying she's only Queen of the United Kingdom (not true). I would list all of the countries she is Queen of, beginning with the United Kingdom and then listing each and every nation of which she is Queen in order by either population or chronology (date of the British Monarchy becoming Sovereign over that land). I realize that that makes the infobox large but I'm all for a very large infobox if necessary to convey accurate information. If it is determined that the infobox just can't be expanded enough to cover all of the countries over which she is Queen, then I favor "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth Realms" as my second choice.GreekParadise (talk) 23:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
10. Support - Agree with a number of arguments made above. Possibly most so with DrK's "due weight" point. NickCT (talk) 13:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

No

1. Employing "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms" is to use a longer version (in an infobox, where space is limited, no less) of "Queen of the Commonwealth realms" just to be UK-centric, a violation of WP:NPOV. We know that a) Elizabeth is queen of all her realms equally and b) Elizabeth resides in and thus is more often personally engaged with the UK (a fact commonly used to argue in favour of the aforementioned UK-centrism). "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms" communicates the opposite of the former and doesn't communicate the latter at all. That Elizabeth II is in one country more than the others does not make it more important than the other countries over which she reigns; the physical location of the monarch has no bearing on the 80+ year old equality of the Commonwealth realms to one another, including the United Kingdom, nor to the consideration by at least one country other than the UK that the Queen is not a foreigner. The UK both appears top in the drop-down list in the infobox (making the "United Kingdom" in "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms" a needless repetition) and, in the second paragraph of the introduction, first in the list of countries of which Elizabeth II became queen. Articles on Elizabeth's predecessors are of no consequence here: the equality of the realms was well established by the time she came to the throne and the royal styles and titles changed accordingly at the beginning of her reign. "Queen of the Commonwealth realms" is succinct, works better with the drop-down below it, and shows no bias towards Australia, Jamaica, Canada, the UK, or any other.

--Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

1. Question, for clarification, is your argument in part about the size of the infobox? Because it seems like it accommodated the prior monarchs' current titles? EBY (talk) 21:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

   The articles on EIIR's predecessors (at least back to Edward VII, where I stopped checking) don't use titles in the infoboxes. They use descriptives, the same as is done in this article infobox. Infoboxes aren't large fields, urging us to be as brief as possible. Since there was no uniform name for all the territories over which EIIR's predecessors reigned (the UK was apart from the Dominions (though they were equal in status by 1931) and all were different to the Empire of India), the shortest possible way to describe what they were kings of is to say (to take George VI for example) "King of the United Kingdom and the British Dominions". During EIIR's reign, however, all the countries of which she's queen, the UK included, have been called "realms" (as seen in her British accession proclamation as well as her titles created in 1953), the unofficial term "Commonwealth realm" later coming into use to distinguish them from other realms. Hence, the briefest way to describe what EIIR is queen of is "Queen of the Commonwealth realms". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

2. Oppose The old version was succinct and neutral. This one gives the impression that the United Kingdom has a special status, which - as demonstrated above - it doesn't. Naturally previous monarchs are treated differently because the constitutional position and titles were different then: George VI, for instance, was styled King "of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the British Dominions Beyond the Seas", so it is entirely appropriated to refer to him in the infobox as King of the United Kingdom and the British Dominions. The separate titles of "Queen of Australia", "Queen of New Zealand", "Queen of Jamaica" etc were only adopted in the Queen's reign. Neljack (talk) 04:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

   Can you cite this? To me this is the key issue - that the most notable RS recognize her as "Queen of the Commonwealth realms" and that Wikipedia is not leading the referent but mirroring it. EBY (talk) 15:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

   "Until the reign of Elizabeth II, Canada, along with Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon had simply been included in the Royal title and style as 'British Dominions beyond the seas'."p. 47; "It was then decided she would have separate titles in each of her realms but they would be inserted into a common formula... The Parliaments of the different realms then got busy providing the legal embodiment for the change. The Canadian Parliament did so on the eve of the Coronation."p.75 --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

