Talk:Elizabeth II

An event mentioned in this article is a June 2 selected anniversary

Lead length

WP:LEAD is a guideline for the length of an article's lead section. Not only does it specifically state that exceptions may be made for long important articles, it is also (deliberately, I think) very vaguely worded, and so shoudl never be applied legalistically. The very fact that it describes an optimal length in terms of paragraphs, which are of variable length, shoudl give this away. The lead in this article is the length of three or four acceptably long paragraphs, and so could literally fit within the guideline simply by amalgamating paragraphs. However, to do this would be stupid, as it reads better this way. This is precisely the sort of reason why Wikipedia guidelines are usually applied with sensible flexibility. JPD (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Every GA and FA conforms to this guideline. There is no reason why this article should be excempt from WP:LEAD; the lead should be abridged so that it has a maximum of four paragraphs.

Stating that the article should be allowed to breach this because it's important (according to your POV) does not help. God, Universe, History, World War II all have four paragraphs max. Jhamez84 16:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not claiming that any article should be exempt from WP:LEAD - read the guideline again. It says it is a "general guideline" and definitely does not say that introductions "must be four paragraphs maximum" as you claim. I did not argue that this article should be allowed to breach it (or even have a longer lead) because it is important. I pointed out that the guideline says long articles on important topics may have longer introductions. That exemption may or may not apply to this article, but it definitely shows that you have misunderstood the guideline.

However, my most important point is not about whether the "four paragraphs" is a strict maximum or not, but the fact that the lead in this article is well within the intentions of this guideline. The length of the intro here is already what would normally be considered four paragraphs - it is roughly the same length as the two paragraph intro to History, one of the examples you cite. The actual number of paragraphs is not a serious indication of length. JPD (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be the same length as the leads of most FAs, it's just broken into more paragraphs. Don't worry about it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Photo

Is the photo at top of page really the best we can do? Passingtramp 09:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably - getting a free-license recent image of such a high-profile living person is incredibly hard ^† DBD 13:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The Queen will be visiting at the White House (this week or next week). We could get a U.S. government photo. Real96 10:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I found an image on Wikimedia Commons. Hopefully that will suffice. Real96 21:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Much better new photo! Passingtramp 11:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent) Love the NASA photo! Coincidence that she was visiting the states. :-P Real96 18:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Asian Ancestry?

The source of this article's quote "Her ancestry includes a wide range of European and even Middle Eastern and other Asian Royal Houses.[4]" is the unsourced quote "Queen Elizabeth II's ancestry is a multicultural panorama. German and Danish in the main lines, it also includes figures as diverse as Armenian princes, Mongol warriors and Muslim leaders." I don't have a problem with the assertion (virtually NO living human is not in someway connected genetically to widely-spaced populations throughout the world because of eons of migration and mixing), but a more reliable source is needed. Kemet

Buckingham Palace statements

There are several references along the lines of 'the Palace says'; one understands that there will be statements from the Queen's 'office' and maybe 'the Palce says' doesn't need rerwording. However, 'Buckingham Palace is also reported to be considering giving the Prince more access to government papers' I think warrants a more formal label for the office at the Palace that's making the atatements (Is it always Buckingham Palace, how about Windsor, Balmoral etc?) --Brenont 05:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Queen of Canada?

Since when is Canada back under the rule of the UK? I was taught in school, and read on the Wiki under "Canada" that they are a democracy... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.42.35.210 (talk) 15:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Someone's very confused. --G2bambino 15:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hahahaha, oh dear me....I suggest you study the articles on Canada a bit more carefully. It also sounds like you are saying that means the UK is Not a democracy!

Overseas Territories

User:JPD, why do you keep reverting the addition of the Overseas Territories? Queen Elizabeth II is the reigning monarch of the OT's and the article completely omits this fact. As stated in British overseas territories, the OT's are "not part of the UK itself, although under UK sovereignty". Nor are they Commonwealth Realms.

If the article is going to enumerate Commonwealth nations such as Australia and Canada, then to be factually accurate it needs to either: (a) mention the OT's by name, such as Cayman, Bermuda, etc., (see list of UK OT's or (b) at least provide an inline Wikilink to British overseas territories, in the interest of Lead succinctness. I have been a resident of Bermuda for the past five years, and your insistence on omission of the fact that HM is the reigning monarch of Bermuda and the other OT's is an insult to Bermudians. HM is on our currency and postage, and the Royal Governor delivers the Throne Speech in Her name. I have corrected this once again.

Also, please explain why the article should ignore WP:CAP? JGHowes ^talk - 16:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

To deal with the minor issue first, WP:CAP is a guideline that says the name of the photographer is generally not included in an article. Saying that the name must not be included is stretching it a bit. However, I do apologise, as the most recent time I replaced the caption was unintentional - it really isn't worth edit warring over.

As for the British Overseas Territories, yes, the article should in one way or another make it clear that she is Queen of the British Overseas Territories. However, it is not so clear that this should be in the first couple of paragraphs. To include the Overseas Territories, but not Crown Dependencies such as Guernsey, Jersey, Isle of Man (which are also not part of the UK), let alone other overseas territories such as Christmas Island, the Cook Islands, etc. is an insult to residents of those areas. Leaving all of them out and listing only fully independent realms, however, is neutral, as the criterion for inclusion is quite clear. Including them all would obviously be even more unwieldy than the current list.

The Queen reigns over Bermuda, etc. directly because they are British territories and ruled over by the person with the title Queen of the United Kingdom, so Bermuda is already covered by the intro. Similarly, the Cook Islands are ruled by the Queen of (the Realm of) New Zealand. There is possibly more of an argument that the Crown Dependencies are not covered by the intro, but either way, none of these places should be mentioned before the realms. JPD (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply. I had contributed a photo I took of Catherine Zeta Jones with attribution in the Infobox caption and got my wrist slapped for it, so I've become highly attuned to this "guideline", shall we say.

I admit it's not imperative by any means to mention the OT's in the Lead paragraphs, and am greatly relieved that we can agree that a mention somewhere in the article is warranted to inform the reader that she is Queen of the British Overseas Territories etc. In Bermuda, we find that many visitors (mostly from the U.S.) are quite uninformed on this aspect. To avoid my being reverted again, where would you suggest this be placed in the article? Regards, JGHowes ^talk - 19:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have tim eright now to think about this fully, but perhaps the simplest option would be to have a single reference to the overseas territories of all the realms later in that same paragraph, after the list of sovereign realms. Out of curiousity, do visitors really not realise that she is Queen of the BOT, or is the problem simply that they don't realise Bermuda is a British Overseas Territory? After all, being under the Queen is really what UK sovereignty means. JPD (talk) 09:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, how about the second paragraph is reworded to say (emphasis added for illustrative purposes only):

Apart from the United Kingdom, Elizabeth II is also Queen of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, and Saint Kitts and Nevis, and the British overseas territories, where she is represented by Governors-General. The sixteen countries of which she is Queen are known as Commonwealth Realms, and their combined population is 128 million

JGHowes ^talk - 19:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It's good, but ignores the British Crown Dependencies and the territories of the Cook Islands and Niue, which are under her sovereignty as Queen of New Zealand. Is there anything particularly wrong with the opening sentence and its statement "Elizabeth II (born Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; 21 April 1926) is Queen of sixteen sovereign states and their overseas territories and dependencies..."? --G2bambino 20:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with it, I'm just trying to find a way to wikilink somewhere to British overseas territories. Also, not to be critical, but could there be a better choice of words than "more directly involved"? JGHowes ^talk - 21:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Lead

Hi everyone. Although I'm an American, I admire the Queen and respect her, so with her recent trip to the states, I thought I would check out her article. This one thing really popped out to me: the second paragraph in the lead, which states: "Apart from the United Kingdom and its overseas territories, Elizabeth II is also Queen of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, and Saint Kitts and Nevis, where she is represented by Governors-General. The sixteen countries of which she is Queen are known as Commonwealth Realms, and their combined population is 128 million."

