Talk:Elizabeth II

Image?

Why does she have an image where she is young in the 1950s, but Prince Philip has one from 1992?

To me, it would make more sense to have one from around the middle of her reign. Like this one?

She was old for most of her reign. Most people have only known her as old: The median inhabitant of the UK is 40.7 years old (born ~1982), the median inhabitant of the world – 30 years old (~1992). Synotia (moan) 16:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

There was an RFC about what the infobox image should be after her death. There was a consensus for the 1959 portrait. DDMS123 (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

That may have been true at the time, but plenty of people since then have said that they don't like the 1959 portrait.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ianmacm, the consensus was still for the 1959 portrait. DDMS123 (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Had no idea that once she died, people would be changing the main photo so soon. Sigh. Lady Meg (talk) 07:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I would support the removal of the current image, but a consensus was made. Maybe the discussion needs to be formally brought up again? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 09:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Given the fact plenty of people have said they don't like the 1959 portrait, I think a new consensus needs to be reached. --79.66.89.36 (talk) 18:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I support being able to bring up a new discussion again.

Wikipedia in some languages ​​uses pictures of the Queen in recent years 2401:E180:8852:A403:AE3C:D883:2AC2:3414 (talk) 10:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Change the photo of the een. it is also absurd not to use her coronation photo if you are going to use one from the 1950s. It is not a good photo.--86.144.191.159 (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ Dronebogus (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

@Synotia As someone who actually voted for the current option, I'd like to point out a couple of things about it:

Part of the consensus was that, after Queen Elizabeth's decease, the infobox shouldn't be limited to recent images anymore. This can be seen in articles for other similarly-deceased world leaders: for instance, Bhumibol Adulyadej, Pope John Paul II, and Baudouin of Belgium have images from the early part of their reigns, while Queen Victoria, Franz Joseph I of Austria, and Pedro I of Brazil have ones from the later part.

For me at least, the infobox image should try to reflect Elizabeth II's reign as a whole, not just on her very old age. However, she did rule for so long that, even when pared down to the most notable parts (decolonization, the move to modernize the monarchy, increasing media interest and the issues relating to that,) you still have a period of 30 years to get a portrait from — from roughly 1960 to 1990.

In the old discussion's case, one of the options was a portrait from 1986, but I (and I think many others as well) wanted to avoid it because it was a portrait of Elizabeth II as Queen of New Zealand, not the United Kingdom. Given that the rest of the options were images from the 21st century or from her coronation, the 1959 portrait was really the only good option given at the time. This was just three years after Suez, too.

Of course, I would welcome reopening this discussion if someone finds a good portrait from the 60s or 70s, but for now, I recommend retaining the current image. Yo.dazo (talk) 10:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

And by Pedro I, I actually meant Pedro II of Brazil. Apologies. Yo.dazo (talk) 10:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Nah, 2A00:23EE:1148:1A77:5CC1:82DB:7907:D43E (talk) 14:52, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

what about this one, taken for her Silver Jubilee in 1977. It captures near the middle of her reign and i think associated with a woman who many more will remember, the people remembering her of this era are in their mid-late fifties now, as opposed to in their mid seventies with the 1959 portrait.[1]https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw203919/Prince-Philip-Duke-of-Edinburgh-Queen-Elizabeth-II?LinkID=mp01454&wPage=11&role=sit&rNo=227 89.19.79.123 (talk) 21:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

@89.19.79.123 This is technically her as Queen of Canada, but while looking through the Gallery I also found other portraits from the same time period. Like this one from 1975, for example: https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw203988/Queen-Elizabeth-II?LinkID=mp01454&wPage=11&role=sit&rNo=223

The more important issue with this image, I think, is the copyright: the National Portrait Gallery makes it clear that they don't actually own these images, and that their original creators should be contacted for permission instead. This, compounded with the National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute some years back, is probably why avoided portraits like this in favour of ones they could already find in the Wikimedia Commons.

In summary, these portraits are probably the best ones to use for the infobox, but we do have to ask for permission from the copyright holder first. If that gets sorted, I will support the picture change. Yo.dazo (talk) 02:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

does it have to be a formal portrait or are other images allowed? this one is in the commons, from her 1976 US Visit.