3. Oppose, per reasons given above.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose, per above, also Queen of the Commonwealth Realms is distinct and separate from Head of the Commonwealth (of Nations) -- the two are not automatically linked -- which should also be indicated.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vecrumba (talk • contribs) 23:05, 18 June 2013
5. Oppose. It does not matter what 'most people associate' with, which is conjecture, nor what is most often utilised in the media, as they are not subject matter experts. Besides, the UK clearly has the largest population among the Commonwealth, I assume the largest media, and the "British Monarchy" website is obviously an official British source, so its natural focus from a British point of view should be self evident. In this case, it is what the reliable official, statutory, and academic sources have to say. The fact that all of the Queen's realms are equal in status is a simple fact. This article is not about Elizabeth II of the UK, nor is it about the Queen of the UK. It is about a person who is equally the sovereign of 16 separate and equal countries, and should be described as such as nuturally as possible. trackratte (talk) 13:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

   The article is not about the realms either. Her duties and position are different in the United Kingdom compared to the other realms and territories, in which her powers are delegated to someone else. The UK does not have the largest population in the Commonwealth. India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nigeria are all much larger. (And before someone says "but, they're not realms"--yes, they were and she was nominal head of state of two of them. This is the problem -- putting her time as Queen of Nigeria as equivalent to her time as Queen of the United Kingdom, when for all practical purposes they are not equivalent.) DrKiernan (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

   My mistake for not being clear, I meant Commonwealth as 'present Commonwealth realms', as it is these 16 present realms which drive common usage. It would make sense to me that the largest ones would disproportionally drive current usage. trackratte (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

   There are countless ways her current and former realms are different to one another. Best way to avoid the issue of choosing which difference justifies one country's elevated status is to make none of them elevated, which was pretty much the goal of the Balfour Declaration at the outset. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

   The article is not about the realms. It is about her. DrKiernan (talk) 19:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

   Her who is queen of many realms, equally. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

# Oppose. She is queen of both the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth. Both should be mentioned.GreekParadise (talk) 05:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Your vote is misplaced. It should be in the section above this one as a support. This section is for those that oppose mention of both. DrKiernan (talk) 07:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Apologies: I read the RfC as originally written to suggest she was ONLY the Queen of the United Kingdom. As reframed, I'm on the other side.GreekParadise (talk) 23:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

RFC needs clarification

The RFC question does not make it clear what the alternative is / what the question actually is. As a result, some are treating it as a question of whether or not to include "United Kingdom" and others are treating it as a question of whether or not to exclude "and the other Commonwealth realms" After the question is clarified, the existing responses need to be resorted. North8000 (talk) 11:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I am happy for you to amend/clarify my comments. The only reason I have not done so myself is fear of being accused of foul play if I do so. DrKiernan (talk) 11:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Will do. But first I have to be sure what the question is. Is it to, in the info box, replace "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms" with "Queen of the United Kingdom"? North8000 (talk) 13:58, 4 July 2013‎

No, it's to keep "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms" rather than remove the UK. DrKiernan (talk) 14:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

It is to have either "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms" (with the list of realms, including the UK, again, in a drop-down below) or return it to "Queen of the Commonwealth realms" (with the list of realms in a drop-down below). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree. I would prefer this discussion to be solely about the succession parameter in the infobox. If you wish to discuss the drop-down list, or ways to format the infobox that would remove further mention of the UK, then I think you should start a separate discussion. DrKiernan (talk) 16:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm making no such suggestion; the drop-down list is pertinent to the question, but does not have to be part of it. Hence, my mentions of it were put in brackets. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

So, bottom line: the question is, Should the infobox describe Elizabeth II as "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms"? Right? So are we agreed we're going to change the question to that? Scolaire (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

On balance, this is piling one misunderstanding on top of another one. So, I think it better at this point to close the discussion and start afresh, preferably without personalising the debate. "This editor did that and they're edit-warring, bias and against consensus" is not the way to start a discussion about article content. DrKiernan (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it better not to keep changing the goalposts. The question is straightforward, it just wasn't phrased correctly in the first place. Now I have changed it to what it should have been in the first place. Closing and re-opening is not going to make accusations of edit-warring etc. magically go away. Let the RfC run and trust in the closer to close on policy-based arguments, not personal attacks. Scolaire (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

"Personal attacks"? This tangent is turning into a personal attack. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