Is it really necessary for the lead? According to WP:LEAD, leads are supposed to be short and summarize the article, and I don't know what the point of the above paragraph is in the lead. Maybe it could be put in the "Life as Queen" section, but as far as I'm concerned, it shouldn't go in the lead. Happyme22 03:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think it is, because the single most important fact in the bio of a living head-of-state is which state(s) he/she heads JGHowes ^talk - 03:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I also believe it should stay, we have had long debates in the past, on the wording of the intro, lets keep it as it is. The Queen is not just HoS if the UK, so we need to introduce her as such. Brian | (Talk) 04:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, ok. If you guys say so. Happyme22 04:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the original poster. The current wording only leads to confusion, relegating the UK to just one of more than a dozen or so countries of which she is queen. For those in the Commonwealth Realms who refuse to understand the difference between legal technicalities and actual fact, may I suggest a new and radical solution. Let's create 15 new articles (Elizabeth II of Australia, Elizabeth II of Tuvalu, etc.), and invite people from those countries to try and pad out articles based on information about the Queen's involvement with that particular country. TharkunColl 08:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, we could also make articles about her role in former realms. I can imagine it now, Elizabeth II of Pakistan, Elizabeth II of Fiji, Elizabeth II of Trinidad and Tobago, Elizabeth II of Nigeria... (I do still think the current realms should remain where they are though, as actual fact is that she is the head of state of all of them, and being head of state of a country is generally considered to be a somewhat important fact.) --Ibagli (Talk) 21:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed, the fact that the Queen is still head of state of quite a few former members of the empire is a very important fact. Please go and look up the difference between de jure and de facto to understand what I'm trying to say. TharkunColl 23:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm very aware of what you're trying to say, I just don't agree that it's completely true, as she is the de facto and de jure head of state in all of those countries (at least the ones I'm most knowledgeable in). --Ibagli (Talk) 23:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

She is de jure head of state in all those countries, but only de facto in the UK. Look at the article on de facto head of state and you'll see a nice picture of the current Governor General of Canada. TharkunColl 11:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

De jure simply means 'in law'; literally 'regarding law'. According to law, the Queen is Head of State in the Commonwealth realms and in the United Kingdom. De facto means 'in fact', that is, 'for all practical purposes', but not accordingly to law. A de facto head of state would be one who governs practically but without due process of law, such as the leader of a coup or a usurper. Even when a country is presided over by a person acting as a regent, such as the Prince Regent George who became George IV, or a Governor-General in the Commonwealth Realms, the reigning Sovereign remains de jure Head of State. Tharkuncoll appears to misunderstand the technical distinction betweeen de jure and de facto Please let us not resurrect the awful discussion about who Elizabeth is really Queen of. It took up pages and created a lot of heat and bad feeling. If editors are proud to have Elizabeth as their country's sovereign, why can't they just share that pride?--Gazzster 13:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You are incorrect. De facto means "in fact", so also applies to most de jure situations. TharkunColl 23:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Gazzster imo describes the situation quite well. Brian | (Talk) 23:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to see this lead has been changed. I'm infavour of the British Queen title, getting prominence over the British Commonwealth titles. GoodDay 20:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting tired of these 'Commonwealth nationalistic pride' edits. Elizabeth II is primarly known as Queen of the UK, not the Commonwealth Queen. In Canada (I'm a Canadian), we don't see her as equally our Queen (compared to the UK), we don't have an official residence for her. So again, enough with this Commonwealth nationalistic pride, afterall it's the British Commonwealth. If ya don't like that, petition your country to leave the British Commonwealth. GoodDay 21:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

But any 'British nationalistic pride' edits are perfectly acceptable? Please, we've been through this inane argument at length already and the intro as it is was agreed on - with compromise from both camps. POV about who she's "seen" as "belonging" more to is irrelevant to the actual fact that she's the legally established monarch of each country equally. Further, Rideau Hall is her official residence in Canada, and the "British" Commonwealth hasn't existed for a good few decades - it's Commonwealth of Nations now. --G2bambino 21:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If that's the compromise, so be it. Trust me though, it looks crappy, the way it is. Why not move the page to Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth of Nations, it's basically the same thing. OK, I've blown off enough steem. GoodDay 22:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think you quite understand the all-pervading role the monarchy has in the UK. Please try and understand the difference between what is true in law, and what is true in practice. This is not a constitutional treatise. TharkunColl 21:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

We do understand the role on the monarchy in the UK. You don't understand the role it has in the other realms. It is true that the UK is her oldest realm, the realm she lives in, the realm she is most active in, and the realm she is most widely known as monarch of. That's why the UK is mentioned first, and is in the title. The truth of these points does not dilute Her Majesty's role in the other realms, which you continually relegate to the status of juvenile asides for the Queen. Go to Canada and look around sometime. You'll see portraits in both government and private buildings; portraits on currency; her name on roads, schools, and civic buildings; her name spoken with pride by new citizens. That is what is true in practice in at least one Commonwealth Realm. --Ibagli (Talk) 22:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

God, TharkunColl, you've tried this line over and over again. I understand clearly the role the Monarchy has in the UK. So what? This isn't an article about the British Monarchy. The opening sentence as it was - the format agreed to after we went through this stupid debate ad nauseum months ago - outlined perfectly both the legal and practical realities of how Elizabeth II serves as monarch of sixteen countries. --G2bambino 21:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

But that's just the point, because it didn't. The version you are referring to made it seem as if her roles in the UK and elsewhere are essentially similar. Consensus can change, by the way. I think it's time to re-examine this. TharkunColl 22:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it didn't. It said clearly, and right up front, that she is more directly involved with the UK - whether that means with government, culture, ceremonies or whatever. --G2bambino 22:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not interested in the politics of this, I do understand the Queen's relationship with Commomwealth Nation members (I'm not aguing that). All I'm saying is, in publications, television coverage even encylopedias, Elizabeth II is recognized as the Queen of the UK first, Commonwealth of Nations second. When was the last time, her family was referred to as the Commonwealth Royal Family? Again peoples, give up these nationalistic pride edits. I'm just calling for the 'most common' title she's known as. GoodDay 22:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

As noted below (in the UK section), I've waved the 'white flag'. An 'Edit War' isn't worth it (I was pushing Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom and Head of the Commonwealth, as the opening sentence). 'Edit Wars' only get conflicting editors blocked & battleground pages protected. Here's to a Canadian Republic. GoodDay 20:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Opinion in Introduction

{{Editprotected}}

The Fourth Paragraph Reads: "She is presently the world's only monarch who is simultaneously Head of State of more than one independent nation. In practice, however, she personally exercises very little political or executive power, especially outside the UK, but not little enough."

I believe "but not little enough" should be omitted as it constitutes somebody's opinion, it was probably an appendage to an otherwise good sentence.

I've removed it. TharkunColl 13:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Not the First Monarch to Travel Around the World

The Travels section reads "From 1953 to 1954 she and Philip made a six-month, around the world tour, becoming the first monarch to circumnavigate the globe." King David Kalakaua circumnavigated the globe in 1881.

From his wikipedia article "In 1881, King Kalākaua left Hawaiʻi on a trip around the world to study the matter of immigration and to improve foreign relations. ... The King first traveled to San Francisco where he was given a royal welcome. Then he sailed to the Empire of Japan ... He continued through Qing Dynasty China, Siam, Burma, British Raj India, Egypt, Italy, Belgium, the German Empire, Austria-Hungary, the French Third Republic, Spain under the Restoration, Portugal, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and back through the United States before returning to Hawaiʻi. During this trip, he met with many other crowned heads of state, including Pope Leo XIII, Umberto I of Italy, and Victoria of the United Kingdom. In this, he became the first king to travel around the world." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mitcheca (talk • contribs) 05:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Mitcheca 05:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

historically indigenous?????

