Talk:Elizabeth II

How much is the royal collection worth?

Does anyone here know how much the royal collection is worth? Somebody must have at least estimated its worth! Does anyone have any sources? --89.56.175.231 (talk) 12:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The answer I have for you is purely apocryphal — when I was at the palace one of my superiors told me that they once had an insurance company around to investigate the idea of insuring the palace. They went into one particular room (the Chinese room methinks) which was so lavish and inestimably expensive that they just gave up then and there. So the answer is something like "too expensive to insure" or "inestimable". ^† DBD 14:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

A very good question. I searched far and wide for the answer to that very question for the article Royal Collection but to no avail. Most estimates are 10 billion pound sterling upwards, though non of these estimates are reliable enough to be used as sources...I really think it is just one of those things you cant put a price on. The faberge eggs alone would fetch millions, then it is the biggest collection of da Vinci's works in the world, then there are Holbeins, Monet's (inherited off her mother, tax free as the Royal Collection is a "charity")..the Vermeers'...One really could go on forever. The forbes list never count this collection towards her personal wealth as it is "in trust". I really dont know why...it is technically still hers...and there are no laws to prevent/prohibit her from selling pieces off...Hope that helped a bit--Camaeron (t/c) 18:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Minor correction.. HM inherited tax-free because the Sovereign is not subject to inheritance taxes. With good reason.. whatever the political reality, the reality on the ground is that the Sovereign inherits property and assets worth multiple billions of pounds--Buckingham Palace alone is officially valued as priceless.PrinceOfCanada (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Sarkozy bows to The Queen

Can I add this? I found it shockingly interesting and...well astounding really. Usually non-subjects of the Queen do not bow to HM The Queen, let alone heads of state, who are meant to be "equal". Besides nowadays ever more subjects of HM decide not to bow to her any more (it is no longer required...). What do you all think? --Cameron (t/c) 13:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't say I think it's particularly relevant. Has there been any media coverage of his bowing as being something out of the ordinary? -mattbuck (Talk) 13:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think that technically only monarchs are equal to other monarchs, whereas presidents are not; it may have something to do with the sovereign actually being the embodiment of the state's sovereignty, whereas a president is merely an elected politician. I'm not sure about that, though. Maybe Sarkozy was just trying to be debonair... --G2bambino (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

And I suppose as a "commoner" he could never be equal to her = ) --Cameron (t/c) 15:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Not to get into a 'monarchy vs republican' row, but; Presidents are equal to Monarchs. As for Sarkozy? His bowing was likely personal choice (Elizabeth is a woman & older then him) - but to my knowledge, there's no protocol for it - Head of State bowing to another Head of State. PS- I can't picture a US President bowing to the Queen. GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think whether a Presidents and monarchs are equal is a matter of POV. I suppose Republicans and Monarchists would argue as to this. --Cameron (t/c) 18:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not really a matter of POV. International protocol has long since settled on the question. Heads of State are equal rank, whether inherited, elected, or chosen by some moistened bint lobbing a scimitar. As an interesting tidbit, Queen Victoria added Imperatrix (Empress) to her title so that her daughter (who married into the German Empire) would not outrank her. So while this is somewhat of a recent development, it no longer holds true; as Head of State HM is equal in rank to the Emperor of Japan.

Basically what I'm saying is that in terms of protocol, the title is unimportant. What matters is the office: Head of State. When multiple Heads of State are together, precedence is set by length of term. Thus the King of Thailand tends to be first at such gatherings, followed by HM The Queen.PrinceOfCanada (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken. 'International protocoll' is awfully confused. The truth is, there is no uniform 'international protocoll' (who would lay these rules down, anyway?). (Politicians staying at Buckingham Palace are usually briefed on etiquette before even meeting the Queen as there is so much confusion!). The predecent by length of reign is an unwritten rule of etiquette amoungst Kings and Queens (who are, let's face it much better at etiquette than your average President and generally respect, or even invent, rules of etiquette...hence the words courtesy, courtly...). --Cameron (t|p|c) 18:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