This either has to start over, or else someone is going to have to see which of the already-posted views are clear on this now-specified question. Because the responses are under a question which was not asked at the time the responses were made. I suggest starting over with the 1 or 2 questions very very clearly and explicitly defined. North8000 (talk) 13:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, I have several questions. 1, what was the title used in the infobox before it presently reads "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms"? 2, when did the change occur (please provide a diff)? 3, was there a well intention disagreement about what the title should be, and if so who was involved, and what discussion(s) were had before an RfC was started?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps TFD's longer abridged version suggested in their supporting response is more appropriate. Or, we can always agree to disagree and indicate her full titles (plural): Queen part [COMMA] Head part. I don't see that a "reset" of the discussion would benefit the discussion. The way I see it:

1. Should the infobox indicate Elizabeth II's titles (plural) in some abridged format? YES/NO
   1. if NO, done, indicate full titles
   2. if YES
      1. should the abridged version indicate the existence of two separate titles?
         1. if YES, discuss this variant further until agreed or fall back to full titles
         2. if NO, discuss this variant further until agreed or fall back to full titles

The question is not one of Queen of "UK + Commonwealth" versus "Commonwealth", the former appearing to elevate the UK (per detractors) and the latter failing to acknowledge the historic UK "home base" regardless of territorial acquisition or divestiture (per detractors). My discomfort stems from the fact that the roles of Queen and Head of Commonwealth are independent and only happen to be combined in Elizabeth II's person--therefore Queen of Commonwealth realms winds up being a synthesis. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Since Elizabeth's roles as head of state of 16 countries and as Head of the Commonwealth are indeed separate, it doesn't follow that such makes "Queen of the Commonwealth realms" synthesis. She is the queen of each of the Commonwealth realms and Head of the Commonwealth. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

For non-synthesis in combining titles (Queen+Head) as suggested we must be able to state unequivocally that the peoples and territories which constitute the "Commonwealth realms" include absolutely all of what is meant by "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of Her other Realms and Territories". This would not appear to be the case if there is need to mention "Territories" separately. If there is such a need, then consolidating down to Queen of the Commonwealth realms omits Territories. I'm not presenting my opinion, just trying to work through the logic of what's what. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 20:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Photo in infobox

Photo from 2012

The infobox currently uses File:Elizabeth II greets NASA GSFC employees, May 8, 2007 edit.jpg which is great, but the photo is from 2007 making it 6 years out-of-date. Yesterday I uploaded to Commons the photo to the right which is from 2012. I put the photo into the infobox, but it was reverted, so I am bringing it here to see what others think on changing the photo to the 2012 photo instead. Russavia (talk) 01:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

It is quite a good photograph. The quality is excellent. It may not be just as good as the 2007 photograph, but I believe it might be a welcome change. Surtsicna (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

If there are no other objections, I'll replace the photo in the infobox in a couple of days; given that the original removal was based by the looks of it on a misunderstanding of the OGL by another editor. Russavia (talk) 08:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not very flattering, is it? Why would we want an image of someone who looks like an axe muderer in an article about a reigning monarch? She is still perfectly recognisable from the current image. I don't know of any rule that an image of a living person has to be bang up to date. Tony Blair's photo is also from 2007, Queen Beatrix's – which was in the article this year while she was still queen – is from 2008, King Carl Gustaf's and King Juan Carlos's are from 2009, and President Michael D. Higgins's is from 2006. There's certainly no such rule for dead people: the photo of Charles de Gaulle was taken more than 25 years before his death. Scolaire (talk) 08:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The other photo shows her much more as we expect to see her. I will "assume good faith" to all editors. However I am afraid that using an unusual picture might offend some (or a lot) of people who consider her their queen, and maybe contribute to WP's (mostly undeserved) reputation as a bunch of nut-cases and trouble-makers. We wouldn't want that, would we? Steve Dufour (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I've always loved the photo that is in the info box right now. It's bright, it's sunny, she's smiling and appears exactly as she is, a fit, happy elderly woman. Also, it's best if she is pictured wearing a hat because she always wears a hat. I agree we do want to keep up-to-date, but I don't see any great difference in her age between the image in the article now and the one here. Also, I think what might be off-putting is the lack of a hat, and the darker dress. The sunny image of her is really rather striking. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 20:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

From this this other photo, taken just two minutes later according to the Exif header and clearly in the same spot, I think it's clear who she was having to listen to at the time, which might explain the look on her face. ;-) --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 14:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Queen of the British Virgin Islands

In the second paragraph, your editors have neglected to include the British Virgin Islands amongst the countries and territories for which Queen Elizabeth is Queen.