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=elizabeth+ii+1976&title=Special:MediaSearch&type=image

@ 89.19.79.123 (talk) 08:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

@89.19.79.123 It doesn't have to be, though it would likely be strange — one wouldn't really expect that the best 70s-80s public-domain portrait of Elizabeth II would be by White House photographers during a state visit, or formal portraits from other Commonwealth realms. I'd still recommend asking permission for one of the National Portrait Gallery images.

In any case, and for the sake of further discussion, I'll also link here this image of hers from another visit in 1983: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:President_Ronald_Reagan_and_Queen_Elizabeth_II_(cropped).jpg Yo.dazo (talk) 10:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

who can ask permission? that's also a good photo, but yes having her on a cropped image of her as opposed to a formal photo is a bit strange. The only thing is the photo of her while she was alive was on an engagement in 2015 and not a portrait. I personally don't think it matters what country she is representing, but I understand if people go to look for her it is usually as Queen of the UK as opposed to of one of her realms and thus she should probably be shown as such. 89.19.79.123 (talk) 11:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

@89.19.79.123 I think anyone can — although since I don't really contribute to Wikimedia Commons, I can't really help in explaining how to do things there.

If you want to, you can ask for help in Wikipedia:Teahouse, perhaps they can explain better how to license and upload images to the Commons. Yo.dazo (talk) 13:06, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree. There's no point having her as a young woman since the vast vast majority of people will never have seen her like that. I haven't, I'm 18, and only ever remember her as old. My parents, going into their fifties, won't remember her like that. My grandparents barely will. So why use that photo? 85.255.233.76 (talk) 12:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

She's about 33 in the photo, not really a young woman. She's just pictured here in her prime. Also, it's a bit disingenuous to say the vast majority of people will never have seen her like that when you consider how widely her younger face has been printed on stamps and currency. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Odd no one brought up the way she's facing in the RFC ...MOS:PORTRAIT Moxy- 00:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

An ever-changing image of Elizabeth II, from 1952 to 2022 would've sufficed. But, I don't think we've the technology. GoodDay (talk) 01:05, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

We could code it for a different image on a daily basis. But thid would require consensus for multiple images and may confuse readers and editors alike.. thinking that the image keeps getting changed. Moxy- 02:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Change it to a picture from later part of her reign as she’s globally remembered or use the main picture from her coronation. This photo is bad, the argument for doesn’t make sense. Personally I think the coronation photo is the best one if you wish to use her youth and remember her that way. 2A00:23EE:1148:1A77:5CC1:82DB:7907:D43E (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree. 86.144.191.173 (talk) 06:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 May 2023

Include the date of death in section "until her death in 2022" not just the year 172.197.189.59 (talk) 13:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: It's already at the start of that sentence Hyphenation Expert (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 June 2023

Add remaining {{nbsp}} per MOS:NBSP, same as edit from Louis XIV. 112.204.197.139 (talk) 23:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Cheers! Cocobb8 (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@Cocobb8:, undone, as the edit messed up the infobox content. GoodDay (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that, @GoodDay. Did you keep it on the main body of the article though? Cocobb8 (talk) 18:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I reverted all the edits. If it doesn't cause any visual damage, then I reckon you can make said-changes to the article body. GoodDay (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed it! The problem was that I had used the replaced all function in source mode, which had caused it to slip into all instances, including file names and sources. Cocobb8 (talk) 18:28, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

YouGov poll

I think it is incorrect to say "Great Britian" in relation to approval ratings as the term "Briton" is this style refers to anyone residing in the UK and not just GB Jord656 (talk) 20:48, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Sources say GB explicitly and, as shown in the sources, the raw YouGov data is drawn exclusively from GB. DrKay (talk) 17:49, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Use of the word 'Britain' in lieu of the 'United Kingdom'

Yes, the ambiguous term 'Britain' is commonly used instead of 'the United Kingdom', but that doesn't make it okay in the context of this article, which is supposed to be encyclopaedic and not mimic a sloppy journalistic style, especially where there are sensibilities related to the terminology used. You just need to compare the 'Britain' and 'United Kingdom' articles to see why.

The former is a disambiguation page because 'Britain' is also commonly used in lieu of 'Great Britain' (just three of the United Kingdom's four nations) and 'British Isles' (the islands which contain both the United Kingdom and Ireland, as well as entities which are part of neither).