Queen of sixteen sovereign states and their overseas territories and dependencies, holding each crown and title equally. However, she is more directly involved with the United Kingdom, where the Royal Family resides, and the Monarchy is historically indigenous.

Historically indigenous? Except when it has been imported from the Netherlands, Greece, Germany, Denmark, Scotland or Normandy? What a crazy statement - please rewrite.--Doc^g 23:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Indigenous is the wrong word. --G2bambino 00:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Quite. Utterly so.--Doc^g 00:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

While 'historically indigenous' is an awkward phrase, it is born out of a discussion in which many editors felt the special identification of the sovereign with the UK needed to be mentioned in the introduction. The phrase, and the entire sentence, is unecessary to the introduction. But for fear of provoking a long edit war, it is perhaps wise to discuss a substitute phrase on this page. I suggest 'however, she is more directly involved with the United Kingdom, where the Royal Family resides, and wher the Monarchy is historically identified with the Kingdoms of England, Scotland, and the former Kingdom of Ireland.'--Gazzster 07:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, fine. But "historically indigenous" isn't just awkward - it is quite patently factually wrong.--Doc^g 08:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

UK

Please stop attempting the relegate the UK to just one of 16 realms. The monarchy is British. If you want separate pages for Elizabeth II of Australia, etc, then create them - but good luck with finding enough specifically Australian information to fill the article. TharkunColl 07:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No. Whilst the British dimension is paramount, this is the article about the person not office of the British monarch. The title is simply that the convention is to use the senior royal title. If you look for James VII of Scotland you'll find his bio under James II of England - that simply for convenience. This bio should reflect the person of Elizabeth Windsor who is Queen of many nations (although granted the UK is certainly the most significant to understanding her).--Doc^g 08:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Doc.We have had this exchange with TharkunColl and others before. I fail to see anything in the edit I have suggested that demeans the status of the United Kingdom. And his attempt to score points off the citizens of other monarchies ('good luck with finding enough specifically Australian information to fill the article'), is not only unmannerly, but puerile. I trust we don't need to go down this path again.--Gazzster 09:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Give it up, Tharkun. This article isn't about the monarchy (see British Monarchy, Monarchy in Canada, etc, which are as you suggest, separate) it is about the person. Yes, this means the UK is given more significance, but it doesn't mean there should be silly waffle about being the "de jure" Queen and so on. The notion of the GG as "de facto head of state" (not widely accepted, and usually only used to push some sort of agenda) does not all change the fact that QEII is the Queen. Her involvement with the UK is and should be emphasised without making cryptic implications about arrangements in other realms.

As for the material Gbambino removed from the lead, it really should stay. The lead is a very appropriate length, and if anything needs to do a better job of actually summarising the article, not a worse one. JPD (talk) 09:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, well, just to clarify: it was info I moved from the lead to elsewhere in the article. It just seemed to me that the details behind her ascension to various thrones she no longer holds would have been better placed in the "Evolution of the Commonwealth" section, as with her ancestry info going to the section on her ancestry; helped reduce the length of the intro. --G2bambino 14:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right that it should be covered in the body as well, but my point was that the length of the intro doesn't need reducing. The intro should summarise the article, not jsut say she is Queen of X, Y and Z. JPD (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The lead 'Queen of sixteen nations' contradicts the article title. If we keep the current lead, then the article should be Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth of Nations. When will the pro-sixteen equals, give it up. I'm Canadian, I don't mind 'UK and fifteen other nations. Let go of the national pride, peoples. GoodDay 22:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, there is no contradiction. The title is just one of her titles, and for better or worse it is used for the title of this article, as happens in similar situations all over Wikipedia (see above for one example). It doesn't mean that she isn't Queen of anywhere else, and she definitely isn't Queen of the Commonwealth of Nations, only sixteen of the Commonwealth's members. I don't particularly care whether it says sixteen sovereign states or UK and 15 others, but it seems quite petty to insist on the longer form when the title and rest of the first paragraph already put an emphasis (correctly) on the UK. JPD (talk) 10:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I too support Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, as the title. Sorry, my previous posting was meant for the 'Lead' discussion, above. GoodDay 17:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It's fine for the title - at least, it's the best it seems we can do - but we're not debating the title here. JPD's quite correct to point out that the opening sentence need not repeatedly mention the UK, especially in relation to her crowns and royal titles, which she holds equally. Saying Elizabeth II is Queen of the United Kingdom and fifteen other sovereign states and their overseas territories and dependencies. She holds each crown and title equally, however she is most directly involved with the United Kingdom, her oldest realm and the place of residence of the Royal Family is as ridiculously redundant as saying Elizabeth II is Queen of Tuvalu and fifteen other sovereign states and their overseas territories and dependencies. She holds each crown and title equally, however she is most directly involved with the United Kingdom, her oldest realm and the place of residence of the Royal Family. --G2bambino 17:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Remove She holds each crown and title equally, however she is most directly involved with the United Kingdom, her oldest realm and the place of residence of the Royal Family. It's way too cumbersome and over-explainatory. GoodDay 19:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

And Elizabeth II is Queen of the United Kingdom and fifteen other sovereign states and their overseas territories and dependencies gives undue weight to her British crown, causing unknowing readers to think the non-UK realms are still under her as Queen of the UK. The most succinct and accurate thing to say would be Elizabeth II is Queen of sixteen sovereign states and their overseas territories and dependencies. However, some objected to only this as it didn't mention anything regarding the differences in how she reigns over the UK vs. the other countries. Thus, the she holds each crown and title equally, however she is most directly involved with the United Kingdom, her oldest realm and the place of residence of the Royal Family part was added. It may be slightly cumbersome, but what can one expect when trying to sum up the realities of one woman who's actually sixteen queens? --G2bambino 19:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I got one better Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britan and Northern Ireland, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. Again, publications, television coverage, encyclopedias give the UK prominance. The opening lines of this article, should reflect this fact. As a pleaing anti-monarchist, pleased don't add the 'sixteen commonwealth' thing again. GoodDay 19:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Why just her British title? She has fifteen other ones, you know. And when she's in Canada the media doesn't give the UK much prominance. Besides, why let ignorant journalists guide Wikipedia content? --G2bambino 19:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to remember, who's the Governor-General of the UK (representing the Queen)? when the Queen is on her foreign trips? Let's see 15 Commonwealth members have a GG, 1 member doesen't. Interesting. I'm pleading with you, let go of your 'nationalist pride'. GoodDay 19:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Answer these questions: Is Elizabeth II not Queen of Canada? Is Canada subordinate to the United Kingdom? Did the Balfour Declaration not say the realms "are... equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown."? Consider them before again making edits here that give the UK your own imagined prominance. --G2bambino 19:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, you don't respect the 'External Links' of this article (which back my views). I don't want this to become an 'Edit War', the 'sixteen commonwealth thing' still looks contradictory to the Article name. It would go better with Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth of Nations. Sigh, Have it your way. PS- I know your edits are 'goodfaith', as were mine, (we can agree to that) and you may want to reverse my edit at Charles, Prince of Wales. GoodDay 19:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