PS:Even if the titles were irrelevant; dont you think King/Queen sounds more imposing than president?--Cameron (t|p|c) 18:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they are briefed because many politicians (from foreign, non-Commonwealth countries would think, erroneously, that they should bow. They shouldn't, for one of two reasons: 1) they are the sovereign head of state of another country, in which case any courtesy given is as that between equals; or 2) they are not a citizen of the Commonwealth, in which case bowing to HM is entirely optional. Only subjects of HM are 'requested' to bow.PrinceOfCanada (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I fully accept you second reason (you mean Commonwealth realms, dont you?). I dont even think requested is the right word to use..it is entirely optional nowadays... = )--Cameron (t|p|c) 18:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh, yes, I did mean realms.. oops! I've had this discussion elsewhere... I believe that Buckingham Palace says that bowing is 'optional' in much the same way that a suggested dress code is 'optional'. That is to say, not at all, though of course Her Madge would never say anything nor even indicate displeasure at the breach of protocol.PrinceOfCanada (talk) 18:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course not, she's far to couteous! She even ignored Cherie Blair's (bitch!) forgotten curtsey...--Cameron (t|p|c) 18:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thumbs up, for Cherie Blair. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, why celebrate pettiness? --G2bambino (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Or disrespect to an elderly lady...--Cameron (t|p|c) 17:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[de-indent --G2] I celebrate equality. Remember, I'm a republican. GoodDay (talk) 18:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

GoodDay, please don't try to make anyone believe that there's such a thing as equality anywhere, including in republics. Unless I'm missing something, I don't see every US citizen getting Secret Service protection for life, or a very lucrative retirement plan partly built on their friendships with corporate heads and international leaders. I also don't seem to remember Mrs. Blair eschewing the armoured cars, police escorts, official residence, or trips at taxpayer expense offered to her husband and, by extention, to her. The Queen is a head of state - Cherie's head of state - and it's simply a sign of respect for a woman to curtsey to a person of stature. Period. Cherie is obviously not a respectful person, and her refusal to curtsey to the Queen was just a petty way of asserting some sort of dominance; it was her way of sticking her tongue out and saying "nnaaahh-naaahhh" to the Queen, like a pimply faced, juvenile miscreant trying to elevate her self-esteem only by smoking a cigarette and telling her mom to bugger off. --G2bambino (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I especially like the comparison between Cherie and a pimply faced juvenile, very fitting! --Cameron (t|p|c) 18:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you're over-reacting. GoodDay (talk) 19:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Everyone knows republicans have no idea of etiquette... = ) I usually ignore these kind of comment, I just couldnt resist = )--Cameron (t|p|c) 19:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I'm overreacting, really; Mrs. Blair seemed to me to be a self-important person who overlooked no opportunity to use her husband's position to her advantage, so equality obviously wasn't her reason for ignoring the heirarchy of government and curtsey to the Queen. Of course she didn't have to curtsey, but she must have known full well she'd be visually documented not doing so, and that it would send a message. It did, and Sarkozy and his beautiful wife ended up looking like class acts in comparison. --G2bambino (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank goodness Mrs Blair survived a beheading, giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think monarchs get a 21-gun salute and presidents only 19 (though I'm not sure of the number exactly). TharkunColl (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've just checked the article 21 gun salute and apparently what I just said is no longer the case. TharkunColl (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be controversial for a US President to bow to the Queen because the US is a former colony of the UK, whereas France never was. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Though parts of it were under English control for many centuries, and the English monarchs claimed the French throne. TharkunColl (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, he's been so overtly flattering and polite during the trip I wouldn't be surprised if he bowed to Brown and anyone else he happened upon. I'd say heads of state decide themselves how to react when greeting a monarch. --Tefalstar (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

See ¿Por qué no te callas? for an interesting tale of a monarch and a President of his country's former colony. And while Britain was temporarily a colony of the Norman French I don't believe France has ever been a colony of ours in the way the US was, and indeed the Americans still celebrate their independence from us with a huge party and firworks every year. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Under the Plantagenets vast swathes of France were technically occupied colonies of ours, because England was the seat of the Angevin Empire. I doubt anyone thinks that far back these days in terms of courtesy. --Tefalstar (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Whereas the Americans certainly do think that far back every July 4th. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Argh, I know this is way off topic, but neither country was ever a colony of the other. For much of the later middle ages, the same person was the King of England and also a Duke who held various parts of France under the feudal overlordship of the French King. The *English* didn't own parts of France; certain French duchies were in personal union with England. The English kings were also Dukes of Aquitaine, Normandy, and other French lands, but that didn't mean that *England* owned or was sovereign those territories; and the Kings of England owed the Kings of France certain duties for their French lands, but that didn't give the king of France any control over England. The modern-day equivalent would be a weird situation in which, say, the President of Mexico was also the Governor of Texas -- in Mexico he would be the chief executive, whereas in Texas he was part of a political system in which he had some power but wasn't at the top of the pyramid. --Jfruh (talk) 19:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed not and really the concept of colonization only started with the Spanish in the Americas, and the French retain their own language which is a strong indication that they weren't colonised, anyway we are off topic but its still fascinating stuff. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