Why would we choose to be sloppy with our language by referring to the United Kingdom as 'Britain' when we could use the correct terminologies of "United Kingdom"" or its normal abbreviation of "UK". Compare this with articles related to, say, the United States. They rarely use the similarly sloppy term 'America' when they mean the 'United States' or 'US'.

I think that the use of 'Britain' in this context is, at best, ignorant, and verging on the disrspectfull of the United Kingdom and its four constituent nations, and that each incidence of it in the article should be replaced with the appropriate correct and precise term. Thoughts? -- DeFacto (talk). 12:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with 'Britain', just like there's nothing wrong with 'Russia' when referring to the Russian Federation or 'China' when referring to the People's Republic of China, or 'US' when referring to the continental or contiguous United States of America. Misplaced formality serves no purpose when an alternative is unambiguous and clear. Also, you changed parts of the article where the island of Great Britain was meant. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@Celia Homeford, the difference is that 'Russia' is the normal short form for the 'Russian Federation', 'China' is the normal short form for the 'People's Republic of China', and the 'US' (or the 'United States') are the normal short forms for the 'United States of America', and all three are unambiguous.

On the other hand, 'Britain' (which is analogous to calling the US 'America') is neither the normal short form for the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland', nor is it unambiguous (see Britain). The normal and unambiguous short forms for the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' are the 'UK' and the 'United Kingdom'.

So why have lower standards for what we call the UK? -- DeFacto (talk). 15:37, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

No. Parts of the Russian Federation are not Russia. There is more than one China. The contiguous United States is not the same as the US. However, just as with 'Britain' and 'UK', normal speech doesn't require us to use a string of three words for precise clarity where one word (a normal short-form) will do. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. "Britain" in this context isn't encyclopedic tone and is ambiguous, much like the "America" example you cite. We should stick to United Kingdom or UK, as the accepted short forms.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

As I said above and in an edit summary, the popularity, approval ratings and republicanism are all explicitly related to Britain only. Agree with Celia that 'Britain' is an entirely acceptable and normal short form for the country anyway. DrKay (talk) 16:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@DrKay, sorry, I do not understand your point. What are you saying is explicitly related to Britain only? Which section? Which sentence? Does it apply to all 14, or so, uses of the word in the article? And what is your definition of Britain in this case? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't seen the post above. So just one of the 14 instances. The one talking about republicanism in "Great Britain" - the one I did not change in my original edit because I know that "Great Britain" is not synonymous with either "Britain" or "UK" and appreciated it might be correct to exclude Northern Ireland in that context. Are you happy for all the other uses of 'Britain' to be changed to one of the less ambiguous terms though? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

There's absolutely nothing ambiguous, "ignorant", "sloppy", "unencyclopedic" etc about the very standard use of the word Britain to mean the United Kingdom. As The Guardian style guide puts it "Britain is the official short form of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"[2]. HM Government uses it that way[3][4] as does multiple (and I mean multiple) WP:RS - not just news media (all the Newspaper style guides have a similar approach to the Guardian) but a huge number of academic works. How about the The Oxford History of Britain which is about the UK as is The Cambridge Economic History of Modern Britain ? This is just bizarre. It's false pedantry based on a misunderstanding of usage. Continuous use of "United Kingdom" becomes clunky and stilted. There's absolutely nothing wrong or inaccurate in switching between the two. DeCausa (talk) 16:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@DeCausa, but it is ambiguous though, and can be improved upon. What do you object to about the use of the unambiguous terms, UK and United Kingdom, which are the normal standard short forms? Compare these articles: "Britain", "UK, and United Kingdom. Do you see the subtle difference between the first and the latter two? -- DeFacto (talk). 17:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

But that's the point: it's not ambiguous as demonstrated by RS usage. Standard usage is that it is a synonym for the UK. The larger UK island is Great Britain. In fact, this has been the effective consensus across multiple UK-related en.wp articles for many years. The word is used around a 100 times to mean the UK in the United Kingdom article alone. If you want to unpick that you'll have to go on a pretty extensive crusade across a large swathe of en.wp - why pick on this article? Even if there was ambiguity in this article (which there isn't) it's obvious from the context what is meant. DeCausa (talk) 17:31, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@DeCausa, the RSes you cherry-picked may support your view, but there are others that totally contradict it - hence it is definitely ambiguous, at least.