What's to disrespect? I see a couple of links to an American media outlet that writes about her as the Queen of the UK. Well, she is Queen of the UK; how could I dispute that? But, it seems you don't want to note the other links (including the gov't of Virginia site) that call her simply "the Queen" or "Queen Elizabeth II," nor the Canadian media links that explicitly refer to her as Queen of Canada. Anyway, there's a wealth of better sources than magazine articles to confirm that she's sovereign of sixteen countries equally. Beyond that, I never assumed your edits were made in bad faith - far from it - but they certainly are misguided. --G2bambino 20:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm waving the 'white' flag. I don't want an 'edit war'. GoodDay 20:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we restore the opening sentences, then? Right now they've morphed back to the format that months ago launched a long debate over their re-composing into something more readable yet accurate. --G2bambino 20:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Howabout Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom and Head of the Commonwealth?? Just kidding. Put the opening sentences anyway you wish. GoodDay 20:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Involvement

I'm moving this discussion here from my talk page --G2bambino 16:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC):

What is wrong with admitting that the only place the Queen has a direct role in govt. - weekly meetings with the PM for example - is the UK? Signing one law in 1982, or whatever, does not constitute a direct role in govt. Indeed, the constitutions of the dominions specifically excludes a direct role, vesting such powers in the GG. I was attempting to make the wording more encyclopedic, because as it stands it's too informal. TharkunColl 16:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No - that's too general a statement. For example, the Canadian constitution (and I only raise it because it's the one I know most about) still gives the Queen all powers of government. True, the ability to exercise those powers has also been granted to the GG either through statute law, convention or letters patent, but the Queen's powers remain the same. Hence, she can, and has, signed Canadian bills into law - your '82 Canada Act example is an appropriate one. Beyond that, she, and only she, can appoint a Governor General, and only she may create extra Senate seats, as she did in 1991. So, it's disingenuous to say her role in government is limited to only the UK. --G2bambino 16:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I've changed it to take account of your concerns. I still think weekly meetings with the PM are a few orders of magnitude greater. TharkunColl 16:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I noted your changes, however, as I explained in my edit summary, the Queen is involved in more than just government. In fact, on the whole she's involved more often in non-government affairs of a more ceremonial nature. Perhaps the details of her meeting with British PMs as opposed to other Realm PMs could be covered elsewhere? --G2bambino 16:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You appear to be under the misapprehension that the word "government" can only ever refer to a specific government, whereas in fact - especially with a small "g" - it is a general term. TharkunColl 16:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I said "the Queen is involved in more than just government" - clearly also using the general term. Your proposal focuses too specifically on her governmental role, when in reality she's more so, on a day-to-day basis, involved in cultural and ceremonial roles. --G2bambino 16:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Then change "government" to "government and the community" or whatever. But can we at least alter that first paragraph? It does not read like an encyclopedia at all. TharkunColl 17:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if it is necessary to be so hair-splitting in the intro. An introduction summarises a topic in the most general of terms.--Gazzster 21:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That's my thinking, as well. --G2bambino 21:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You're at it again. Please stop it!

Stop attempting to demote the UK to just one amongst 16 places of which she is queen. This is not a legal treatise. Her involvement with the UK is qualitively different from those other places. This is all highly insulting to the people of the UK, who support the monarchy with their taxes - unlike anywhere else. TharkunColl 15:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop attempting to demote the 'other' realms to just 15 pseudo-monarchies of which the law says she is queen, but are really just colonial hangers-on. Her involvement with the other realms is qualitatively different from that in the UK, but is still quite significant. This is all highly insulting to the people of the other realms, who do indeed in some cases support the monarchy with their taxes, which is irrelevant to Wikipedia as funding does not determine fact. --Ibagli (Talk) 15:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What about the people who don't pay tax? If you stopped treating this as a personal matter, rather than an attempt to write an encyclopedia article, it might make a bit more sense, TharkunColl. The article should emphasise the UK, and it does (even in the first paragraph) in both of the versions recently seen. The only difference is whether the UK is first singled out (after the title) in the first or second sentence, and how many time the UK is repeated in the first paragraph. Which is more important: readibility, or having every single sentence point out that the UK has a special place among the 16? JPD (talk) 15:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I've decided not to get into an 'edit war', so I'll just stick to the 'talk page'. The External Links & indeed the Queen's own official title calls for Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Nortern Ireland, Head of the Commonwealth and Defender of the Faith. By having the opening lead as Queen of sixteen... is misleading, it contradicts the article title and the infobox discription. Please let go of these Commonwealth 'nationalistic pride' edits. It's the 'most common usage' that's called for. I'm a Canadian anti-monarchist, if can agree to this (UK and 15 other...) whya can't everyone? Heck, Encyclopedias, even back me. GoodDay 16:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Nortern Ireland, Head of the Commonwealth and Defender of the Faith is only her title in the UK. --G2bambino 16:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

For the three millionth time, Queen of sixteen sovereign states does not contradict anything at all, it just tells you more than the title or the infobox. A G2bambino ponts out, the Queen has more than one official title, so claiming officialness means nothing at all. (Even if it did, you are omitting "and her Other Realms and Territories".) Most common usage is only relevant to the title, and doesn't stop the article from giving a better picture. Leave all the pseudo arguments aside and take a step back. Do the different versions of the first paragraph as a whole communicate the situation well? Yes. What's the difference between them? One is easier to read, the other goes to extra lengths to emphasise the British POV. I don't feel there is a problem with emphasising the British POV in this case - apart from the readability issues, it woudl probably be more easily accepted if those pushing it hadn't said so many stupid things on this page already. JPD (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

For the three millionth and one time, the internationl community recognises Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Head of the Commonwealth and Defender of the Faith. This isn't a 'constitional' issue with me, it's a 'common usage with me. Check the 'External Lnks', if they're 'incorrect' remove them. GoodDay 16:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, you're plain wrong. Even in the UK, she is Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, not your shortened version. I can't see which external link you're referring to, but even if there is one that mistakenly backs you up, that is not a reason remove it. Secondly, I don't care what it is "with you". It should be an encyclopedic issue to all of us, and while common usage is the overriding factor in deciding titles of article, it isn't the only issue determining content, not even the content of the first sentence. Lastly, assuming your actual point is that she is predominantly known in the international community as the Queen of the UK, yes, I agree. I just don't think that if anyone is actually reading the intro, rather than reading one sentence at a time, changing between "sixteen sovereign states" and "UK, fifteen other sovereign states" actually makes any difference to how well that fact is communicated, so why is anyone arguing about it? JPD (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Imagine when (if) Charles succeeds the thrones?? He'll be attending 16 seperate coronations, in 16 seperate 'national capitals' (pack your bags, Charlie). JPD your edit earlier ..UK and 15 other.. was good. I hope this dispute dosen't have to go to a Mediation Comittee hearing. GoodDay 17:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Well the first thing to do to avoid mediation is simply to "declare a truce", it's to make sure the discussion is about understanding the points being made, rather than ranting. The irrelevant comments about coronations just turn this more and more into an emotional argument, rather than a factual and practical one about how to make the article better. I have made edits with the intention of making each version more readable, as I think this is more important than which version is used. JPD (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse my 'coronaton' joke (it wasn't meant to be sarcastic). All I'm supporting is -most common usage-. Sure hate to see this debate become a nationalistic pride thing. Again, your edit was alright ...UK and 15 other.... Sure hope, the 'Edit Wars' don't heat up again. GoodDay 17:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, me too. We've already been through this. Let's remember that the versions we agreed upon did involve compromise on either side. The few editors who are protesting now did agree to the final edits (at least tacitly), didn't they?--Gazzster 22:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This is all quite weird. Why would countries that have already become independent, wish so vociferously to have the British monarch as their head of state? It really does seem a bit odd. At the end of the day, you can't really have it both ways. TharkunColl 22:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Guess we'll have to accept the current sentence. Afterall, it could be worst, this page could've been moved to Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth. GoodDay 23:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The English have fought, and died, over hundreds of years to limit the powers of the monarch, and get the monarchy they want. If the colonies really do want independence, then they should have the courage to do so, and not remain under the apron strings. TharkunColl 23:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