To get back to point. It may be that we are blowing the significance of the 'bow' out of proportion. I saw Sarkozy nodding his head and shaking her hand. To me it looked no more than a common courtesy. It is still not uncommon for people to nod their heads to someone as a mark of respect.And it may be a French thing.--Gazzster (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as we're not going to 'add' the bow to the article; what are we discussing? GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Whatever it was, we seem to be talked out!--Gazzster (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well a nod of the head is really all our "modern day bow" is. I dont know how aquainted you are with British Court procedure but nowadays one doesnt bend ones back anymore...merely the nodding of the head is required...--Cameron (t/c) 23:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I 'bow' to your knowledge of royal protocol. But my point about it possibly being a common courtesy that might be accorded any older woman by a middle-aged man holds. But it is not important.--Gazzster (talk) 23:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Sarkozy is a monarch himself.. of Andorra! 79.78.8.181 (talk) 12:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Personal wealth vs trusts

The article states that her "personal" art collection is "held in trust for...the nation". If it is in trust, how is it her personal art collection? LachlanA (talk) 05:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The Queen owns the collection as sovereign. I have just added sources stating this to the article Royal Collection if you are interested...--Cameron (t/c) 14:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Pre-1066?

The article says of the UK: "over parts of whose territories her ancestors have reigned for more than a thousand years". What parts of the UK were under her ancestors' rule before the Norman conquest? A reference should be given here. LachlanA (talk) 06:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Henry I married the daughter of Edgar the Atheling's sister. TharkunColl (talk) 08:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Elizabeth's lineage goes back to Egbert of Wessex. -- GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Which, if you dont acknowledge "King" Offa as I don't, means the monarchy has come a full circle...--Cameron (t/c) 15:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

In what way? TharkunColl (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well the currect Queen is a descendant of the first King...Call me soppy but I like the idea of that....--Cameron (t/c) 15:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Continuity is the monarchy's greatest strength. She is also, of course, descended from most of the other monarchs in between, except those who didn't actually have children (or were excluded). Furthermore, Egbert himself is descended from Cerdic of Wessex, whom Geoffrey Ashe has theorised was a son of King Arthur. TharkunColl (talk) 16:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes...dear old Cedric..though I'm not quite sure I believe in Arthur...there just isnt enough concrete evidence...though of course it would be really cool! The Queen certainly does seem to be the "royalest" monarch in the world. The blood that flows in her veins puts the other monarchs to shame... (sorry, that's POV, isnt it?) --Cameron (t/c) 16:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

If you did a medical check? Her's is human blood, trust me on that. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Not according to David Icke, who believes she is an extraterrestrial lizard. TharkunColl (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Giggle, giggle. GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well it certainly needs to be sourced, fairly meaningless concept if you ask me as without inbreeding and 3 generations per century will give her a million odd great-grandparents from 1000 years ago and I doubt whether there were more than a million people in the UK in 1008. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Possibly about 3 or 4 million people in England in the 11th century if I remember correctly. But yes, many of those million odd ancestors will actually be the same individuals. I remember reading somewhere that somebody calculated that 90% of the English population are descended from one of Henry I's bastards, but that calculation again doesn't take into account inbreeding. TharkunColl (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, there was alot of cousinly love in the history of the family. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed Elizabeth and Philip are cousins too (second cousins once removed, through Christian IX of Denmark). It is not something to be ashamed of. It strengthens blood ties and maintains the blood purity of the family...--Cameron (t/c) 17:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

What inbreeding is good? I think that is, to say the least of it, an old fashioned idea. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we've gotten off track folks. We're drifting into blogism. GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but its fun occasionally.--Gazzster (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong image title

The image of HM aged 7 is titled Elizabeth II of England, does anyone know how to change it? Is it even possible to rename pics? --Cameron (t|p|c) 21:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

actually the image name is Image:Philip Alexius de Laszlo-Princess Elizabeth of York, Currently Queen Elizabeth II of England,1933.jpg and the only way to rename images is by reuploading the image under a different name. nat.utoronto 21:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Still wrong though isnt it? The only Queen Elizabeth of England was Elizabeth I of England.. --Cameron (t|p|c) 11:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Technically, yes. However, it barely affects this article - if you think it's worth correcting, bring it up at the image talk page, or better yet, do the reuploading yourself. I'm sure it would have happened already if the ratio between effort and effect were less. JPD (talk) 11:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Move to Elizabeth II?