• The BBC News style guide which says of "Britain": (aka Great Britain) is made up of England, Scotland and Wales; the United Kingdom also includes Northern Ireland - thus saying that it is synonymous with "Great Britain" and not with the UK.
• The government also uses "the UK" profusely on its gov.uk website.
• This article from the Merriam-Webster dictionary describes the ambiguity in some detail - concluding that The terms Britain and Great Britain are, as we said above, synonymous geographical terms referring to the largest of the islands in the British Isles. But Britain and Great Britain are also used to refer to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland aka the United Kingdom aka the UK.
• Britannica summarises the UK's names thus: Great Britain, therefore, is a geographic term referring to the island also known simply as Britain. It’s also a political term for the part of the United Kingdom made up of England, Scotland, and Wales (including the outlying islands that they administer, such as the Isle of Wight). United Kingdom, on the other hand, is purely a political term: it’s the independent country that encompasses all of Great Britain and the region now called Northern Ireland.

So "Britain" is unequivocally an ambiguous term, but "UK" is not - or are you aware of style guides that disallow the use of "UK" and "United Kingdom" for some reason? I notice the the Guardian style guide you mentioned above also supports the use of "UK", so why not simply use that? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

But it's not ambiguous here. In all instances of "in Britain" and "to Britain", it doesn't matter if people read that as meaning Great Britain since Great Britain is meant. Nor does it matter if people read it as meaning the UK since Britain is in the UK. This is needless pedantry. DrKay (talk) 19:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

It is ambiguous, and why would we be happy to let readers misunderstand it just because, happily, none of the events concerned happened to take place in that sub-part of the kingdom which is being carelessly excluded anyway? Surely we should strive for preciseness, clarity, inclusiveness in an encyclopaedic article. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

My 2 cents: the article should use United Kingdom or UK.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

If you pedantically insist on precision, then so do I. The sources do not support that she was popular in Northern Ireland. They do not support that she had high approval ratings in Northern Ireland. They are specific for Great Britain, and trying to claim that she was popular in Northern Ireland without any sourcing to back that claim is original research at best. DrKay (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not questioning the ones that clearly should exclude Northern Ireland though, although I think those should use the term "Great Britain", not plain "Britain", to avoid ambiguity. I'm questioning the rest though, those that should imply the whole kingdom and have no reason to exclude a big chunk of it. Examples:

• In September 1939, Britain the UK entered the Second World War.
• ... at a time when Britain the UK was at war.
• ... because Britain the UK had not yet completely recovered from the devastation of the war.
• In the UK post-war Britain...
• In November 1956, Britain the UK and France invaded Egypt...
• More than 20 countries gained independence from Britain the UK as part of...
• As Britain's the UK's ties to its former empire weakened...

There is no reason to use the term that may be understood to exclude Northern Ireland in any of those examples. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

It isn't "excluding Northern Ireland", just as it isn't excluding the Isle of Anglesey, the Isle of Wight or the Hebrides. There's nothing wrong with a poll being conducted in just Great Britain. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

But those are not constituent countries of the United Kingdom. I think for the polls that do not mention Northern Ireland, using Britain is not only justified but accurate. But there are also sentences within the article where "the United Kingdom" could have been used. User:DeFacto has already listed the examples. But that also to some degree depends on whether the sources for those parts use "Britain" or "the UK". Personally I would have chosen "the UK" for those parts, because it is a more inclusive term compared to "Britain". Keivan.f^Talk 06:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty, what I mean is that a term that is a synonym for "Great Britain" does, literally, exclude Northern Ireland as the full name of the sovereign state is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. OTOH, the term "UK", as the standard short form of the sovereign state's full name, implicitly includes both "Great Britain" and "Northern Ireland". -- DeFacto (talk). 08:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but my point was that "Britain" doesn't leave out only Northern Ireland. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 08:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty, the other islands you mention are, unlike Northern Ireland, included in the term "Britain" when it is used as a synonym of the political entity "Great Britain" as in the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".