TharkunColl, that is something you simply cannot understand, can you? You are so convinced the Windsors belong by right to the British alone that you cannot recognise the legitimate attachment of many other peoples to them. OK, try and look at the royal family as many citizens of Commonwealth nations see them. I'm not asking you to agree or sympathise. Just try and understand. Countries like Australia, New Zealand, and Canada rightly pride themselves on their independence and sovereignty. Now, you talk about the struggle of the British people for freedom. You're rightly proud of that. Well, other nations have their history too, of which we're proud. And the British heritage, including the monarchy, has been part of that. Consider if the monarchy didn't exist. Where would be the cultural heritage of Britain? As you say, the United Kingdom has defined itself by hundreds of years of struggle for freedom. The monarchy has been part of that. Without the monarchy, the UK would have to radically redefine itself. Many of these sovereign monarchies who have Elizabeth II as their queen would face a similar dilemna; even more so, since they are young countries and do not have your history. Notice the number of Commonwealth or former Commonwealth nations that are now republics; India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Ireland, etc. They all have centuries of tradition as peoples independent of Britain. Other nations do not have that history, but are proud of their sovereignty. In time they will probably become republics. My own country attempted to several years ago, but we are not quite ready yet. In the meantime, respect the dignity of these countries. Respect their independence, and the sovereignty of the queen over them. I am a republican at heart. The republic will come in time. In the meantime, why am I proud to own Elizabeth as the 'Queen of Australia'? Because she, not the United Kingdom, of which she happens to be queen as well, is the guarantee of Australia's sovereignty. --Gazzster 23:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

And if your country became a republic, the position of the monarchy in the UK would be unaltered. But if the UK became a republic, the monarchy would end everywhere. And yes, the Windsors do indeed belong to the UK. We pay for them, and we, through an act of parliament, can get rid of them at any time. TharkunColl 00:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, article lead sentence certainly evokes 'passionate' political views from both sides (British side & other Commonwealth side). GoodDay 23:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

And so they should, they are the most importanour openiong statements, SqueakBox 00:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the compromise will have to do. At least the page itself remains Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. This is a community encyclopedia, which naturally has many PoV's, we have to accept that. GoodDay 00:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

(Reply to last post of TharkunColl) Yawn. Actually, your Parliament would find it hard to abolish the monarchy. The monarch would have to sign off on the Act of Parliament, right? And I think you'll find that according to the Statute of Westminster the deposition of the monarch would require the unanimous consent of all the monarchies. Indeed we do pay for the Queen of Australia. Aussie taxpayers pay for her visits, and the Governor-General, who is the Queen in Australia, is paid for out of the public purse. OK. I've said my peace. I've had enough.--Gazzster 00:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The Statute of Westminster may indeed say that, but it would only require an act of parliament to repeal it. The UK has no written constitution, and parliament has the power to pass or repeal any act it likes. Abolition of the monarchy would likewise only require an act of parliament, and by convention the monarch has to sign all acts of parliament. If she refused (which she wouldn't), she would be declared incompetent as George III was. As for Australians paying for the Queen only when she visits, we in the UK have to pay for her entire household every day of the year. And your remark that the GG is the Queen in Australia is preposterous - you pay for your GG like you would pay for your President when you finally decide to have one. You do not contribute towards the Queen's income. Imagine how quickly a republic would be declared if you were suddenly required to do so!

If the colonies really do want independence, then they should have the courage to do so... Well, I think that pretty much lifts the veil on TharkunColl's thinking: the Queen's realms besides the UK really are still colonies to be relegated to secondary status behind the glorious mother country. Sorry - wrong. I suggest you do your research on the 1931 Statute of Westminster and the repercussions of it, along with the history of patriation of each non UK realm's constitution. Maybe then you'd come to understand the principal of equality of all the countries under the shared Crown. You also might not make such inane statements about the monarchy ending everywhere if the UK abolished the Crown within its borders. --G2bambino 01:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong here - I think it's nice that the colonies, decades after achieving full independence, choose to retain the Queen as their head of state. But make no mistake about it, the Queen, and the monarchy, are British. I must, with great weariness, yet again ask you to try and appreciate the difference between a legal truth and an actual truth. TharkunColl 09:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

TharkunColl, the language you use in your first statement is a little condescending, but hey - I know what you're trying to say. But it's not simply a matter of it being 'nice'; sentimental, nostalgic. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II by the Grace of God, etc, etc, is Queen of other nations in law as well as fact.I don't know how you make this strange distinction between fact and law. Obviously, if HM is Queen of a nation in law, she is in fact also. Actually, you are quite correct. The monarchy is British. Elizabeth is Queen of the United Kingdom. The monarchy is also Australian, because HM is Queen of Australia in her own right. The monarchy is also Canadian, because she is Queen of Canada in her own right. The same goes for New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, etc, etc, etc. We are talking about separate monarchies. The monarchy is not a United Kingdom monarchy shared about.Why is it so difficult for you to understand that? Oh God, I'm getting a headache.--Gazzster 09:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not difficult to understand - it is simply preposterous. It is little more than a legal fiction concocted to ease the tortuously long and drawn out process of the end of the British Empire. She may well be all those things you mentioned, Queen of Australia, etc., but the real question is why? Why is she Queen of Australia? Could it possibly have something to do with the fact that Australia was once a British colony? TharkunColl 09:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to thank you TharkunColl for showing us your true motives. You are not having difficulty grasping the concept of separate monarchies. You are not even willfully ignorant. You understand very well. You are contributing out of personbal motives biased in favour of an outdated (and irrelevant) Anglocentric world view. 'Presposterous'? 'It is little more than a legal fiction concocted to ease the tortuously long and drawn out process of the end of the British Empire'? That is not only ignorant, but grossly insulting. I am sad you cannot see why. If respond anymore, it will be on your talk page. --Gazzster 10:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

A monarchy where the monarch only visits once in a blue moon, where the monarch has no power or influence whatsoever, and where the monarch is head of state of another country on the other side of the world, is no monarchy. TharkunColl 10:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

At first I responded to this gem of a comment on his talk page, as I said, but I think it really needs to be repeated here:

OK. So from saying that the monarchies of the non-UK realms are true, but inferior, nay 'preposterous' monarchies, you are saying they are no monarchies at all. Let us put aside the issue of your ignorance. Let us put aside the issue of whether a monarch is any less a monarch because her realm is 'on the other side of the world'. (By your logic, HM is only half ruler of Gibraltar and hardly at all of the Falkland Islands) and ask ourselves how much influence the Queen has in the United Kingdom? Not a lot, I suspect.--Gazzster 10:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

As I have said before, I doubt weather people from the Commonwealth Realms really understand the all-pervading presence of the monarchy in the UK. To them, the monarch is some remote figurehead, but here the monarch and her family are in the news every single day. You asked how much influence the monarch has in the UK - well, she has meetings with the PM every week. Prince Charles is notorious for bombarding government ministers with questions and suggestions, to which they have to respond, no matter how inane they are. Harry goes to trendy nightclubs in London dressed as a Nazi, Anne gets a speeding ticket, blah blah blah all the time. The monarch has a great deal of influence in the UK. She is the fount of the honours system. She advised Ted Heath to resign in 1974 (I know there was also some constitutional impasse in Australia around that time, but that was resolved by the GG, not the Queen). The Queen lives in the UK, as do her family. People sometimes bump into lesser royalty in pubs, etc., and everyone knows someone who has a story like this. The Queen and her ancestors stretching back some 1500 years are rooted here, this land has nurtured them as it has nurtured us all, the English have fought against their kings for liberty, and have fought alongside them against outside enemies. The monarchy is ours. TharkunColl 11:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