Since Her Royal Highness Queen Elizabeth II also serves as Queen of Canada, New Zealand, and the rest of the British commonwealth I this would be a good idea to present a world-wide view. --RucasHost (talk) 23:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I do apologise if this sounds rude but we have had this discussion a thousand times (see archives). If you are serious about this is may be a good idea to post a comment on WP:BROY as all monarchs of the UK would have to be moved. I do partly agree with you to be honest. E of UK does sound very anglocentric but there isnt anything we can do about it really. Wikipedia guidelines state that monarchs are to be named acording to their most known title (one could argue that this is Elizabeth of England, as this is a very widespread mistake, even in the UK). Elizabeth of the Commonwealth realms would be ideal but it would sadly be an invention of wikipedia. Although I would recommend such a title to HM should I ever bump into her (it would simplify matters greatly).--Cameron (t|p|c) 11:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

In agreement with Cameron. Wikipedia prefers its Monarch biography articles to be titled as Monarch name of country. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

PS:It's Her Majesty. Royal Highnesses are always Princes or Princesses in the UK. Even though I have heard Royal Highness be used to refer to HM many times in American media, and more worryingly, by more and more Britons (what is happening to our culture!?!)...--Cameron (t|p|c) 16:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a sign of growing republicanism. GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Not in the UK my republican friend = )--Cameron (t|p|c) 16:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Give it few more centuries; it's inevitable. GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

We could argue for hours as to that, I'm sure = ). People always think abolishing the monarchy is part of the future, why? Because it is modern? What if monarchy is the future...? What if democracy is soon to be the past?--Cameron (t|p|c) 16:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Best we stop here, as we're crystal-balling & blogging. GoodDay (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed = )--Cameron (t|p|c) 16:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, such a change would even greatly surpass the scope of WP:BROY. There have been numerous monarchs who reigned in multiple countries (see Personal union for a very rough idea of just how many) and to the best of my knowledge, they all have titles where one of the countries, for one reason or another, has been chosen over any other (such as Sigismund III Vasa, Oscar I of Sweden or Charles I of Austria). There is of course an inherent POV problem with this, but in all these years none of us has found an alternative solution that wouldn't cause a mess. -- Jao (talk) 18:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Quite true. Other examples: James I of England & his Stuart successors. GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Order of Succession

This article and every other one I read states that since Edward the VIII had no children, she would eventually have become queen whether Edward had abdicated or not. Isn't it actually true that since her father died before Edward VIII, his other brother, Henry would have become King upon Edward's death and then Henry's son Richard would now be King?

70.173.47.89 (talk) 00:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Ric

Albert (George VI)'s children would have came before Henry or his heirs. Nobody can move in front of anyone else after birth. If, say, Prince Charles died today, the throne would go to William on the Queen's death, not Andrew.--Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 02:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

"Nobody can move in front of anyone else after birth" -- Not exactly true. At her father's Accession, Elizabeth became Heir Presumptive. Had her mother given birth to a son, Elizabeth would have lost her place in line (unless the putative brother later died), due to male-preference primogeniture.

To make your statement more accurate.. nobody can move in front of the Heir Apparent, where the Heir Apparent is the son of the Sovereign.PrinceOfCanada (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to make sure, William is a Grandson to Elizabeth, not quite the same. What I am really asking is would you put a nephew or niece of a deceased Brother before your other Brother as heir? The best example is: If Prince Charles became King and had no children, then prince Andrew died before Charles, who would get the throne? Andrew's Daughter Beatrice or Prince Edward?

70.173.47.89 (talk) 04:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Ric

Beatrice would get the throne.--Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 05:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Or look at the precedent of Victoria, she was William IV's niece, but inherited ahead of William's living younger brothers (one of whom went on to take the throne of Hanover from which Victoria was barred by the Salic law). David Underdown (talk) 11:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed the Salic law applies in most european countries. --Cameron (t|p|c) 12:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This, however, could be changed if one of them became a Catholic. What does that mean though, exactly? Take mass? Get confirmed? And what if one of them became a Catholic then later became something else? Even marrying a Catholic would barr a person, so what if Diana, to spite Charles, had decided to become a Catholic before their divorce? Or even after it? And if, say, Charles became a Catholic now, would that barr his children? And indeed, what counts as a Catholic? TharkunColl (talk) 07:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This act states that marrying a roman catholic removes you from the succession not marrying somebody who later converts. Thus Charles would not be removed from the order of S. even if Diana had converted prior to the divorce. Dianas children were brought up as Anglicans and would still be able to inherit the throne even if their mother had become catholic. Its rather like HRH Prince Michael:He married a RC and was thus removed from the OoS. His children (Freddy and Gabby) however, were raised in the C of E an thus retain their place in the OoS. I think what is meant by being a catholic is being a member of the roman catholic church. --Cameron (t|p|c) 12:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