This all shows how confusing and ambiguous the term "Britain" is, and how much better sticking with "UK" would be, or the apprpriate unambiguous name for any sub-sovereign-state region being discussed. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

No it doesn't. And if it did it would mean the word Britain could never be used in any context (whether as GB or UK) which is ludicrous. Apart from the fact that in multiple RS (and by the way throughout wp) Britain is used to as a standard short form for UK, it either doesn't matter which it means or it's obvious from the context. Take the following typical sentences from this article: "In September 1939, Britain entered the Second World War."; "As in 1927, when they had toured Australia and New Zealand, Elizabeth remained in Britain since her father thought she was too young to undertake public tours."; "In post-war Britain, it was not acceptable for Philip's German relations...". What does it add to change that to "United Kingdom" other than stiltedness? The "ambiguity" point is just a smokescreen fro what is really just a question of style. DeCausa (talk) 09:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

With each of those uses of "Britain" who have to pause and assimilate, and then process the data to see if we are talking about the whole of the sovereign state, or a political sub-division of it, or the islands it all stands on. And no, we don't need to use "United Kingdom" everywhere instead, "UK" is quite adequate in the same way that we use "US" for the United States, and not "America". And if by "Britain" we mean "Great Britain" then use that, or the British Isles use that.

Expecting all world-wide readers to understand the nuances and distinction between "Britain", "Britain", and "Britain" is ridiculous, when we could write "UK", "Great Britain", or "British Isles". Clarity should prevail over. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

In the examples I gave it literally doesn't matter whether or not the "nuance" is appreciated. But I'll repeat: if you genuinely think "Britain" is ambiguous, it therefore should never be used on WP, whether as UK or GB, which is ludicrous. Concluding that "UK" is better than "Britain" is a very strange conclusion. This is a style issue and, as I said before, "Britain" is conventionally and widely used throughout WP to mean the UK and to single out one article for this (unnecessary) purging makes no sense. It should go to one of the MOS pages for broader consenus. DeCausa (talk) 10:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Presumably the author of those examples knew the definition they meant though, so their choice of vocabulary was either sloppy or ignorant. I think we are back full circle now, so I'll leave it there unless there is a new argument to support its unnecessary and ambiguous use here. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Of course they knew the definition: it means United Kingdom which is its standard meaning through WP and beyond. If you want to change that go and make a proposal at MOS. DeCausa (talk) 11:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@DeCausa, do you have a link to the UK==Britain MOS page please, I cannot find it and it could be useful. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the place to cover this is probably Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#United Kingdom. But it might be worth asking, in the first instance, at the main WP:MOS talk page for any better suggestions for where it should be. DeCausa (talk) 13:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@DeCausa, thanks, but the way you described it, I assumed you were referring to an existing MoS page.

Were you referring to an existing MoS page, guideline, or whatever, when you said of the word "Britain" that it means United Kingdom which is its standard meaning through WP? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

No it's standard wording by what's actually there - not as prescribed by MOS. Obviously, if this was already in the MOS this thread would be considerably shorter! If you look at the major UK-related (and indeed other articles) you'll find "Britain" usually used to mean the UK and "Great Britain" to mean the island, but, of course, not consistently so. I previously gave the example of United Kingdom where there's nearly 100 instances of "Britain" used to mean UK. It is pretty embedded - you'll need to go on a Giraffedata-style crusade project if you want to expunge it! DeCausa (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

ATS service, and work record

The article claims Queen Elizabeth II "trained and worked as a driver". She certainly trained for three weeks as a mechanic. Is there any evidence that she worked as a driver or mechanic? The pictures and film of her driving a Red Cross truck were taken in March 1945 during her training course. Perhaps people have assumed this as evidence that she worked as a driver?

According to Robert Lacey p. 137 (in either Robert Lacey, Royal: Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II; Robert Lacey, The Queen: A Life in Brief) referred to in an answer to [5], on a three-week Vehicle Maintenance Course at Aldershot, ending 16 April 1945, Princess Elizabeth learned how to service and maintain army vehicles.

Lacey refers to the diary of another woman on the course, Corporal Eileen Heron: "She [Princess Elizabeth] told Eileen Heron that she was hoping to join ATS headquarters later that summer as a junior officer, where she would have worked in an office with young women on transport organisation."

"Less than a month after her course ended came VE day - 8 May 1945. There was ATS work aplenty in the months of demobilisation that followed, but George VI wanted his daughter back home on royal duties. He did not see her future as working in an office, even a military office, alongside other women, and Princess Elizabeth bowed to his wish." 2A02:6B6B:4B8:0:76BC:86EB:6CBD:C2C8 (talk) 08:42, 23 July 2023 (UTC)