And Prince Harry dressing as a Nazi makes Australia 'no monarchy' how?--Gazzster 11:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Australia is a monarchy in name only. It doesn't actually have a monarch of its own, who lives there and shares in the daily life of Australians. TharkunColl 11:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Once again you show your ignorance. We have our own monarch. She's called Queen of Australia. Gee! We even have an article about her. Following your logic, HM is Queen of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Mann and the Channel Islands 'in name only.'--Gazzster 11:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You're not really listening to what I am saying, are you? I know what the legal position is, and I know that constitutionally she is Queen of Australia. What I'm saying is something rather different. The only place where she is actually a monarch, for all practical purposes, is the UK - in the other places she is simply a constitutional figurehead. But I don't know why you would say that her role is lesser in Scotland - the family lives there part of the year and one of them - often Anne apparently - is on hand to sign acts of the Scottish parliament. TharkunColl 11:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The Queen signs Acts of the Scottish Parliament in the same way as she does for Acts of the UK Parliament. Thunderwing 18:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Mate, I know what you're saying. You are saying that the monarchy plays a greater public role in the UK than elsewhere. That has never been in dispute on this page. In fact, the article was edited to show it. But you have stated on this page that my country is 'no monarchy.' You have publicly insulted the non UK monarchies. Kindly recognize that HM is dear to many nations, not just your own. Practically she plays an important part in the Australian Constitution. Without her, Australia would not exist. You can't get any more practical than that. And for the record, she is a 'figurehead' in your country too.--Gazzster 12:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

She is indeed a figurehead in the UK, but she is also a great deal more - unlike in the other realms. I'm not sure what you mean by saying that without the Queen, Australia wouldn't exist - except if you mean it in a sort of symbolic sense, in that the Queen symbolises the British nation, and that without the British, Australia wouldn't exist (which is so obvious that it hardly even needs saying). If, on the other hand, you mean it in a constitutional sense, then does that mean that if Australia becomes a republic, it would cease to be Australia? TharkunColl 12:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh my God, this is just too easy. As to your first sentence, I repeat: that has never been in dispute. Can't take yes for an answer, can you? As to the second, the Queen of Australia is Head of State of Australia (see Australian Constitution. So yes, if the Queen ceased to be Queen of Australia, the realm of Australia would cease to exist. If the UK abolished the monarchy, it would cease to be the Kingdom of the UK, wouldn't it? It would become another entity. And I repeat my accusation, you have accused Australia, and, by implication, other monarchies, as being 'no monarchies'. Do you stand by that?--Gazzster 12:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

A change in the form of the head of state does not mean that the state itself ceases to exist. But anyway, I have already answered your question. Australia is a monarchy in name only, because it has no monarch who lives there and interacts with the Australian people. It is a monarchy in law, but not in practice, where it is already a republic, with its head, the GG, apointed by elected ministers. TharkunColl 12:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's 10 pm here, and I'm getting tired, but really, your ignorance continues to astound. But I should be grateful I suppose that you have retracted the absurdity that my nation is 'no monarchy.'Kindly define a monarchy 'in name only'. I'm not familiar with that term in constitutional law. We are 'already a republic'? I see. You'd better email the G-G and John Howard. I don't think they know yet. And for your information, our GG is not 'appointed by elected ministers'; he or she is appointed by the Queen of Australia on the advice of the PM. --Gazzster 12:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

There you go, talking about constitutional law again. I'm talking about actual practice. A republic is a state that has an appointed or elected head of state, rather than one who inherits the position. The GG of Australia is appointed, by elected representatives. Do you really think the Queen would choose someone other than the person chosen by the PM? Australia is therefore already a de facto republic, because the GG performs the duties of a head of state. TharkunColl 12:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

And how am I to define the government of my country? By the Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom Talk Page? Of course I'm going to refer to my nation's constitution. And there you again demonstrating an ignorance of the constitutional law of other realms. As I have already said, the GG is not appointed by elected reps, but by the Queen of Australia upon the advice of the PM. That the Queen of Australia following the advice of the PM makes Australia a republic, how? Would you rather she didn't?--Gazzster 13:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It is called "advice", but that is a legal euphemism. It is actually completely binding, and the Queen's appointment is just a rubber stamp. As for what I'd rather, that is supremely irrelevant, as we are talking facts here. My own personal opinion is that it's nice that the old colonies still choose to retain the Queen as their head of state, but so what? And they can even call her "Queen of Australia" if they want, as if it makes any practical difference. My preference here is that they should just be honest and call her Queen of the UK, because that's what she is, and her other titles are just legal niceties. For all practical purposes Australia is already functioning as a republic. TharkunColl 13:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Your first statement: I agree. I would not want the Queen of Australia to veto any act of the PM of Australia or the Parliament of Australia. I presume you would say the same for the Queen of the UK and the PM and Parliament of the UK. So if you expect the Queen of the UK to follow the advice of her elected ministers, does that make the UK a practical republic? You're a little confused, I think. As to your 'personal prefertence', that is perfectly irrelevant for this article. Thanks for admitting that.--Gazzster 13:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

As an Englishman, and proud of it, I can see no problem with head of 16 states as intro currently stands. She is my Queen, but I am more than happy to shere her with all who recognise her. thanks. (Bilbobee away from home, forgot to sign)\

You are a just and magnaminous man, Bilbobee.--Gazzster 13:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You asked for my opinion, so I gave it. This article should deal in facts. And facts do not necessarily conform to law. The UK does indeed have some republican features in its government, but is not a republic because the monarchy is a very important part of daily life here. And as for whether the Queen should be able to veto an act of parliament, yes - if a government began acting in an unconstitutional and dictatorial style. Without a written constitution, the UK relies on the reserve powers of the monarch for these things, a system that has proved to be infinitely flexible over the centuries. TharkunColl 13:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall asking for your opinion. I do remember you dictating it to me.'Facts do not necessarily conform to law'? Then do you suggest this article avoid questions of law when it conflicts with what you have already admitted is your personal opinion? What your discourse about the Queen of the UK's reserve powers has to do with the debate I do not know. --Gazzster 13:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It pains me, to see what I've re-started. Had I'd checked this page's 'older' discussions & compromise. I wouldn't have protested the Sixteen... opening line. The strong political & nationalistic views (on both sides), has turned ugly. If the Commonwealth of Nations bickered this way, it would've dissolved 'long ago'. Strong PoV arguments will always be stalemated. GoodDay 16:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of TharkunColl's comments are completely irrelevant, because he is addressing the question from the point of view "Why should all these indepedent countries want to have the Queen", whereas an encyclopedia simply reports the fact without commenting on whether it is logical or not. It does not matter whether users approve of the constitutional arrangements, simply whether the article correctly reports them. It is true that there is a good argument that Australia is a "crowned republic", and that the crown is less important there than in the UK, but not that the crown is not relevant at all. JPD (talk) 19:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Too long

This article is 100k – far over the desired article size. I propose splitting off at least the entire "Life as Queen" section to Elizabeth II's life as Queen or something of the similar. If there are no objections in the next three days I'll make the split. Suggestions for a better new article name would be nice too.

I've already moved the "Personality and image" section to Personality and image of Queen Elizabeth II, as that was less controversial than my above proposal. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 22:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The UK does have a superior status amongst the monarchies

Here is a quote from the PM of Canada in 1953 [1]:

"Her Majesty is now Queen of Canada but she is the Queen of Canada because she is Queen of the United Kingdom. . . It is not a separate office .. it is the sovereign who is recognized as the sovereign of the United Kingdom who is our Sovereign. . ." Hansard. February 3, 1953, page 1566.