That paragraph should read:

At present, in addition to the first four aforementioned countries, Elizabeth is Queen of Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, Saint Kitts and Nevis and the British Virgin Islands.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.51.125.73 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 5 July

While it is true that the Queen is Queen of the BVI, she is also Queen of each British Overseas Territory, and of the provinces, states, and dependent and associated states of Canada, Australia and NZ. But her function as Queen of BVI is part of her function of being Queen of the UK. TFD (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

For future reference: This entire article and its talk page are about Elizabeth II, so giving a discussion the heading "Elizabeth II" tells us absolutely nothing about its specific subject matter. Anyone looking for this thread in 5 years, when it will have been archived, will have a hard time pinning it down. You might perhaps have headed it "Queen of the British Virgin Islands", for example. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Public perception and character: Possible contradiction

The first sentence of this chapter begins with: "Since Elizabeth rarely gives interviews..." This clearly contradicts the first sentence in Personality and image of Queen Elizabeth II: "Queen Elizabeth II has never given a press interview." So what is it? --Voyager (talk) 15:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't perceive this as being a contradiction. Elizabeth (the person) presents to the public in her 'professional' capacity. Even her interviews would be highly proscribed. Discretion regarding personal opinions consequently only allow for speculation as to her personality outside of her public role/s. If anything, she (Elizabeth) is conspicuously 'absent' from her public image/personality, hence the first sentence serves well to make it clear that most speculation as to her personal self can only be judged by her actions. (Please disregard this response: completely off target AKA away with the fairies when I read the query.) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I do beg your pardon, Voyager. I've just chanced on this again & realised that I misread it the first time. I absolutely agree that this needs qualification. I'm not aware of any formal 'interviews' with her, just quotes of her being overheard to say, which is second hand information. Other than her addresses to her subjects and speeches at public events, is anyone aware of a direct, formal interview? Just a quick google has yielded this, and various accounts of her opinions through third parties (which were touted as being interviews)... but absolutely no formal interviews. It's undoubtedly an either or situation. If no one is aware of any information, the line either needs to be changed from 'rarely' to 'never' or, for the sake of avoiding inaccuracy, be omitted altogether.--Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

She has been interviewed by biographers, both the official ones and the more respected private ones. There is a voiceover in the 1992 doc that appears to be an interview, although I suppose it could have been rehearsed (but I doubt she's that good an actress). I don't know how you would class the Rolf Harris program. If changed in the article it should be stipulated that she does not give "press interviews". She has and does give private interviews. DrKiernan (talk) 10:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware of official biographies and biographers, but have never considered them to be interviews per se, as can be said of voiceovers and, as you say, high profile journalists (Rolf Harris?)/individuals who would have had to submit a list of questions, which would then have been vetted and proscribed (then vetted and material disallowed after the fact). Not quite impromptu... Well, they're my personal qualifiers and, as such, don't relate to the wording of the article. I do think, therefore, that the concept of 'interview' needs to be qualified since the two entries could be construed as being contradictory. I'd suggest that the line remains as is in this entry, while the lead for the Personality and image of Queen Elizabeth II be qualified to the effect of, "Never having given a press interview, only rare private interviews with select individuals, Queen Elizabeth II's views on political issues are largely unknown except to those few heads of government in her confidence." Eew, that's awkward. Any suggestions? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Thrones

This edit, which changed "The birth of her first great-grandson, Prince George of Cambridge, meant that three generations of heirs to the thrones are alive at the same time as the reigning monarch" to "The birth of her first great-grandson, Prince George of Cambridge, meant that three generations of heirs to the throne are alive at the same time as the reigning monarch", is curious, as is the edit summary for it. No, Elizabeth II is not the "queens of the Commonwealth realms"; what she is is queen of each Commonwealth realm separately, making her one person who is a number of queens, who occupies 16 such offices: Queen of Australia, Queen of Jamaica, Queen of New Zealand, Queen of the UK, and so on. Charles, William, and George are currently the heirs to all those offices. Since each is separate from the other (each country being sovereign), there are thus 16 thrones: the throne of Australia, the throne of Jamaica, the throne of New Zealand, the throne of the UK, and so on. Saying these people are heirs to a throne contradicts the lead of this article.