What would happen, then, if someone inherited the throne and it later transpired that he had previously become a Catholic but had kept it secret? TharkunColl (talk) 12:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well they would have lied whilst taking their oaths at their coronation but as to what would happen to them...I really dont have a clue! A catholic as head of the anglican church would be rather funny. I suppose you could ask...what would happen if the pope had previously, secretly become a hindu! --Cameron (t|p|c) 13:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually I just realised: The succession would have been unlawful. The monarch would have been de facto monarch during the time he/she held the throne but not de jure...(this will please GoodDay!)--Cameron (t|p|c) 13:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

My assumptions would be, such an illegal monarch would be immediately replaced by his/her heir. Wheter the deposed? person would be listed as monarch? Don't know. PS- Despite erroneous reports in 1936, of the possibility of Edward VIII being succeeded by his brother Henry (people thought Albert wasn't up to the job & his daughters were strangely ignored in these reports); The then York children did come before their Uncle Henry, in the succession. So, yes Elizabeth would've become Queen eventually. GoodDay (talk) 13:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

For the purposes of the succession I think religion would be a purely external affair, I would imagine. Taking Communion in the Anglican Rite, marrying according to the Anglican Rite; that sort of thing. If what's in the heart mattered there would be an awful mess. From some of Charles's utterings its's hard to know what, if any religion he'd subscribe to. As to his sons, both with a thoroughly modern education and a liberal minded mother- well, they may be just like any number of young men-indifferent to religion.--Gazzster (talk) 14:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, all the law (Act of Settlement) actually states is that the monarch must not be, or have ever been, a Catholic (nor have married one). He could be anything else at all, Hindu, Satanist, or Flying Spaghetti Monsterist. And he'd still be head of the Church of England. TharkunColl (talk) 15:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Weird.--Gazzster (talk) 15:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Back then there were not many other religions other than catholics and protestants. Besides there is a lot of talk about ammending the issues TC raised. --Cameron (t|p|c) 15:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That would require a large number of Commonwealth realms to go through the rigmarole of altering their constitutions (luckily the UK can do this just by Act of Parliament of course). Such realms might just take the opportunity to abolish the monarchy altogether. TharkunColl (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, abolish the entire foundation of the state in order to change one law. Seems a tad extreme. --G2bambino (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing will happen until the old girl goes--Gazzster (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Put in ghastly way but generally correct. Charles doesnt seem as popular as his mother (I like him!). Note to TC: The UK does need the unanimous decisions of all CR's if I remember correctly...--Cameron (t|p|c) 16:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The UK could unilaterally alter the law if it wanted too, but it presumably wouldn't do so until agreement was reached. The last (and indeed only) time the law was altered was in 1936 to allow Edward to abdicate, and fortunately there were only - what was it - half a dozen realms then in existence. TharkunColl (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That depends on how much convention weighs into the UK constitution (which I imagine is quite a bit). --G2bambino (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool!Another Tharky/G2 bunfight. I'll just go and buy some popcorn.--Gazzster (talk) 16:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Surely the entertainment in Australia hasn't become that bad. --G2bambino (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

lol The new season of Doctor Who isn't here yet. So life is a little dull.--Gazzster (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh oh oh allow me to fill you in on all the latest gossip!*Clutches mouth so as not to give away mega big spoilers*--Cameron (t|p|c) 18:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorta lost as to what this discussion is about. I've checked the article & other sources. The Succession isn't being altered (as far as I know), so what's up? Is there something we want to add or subtract from the article? GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No, we're waffling again.--Gazzster (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Rumours?

Any reason why certain widespread rumours receive no mention in this article? -- Ralphbk (talk) 11:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Er, because the "source" is obviously inherently biased? --G2bambino (talk) 14:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean "sources". The author of the linked article quotes from five different books. Presumably these books in turn each have a number of sources. Possibly all these sources might be "biased" but does that somehow also make them untruthful? -- Ralphbk (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see. But, then, the question is: do those books meet WP:RS? For example, Kitty Kelly is one source used, but the woman is a complete tabloid scandal queen. We also have to be careful of WP:FRINGE. --G2bambino (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)