A very frank and interesting statemant that flatly contradicts a great deal of the nationalist POV that has been incessantly pushed around here. The Queen is Queen of Canada because she is Queen of the UK. It is not a separate office. TharkunColl 12:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

"The Queen is Queen of Canada because she is Queen of the UK" is true on many levels. "It is not a separate office" does not follow from that, and, more to the point, is not relevant to anything in the article, whatever arguments may have been pushed on the talk page. Can't we all give it a rest yet? JPD (talk) 12:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The PM of Canada made a point of saying that it is not a separate office. The monarchies of the dominions are derived from, and dependant on, the monarchy of the UK. We really do need to say this in the article, otherwise we are giving misleading and false information. If the UK had no monarchy, those other monarchies would not exist. But the converse is not the case. TharkunColl 14:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to get into the inevitable discussions about the fact that the constitutional situation in various places is not the same as it was in 1953, or whether a PM is always right, but I will say: If you think the article doesnt' communicate the derivative nature of the non-UK arrangments, you need to learn to read. JPD (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The first paragraph just mentions, as if as an aside, that she happens to live in the UK and is therefore more directly involved with it - almost as if she could move to Australia tomorrow, sack the GG, and become monarch in person. But we know she couldn't do this, because the Australian constitution would not permit it (and we must also suspect that the Australian people would not pay for her, either). The very first sentence needs to single out that she is Queen of the UK, because this better reflects reality. TharkunColl 14:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the only one of those that she couldn't do is become the monarch, because she already is, but we know that what you mean is that there would still need to be a GG (and that she might need to take a pay cut - at least she'd have a nice stagecoach). If you think the article (or even the first para) implies otherwise, you have quite an imagination. Maybe "her oldest realm" could be elaborated on a bit, but I think the big issue here is that you expect the first sentence to do everything, and that's just silly. JPD (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The Balfour Declaration, which predates St. Laurent's comments, states that all the realms "are autonomous Communities... equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown..." Further, by the time of St. Laurent's speech to the House of Commons the Statute of Westminster was already in effect, and Canada had already passed the Succession to the Throne Act, demonstrating that clearly just because the UK said someone was king or queen did not mean the same applied automatically to all the other realms. There is one Sovereign, who is Sovereign of Canada and the UK, and many other countries, thus there is one "office"; but it is divisible in that it operates within sixteen completely autonomous jurisdictions. If one realm were to unilaterally alter the line of succession within its borders, then the "office" would become separated. Dr. Richard Toporoski put it somewhat better than I can:

"I am perfectly prepared to concede, even happily affirm, that the British Crown no longer exists in Canada, but that is because legal reality indicates to me that in one sense, the British Crown no longer exists in Britain: the Crown transcends Britain just as much as it does Canada. One can therefore speak of "the British Crown" or "the Canadian Crown" or indeed the "Barbadian" or "Tuvaluan" Crown, but what one will mean by the term is the Crown acting or expressing itself within the context of that particular jurisdiction... But there is a danger that this concept of the "divisibility" of the Crown, which, given the manner in which the legislative independence of the Queen's realms in the Commonwealth has developed, I must admit is a fact, can lead to the idea that the Crown is at present "divided". This is not true, but it would immediately become true if, let us say, an alteration were to be made in the United Kingdom to the Act of Settlement 1701, providing for the succession of the Crown. It is my opinion that the domestic constitutional law of Australia or Papua New Guinea, for example, would provide for the succession in those countries of the same person who became Sovereign of the United Kingdom. But this would not be true in Canada. There is no existing provision in our law, other than the Act of Settlement 1701, that provides that the King or Queen of Canada shall be the same person as the King or Queen of the United Kingdom. If the British law were to be changed and we did not change our law..., the Crown would be divided. The person provided for in the new law would become king or queen in at least some realms of the Commonwealth; Canada would continue on with the person who would have become monarch under the previous law..."

So, there you have it. --G2bambino 15:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we please not start debating the constitutional arrangements unless it is clearly directly related to a question concerning the article? JPD (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

How about this legal ruling from 2003 (my bold, see link above):

In the present case the court is being asked to apply the Charter not to rule on the validity of acts or decisions of the Crown, one of the branches of our government, but rather to disrupt the core of how the monarchy functions, namely the rules by which succession is determined. To do this would make the constitutional principle of Union under the British Crown together with other Commonwealth countries unworkable, would defeat a manifest intention expressed in the preamble of our Constitution, and would have the courts overstep their role in our democratic structure.

So there you have it. TharkunColl 15:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right, JPD. My bad. --G2bambino 15:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

So you won't even answer my point? It is directly relevant to the article, because the present first paragraph reduces the UK to just one among many. Whilst I find it touching that you love our Queen so much, you should at least acknowledge who she is, and what she does. TharkunColl 15:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

What point is there to address? You're living in the realms of fantasy, and despite being presented with ample evidence to the contrary, you continue to push your imagined reality. I and others already went through an extremely lengthy debate at Talk:Monarchy in Canada about this whole "Canada is still subservient to the UK" garbage, where the antagonist similarly misconstrued Justice Rouleau's comments. Please read through it before continuing here. --G2bambino 15:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I have said nothing about Canada being subservient to the UK. But the Canadian monarchy is an adjunct of the British monarchy. It is surely only nationalistic pride that refuses to allow you to see this, and that has no place in an encyclopedia. TharkunColl 15:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The Canadian Crown is either equal to or subordinate to the UK Crown. I argue the former, you argue the latter. If the Canadian Crown is subservient to the British Crown, then Canada falls under UK sovereignty, which is patently false. I guarantee that you cannot find one respectable legal scholar who will argue that Canada remains under British sovereignty, thus, who's the one being unencyclopaedic? --G2bambino 15:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It is you who introduced sovereignty to the debate, not me. The Canadian crown is not subordinate to the British crown - it is part of it. TharkunColl 15:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean "British Crown" as the traditional way to refer to the shared Crown, or "British Crown" as in the Crown within the jurisdiction of the UK parliament? --G2bambino 15:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The Crown is completely within the jurisdiction of parliament. That's why British people fought and died in the Civil War, and why we had the Glorious Revolution. TharkunColl 15:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Then you are arguing that Canada is subordinate to the UK - our crown is your crown which is under the jurisdiction of the UK Parliament. Wrong; the Crown in Canada is not within the jurisdiction of the UK Parliament, it is completely within the jurisdiction of the Canadian Parliament, as established by 75 year old constitutional law. --G2bambino 15:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The British parliament is sovereign in all matters, because we are not burdened by a written constitution. We could abolish the monarchy at any time. What would happen then to the "Canadian Crown", do you think? TharkunColl 16:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Nothing would happen, because Canada is not under the sovereignty of the British Crown - as in, the Crown within UK jurisdiction. --G2bambino 16:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

So the Canadians would keep the monarchy, even though it had been abolished in the UK? If you really believe that, then I'm not surprised you can't tell the difference between legal theory and actual fact. TharkunColl 16:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say we'd keep it - who am I to predict the future choices of Canadians? But if the UK abolished the Monarchy Canada's status as a constitutional monarchy would not be affected. Do your research on the Statute of Westminster please. --G2bambino 16:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, until every last province decided along with the federal Parliament that the monarchy was no longer needed in Canada, it would stay. --Ibagli (Talk) 17:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is a good example of the difference between legal theory and practical fact. The British parliament cannot bind itself - therefore any law it passes can be just as easily repealed at any future date (hence the impossibility of imposing a written constitution). The British parliament, according to its own rules, could therefore repeal all the acts granting independence to the dominions and once more bring them under its control. In legal theory this is perfectly true, but in practice it would never happen. Likewise, in legal theory the crowns are equal, but in practice they are an adjunct of the crown of the UK. TharkunColl 18:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Neither legal theory nor practical fact allow this. As the other realms are not under the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, Acts of the British Parliament (and the repeal thereof) have no effect other than to make the British government of the time look unrealistically imperialistic. --Ibagli (Talk) 19:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