It would thus be more accurate to return to the use of "thrones". However, an alternate way of putting the same sentence could be "The birth of her first great-grandson, Prince George of Cambridge, meant that three of the reigning monarch's direct heirs are alive at the same time, a situation that hasn't occurred since [etc.]..." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

From the article Commonwealth Realms "The evolution of the Commonwealth realms has led to the scenario wherein the Crown has both a separate and a shared character; it is a singular institution with one sovereign, but also simultaneously operates separately within each country, with the Queen being equally a part of each state and acting in right of a particular realm as a distinct legal person guided only by the advice of the cabinet of that jurisdiction."

The above seems to me a very good description of the situation in which the crown (or the throne) can be interpreted as both plural and singular. The Statute of Westminster speaks of "common allegiance to the Crown" which is singular. I suppose there is some light between the institutional and the judicial situation. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Niue and the Cook Islands in the Infobox

User Soffredo has added Niue and the Cook Islands to the list of Realms in the infobox. Since neither of them are Realms I have reverted twice. I will do so again, but not after placing this message in the talk page. Niue and the Cook Islands have a status that is for some (but not all) purposes equivalent to sovereignty. Both are states in free association with New Zealand, a state of affairs known as the Realm of New Zealand. The Queen is not distinctly head of the countries, but in her capacity as Queen of NZ, so these two countries do not belong in that list. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed; that last part is most salient. Elizabeth II is not sovereign of Niue or the Cook Islands; those two areas are within her sovereignty of New Zealand. They don't therefore, belong in the list. (And, if they somehow do, then so too do Jersey, the Isle of Man, and Guernsey.) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll keep my eyes peeled for Soffredo (or anyone else) trying to add 'Realms' which don't match the criterion. (I've removed the [ec] on your entry, Miesianiacal. We must have posted simultaneously.) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The infobox links to New Zealand, not the Realm of New Zealand. And Jersey/Isle of Man/Guernsey are not sovereign. The Cook Islands and Niue are, as discussed many times on List of sovereign states. [Soffredo] 23:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Elizabeth II is not sovereign of either Niue or the Cook Islands. She has sovereignty over New Zealand, which extends to cover Niue and the Cook Islands. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The article on Niue states that "its status as a freely-associated state has been accepted by UN organs as equivalent to independence for international law purposes" Equivalent to independence for whatever purposes is not the same as independence perse. Both articles also state that "defence and foreign affairs are the responsibility of New Zealand". These are not the hallmarks of fully sovereign states. Neither is the description "associated state". These countries may have the power to dissolve their bonds with New Zealand unilaterally, but until they do they are no sovereign states where international law is concerned. The Realm of New Zealand is a description of the relations between NZ and it's associated states. No more than that. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Soffredo, how many times do we have to have this exact same conversation? The discussion on List of sovereign states concluded that there was an argument to be made that they were sovereign, NOT that they were indisputably sovereign because there is certainly not unanimity among sources on this. You've been pushing this POV against consensus for months now (ie [25], [26]). I've warned you about it the past, but it seems you're either unable or unwilling to understand, and the problematic behaviour has just continued. You know these edits are controversial, so it's quite disruptive to keep making the same changes over and over again, all over the place. You need to stop making these edits unless and until you can establish a consensus for them on the talk page. Otherwise, we're getting to the point where we'll need to start thinking about requesting a topic ban for you from Cook Islands/Niue related subjects. TDL (talk) 23:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Niue and the Cook Islands are not "Commonwealth Realms. While all the CRs are independent, are allowed to choose the Queen's title, and the Queen is directly represented by a governor-general, the sole criterion is whether the palace recognizes them as CRs. TFD (talk) 16:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)