They can only repeal any laws within their own jurisdiction - and as the Statute of Westminster is now a part of Canadian constitutional law, within Canada it would still state that no Act passed by the British Parliament has cause or effect in Canada. This is why the non-UK crowns of the Commonwealth are not under British sovereignty. --G2bambino 18:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of this article, I suggest this dispute be taken before the 'Mediation Committee'. This tug of war isn't going to end. GoodDay 18:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think an RfC is the first step. However, we've already had very lengthy debate on this topic with many people weighing in, and TharkunColl remains the only one with any strong (and biased) objections. --G2bambino 19:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's have an RfC then. If the majority opinon (no matter what it is) is later disrespected (by any editor, through causing an 'edit war'). Then the offending editor shall be reported to an Administrator (for ignoring the RfC results). This dispute must end. GoodDay 19:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

An RfC isn't binding on anything, it's merely the debate being brought to the attention of a wider audience to garner more opinion. Because it doesn't demand any editor conform to general consensus (if any is reached) if anyone still objects after RfC, the dispute then goes in front of a mediator. The process works sometimes, but it seems ridiculous to go through it just because one editor wrongly believes that fifteen independent, free standing kingdoms are still colonies of the British Queen. --G2bambino 20:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Have the RfC anyway. The more opinons on this matter, the better. It can't hurt. GoodDay 20:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The only editor who continues to object in this matter is TharkunColl (GoodDay objects also, but respects the discussion we have previously had on this page). I hardly think mediation is necessary for TharkunColl's sake. In fact he has shown himself to be insulting to the non-UK monarchies. He has found himself pursuing nonsensical and contradictory arguments. With G2bambino he has argued that the Canadian crown is part of the UK Crown, and then said the former is not inferior to the latter. He cannot have it both ways. In an exchange with myself a week ago he said that non-UK monarchies were 'preposterous' monarchies. He later went on to say that were 'no' monarchies at all. Then he implied that the validity of a monarchy depended upon the distance of a nation from the place she resides. He described Australia as a republic on the basis that the Queen of Australia is a figurehead there and respects a democratically elected government. Then he realised that he had just described the UK monarchy as well! On top of this, the UK is the supreme monarchy, apparently, because Prince Harry has dressed as a Nazi and the Princess Royal runs up parking tickets there. When forced to pursue his own arguments TharkunColl trips over himself and is forced to contradict himself. And he has stated on this page that his arguments about the superiority of the UK Crown are his own personal arguments. I do not think we should allow TharkunColl to hijack this discussion. We have talked about this. We have settled on an edit which acknowledges the special role of HM in the UK. The edit is accurate and fair. Let's stick to it.--Gazzster 21:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

How dare you make such a biased and trivialised precis of my arguments. Who is this article about? And what is her full time job? These are questions that you refuse to even countenance, let alone answer. TharkunColl 23:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean to say, 'you didn't give me the answers I wanted.' And I do not trivialise. That is what your arguments sound like. And isn't it hypocritical to accuse me of that when you 'trivialise' the dignity of 15 sovereign nations, many of whom are represented by editors on this page? If you're waiting for an answer, this article is about Queen Elizabeth II. Her full-time job is being Queen of 16 realms. No, she isn't part-time monarch of Australia and Canada. If you need to continue, I invite you to go to my talk page.--Gazzster 04:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't call a few days visiting every couple of years a "full time job" - do you? And please provide an example of when I contradicted myself, because I assure you I haven't. The Queen and her family live in the UK, and are in the news every day. The nature of the monarchy in the UK is qualatively different from that of the monarchies in the other realms. In fact, as far as the other realms are concerned, the Queen is an absentee monarch. TharkunColl 12:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Well then, if his 'edits' and objections are disruptive, report his actions to an Administrator (for going against a 'previously' reached compromise). Otherwise, do the following: 1)RfC then 2)'Mediation Committee'. If we don't, this will eventually head to the 'Arbitration Committee' itself. Block'em or Don't argue with him. GoodDay 22:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

My point is that mediation should not be necessary on the basis of one editor's disruption. Editors simply need to show a common face in favour of the agreed upon edits. Taking administrive action only gives the attention he wants.--Gazzster 22:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Very well. GoodDay 23:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Just my 2 cents/pence etc. We need only look into history and not what might happen when UK abolishes her monarchy. The monarchy shared between Luxembourg and the Netherlands split after William III of the Netherlands died. Luxembourg's succession law only allowed the crown passed in the male line. As such the office of Grand_Duke_of_Luxembourg was separated completely ever since.

If any of the realms decided to change their succession law or abolish constitution monarchy, there would probably be no effect in the UK. But if the UK decided to abolish monarchy, it will depend on whether the realm's constitution provide any mechanism to choose a new monarch. Will the realm able to continue the line of sucession in the realm or pick a monarch from another constitution monarchy in the extremely unlikly case, say Denmark, or Japan even. Of course there is always the option to abolish the monarchy altogether in the realm. --Kvasir 04:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I think most, if not all non-UK Commonwealth realms have the Act of Settlement as part of their constitutional law. At least, I know that is the case in Australia. That would mean that only a non-Catholic descendant of Electress Sophia Dorothea of Hanover, whose spouse was not Catholic could succeed, as in the UK. Of course, any sovereign nation could legislate to choose any monarch it wanted. Any change concerning the succession of the common monarchy would require the agreement of all the realms, according to the Statute of Westminster. But I suppose any realm could unilaterally annul the Statute of Westminster. After that, who knows? An interesting hypothetical scednario. --Gazzster 05:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't you mean Sophia Dorothea's grandmother? Sophia of Hanover?? GoodDay 22:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Good call, mate. SD was the mother of George I.--Gazzster 22:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

No, SD was the daughter of George I. It's Sophia-GeorgeI-Sophia Dorothea. GoodDay 22:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Right again. George's mother was Sophia of the Palatinate?--Gazzster 23:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Coronation

If the Queen's role as Queen of Canada, Australia, etc. really is completely distinct from her role as Queen of the UK, then why wasn't she crowned as such? Those places weren't even mentioned during her coronation. TharkunColl 13:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes they were. From Coronation of the British Monarch: "Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?" Passingtramp 15:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. But there's still no hint that those places have separate crowns. In typical British fashion, the whole thing is left ambiguous. TharkunColl 16:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it isn't ambiguous. It is a matter of law and practice.Now it would be impractical and ridiculous to crown the monarch 16 times with 16 different crowns. The poor woman wouldn't be out of the abbey until the evening.In any case, most monarchs these days aren't crowned- the UK monarchy is about the last to have a coronation. The rite of coronation is just that, a ceremony, and does not actually make a monarch. So no coronation does not mean no monarchy.--Gazzster 21:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that all her titles should be included. And I do not recognize that this article needs to be summarised. I particularly enjoyed this article, and condensing it would remove a lot of detail. 125.239.6.184 04:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section.

I do not see any criticism here. And is not her real last name Saxe-Coburg-Gothe. Where is the mention of how the whole familiy is really German? Xavier cougat 16:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The whole family is German? Why do you leave out English, Scottish, French, Greek, Danish, etc., etc.? Beyond that, I'm not sure how much criticism of EIIR there's ever been - but if something can be sourced I don't see why it shouldn't be added. --G2bambino 17:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Well in large part German. Very little British. How about here distaste for Diana? How about how she was upset when they asked her to pay taxes? She gives little to charity. She lives off the government. She does little for the country she owns. She is a drain on the taxpayers. Now I have read all of this. Should not some criticism be in the article too. Xavier cougat 20:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Provide reliable sources, please. --G2bambino 21:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761556932/Elizabeth_II.html here is where she just started paying taxes after public opinion got after her. can I put that in the article?Xavier cougat 21:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)