This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Elizabeth II is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.British RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject British RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject British RoyaltyBritish royalty articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Commonwealth, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Commonwealth of Nations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CommonwealthWikipedia:WikiProject CommonwealthTemplate:WikiProject CommonwealthCommonwealth articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Elizabeth II is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Elizabeth II is part of the Scouting WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Scouting and Guiding on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to boy and girl organizations, WAGGGS and WOSM organizations as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to Scouting. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ScoutingWikipedia:WikiProject ScoutingTemplate:WikiProject ScoutingScouting articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
The Queen was also Queen of Rhodesia from 1965 to 1970. It has been argued that this doesn't count because she herself didn't acknowledge it, but this had as much effect in Rhodesian law as it would in Canadian law if she decided to no longer acknowledge being Queen of Canada, i.e. none at all. ðarkuncoll13:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Elizabeth never accepted the title. It's also unknown if there was any law that gave her the title "Queen of Rhodesia", or, if there was such a thing, what validity it had having been passed by a council that declared independence illegally and was subsequently legally dismissed by the sitting governor. --ĦMIESIANIACAL16:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
-Rhodesia intended to make herself a commonwealth realm in 1965 with the UDI, and the government was carried out in her name. Therefore, that makes Rhodesia a commonwealth realm, albeit an illegal and an unrecognised one. HOWEVER,like Pakistan 1952-1956, Rhodesia never passed a Royal Titles Act, so Elizabeth's proclaimed title in Rhodesia was 'of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of her other realms and territories, Queen, Defender of the Faith, Head of the Commonwealth' and NOT 'Queen of Rhodesia' — Preceding unsigned comment added by JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk • contribs) 12:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The articles about Liz's predecessors are titled "George VI of the United Kingdom", "Edward VII of the United Kingdom", and so on. Most of the articles on English monarchs seem to include "of England", "of Great Britain", or "of the United Kingdom" in their titles. Why isn't this "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom"? Just wondering.... PurpleChez (talk) 03:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Queen Elizabeth II is equally Queen of Canada, Queen of Australia etc, it would be problematic to include of the United Kingdom. Also it simply is not needed, there is only one Queen Elizabeth II in this world, "of England" or "Of UK" should only be used if there is a real need for it. Queen Victoria for example is fine without it. I do think it would be helpful if this article made reference somewhere to the fact that she is not actually "Queen of England", a mistake made by so many. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, but couldn't the same be said about, for instance, Edward VIII? There don't appear to be any other monarchs or others named Edward VIII. Also, please note that I did not say that Liz should be called "Queen of England"--I understand that she is Queen of the United Kingdom, so on and so forth. I also understand the bit about her also reigning over the commonwealth realms, but so did her father. I'll admit that I'm not much interested in the politics involved...I have nothing personal against Mrs. Windsor but really have no interest in the monarchy whatsoever...I'm just unconvinced as to why different articles represent significantly different situations.PurpleChez (talk) 14:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was also proposed some time ago that the immediate predecessors have their article titles changed as well - most people were in favour, and I think the arguments were strong, but there was sufficient opposition that the administrator who closed the discussion didn't consider the consensus strong enough to make a change to the status quo. Considering that some of those predecessors didn't even have "of the United Kingdom" as part of their official title, I think the case for changing those titles is in some ways even stronger than it was for Liz.--Kotniski (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I don't give a rat's bum about the monarchy...one of my favorite news photos of recnet months was Chaz and Camilla's limo doused with paint...but I'm still fascinated by all of the history and procedure and tradition, etc., etc., that goes into some of these discussions, such as how these titles work and the bit, cited above, that some of these folks didn't actually have "of this or that" as part of their titles. PurpleChez (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but i really do have a problem with the current introduction. No where in it does it make clear which countries she is Queen of, a note is not enough, nor is depending on a hidden list in the infobox. The list of nations should be restored to the introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand how a change happened in the first place. A month ago there was a vote...
Support current lead: 15
Support change: 9
Support compromise: 1
Support current lead or compromise: 1
Why has the majority position being ignored. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It concerns the anal argument over which realm should be mentioned first.It is bizarre that lead does not say she is Queen of the UK. But that's Wikipedia for you: consensus before ccommonsense.Gazzster (talk) 10:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Population size or alphabetical order are fine with me, but it should atleast list the actual countries. If the introduction is meant to sum up the article youd think what countries shes actually head of state of would be pretty relevant. Its does defy commonsense. :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 10:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But its not good enough, and it blatantly goes against a previous vote where 15 said keep the status quo (far more than were involved in the latest debate to change it). We would not put the fact President Obama is president of the USA in a note or just leave it for the infobox. The infobox list is simply not good enough. For a start it is hidden, and secondly it is a complete list of nations including ones she is no longer Queen of. If the intro was huge i could understand wanting to remove a list, but its not exactly overflowing. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with BW here. It is utterly perverse and uninformative not to include a reference to the UK in the introduction. What definition of the lead "includes the infobox"? To most readers, the lead does not "include the infobox", the content of that part of which is, in any case, hidden by default. Reopen the debate and let's come to a more sensible conclusion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the introduction three times. Twice as "British monarch", and once as "queen of...the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand...". DrKiernan (talk) 12:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the point where it says Queen of the UK, Canada, Australia and NZ is no good because it is talking about the fact she became Queen of these nations in the past. The last sentence of the paragraph goes on to say that many of her realms have become republics. It leaves room to doubt which ones remain her realms and which are former realms. and a tiny list in the infobox with dates does not help. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The earlier RfC was on whether or not the UK should be singled out in the lead as special. The majority were against. That conclusion didn't rule out condensing the list down to "sixteen independent sovereign states known as the Commonwealth realms"; the UK is not singled out. Discussion on that idea took place during the RfC, but was raised again here; few people participated, only two objected... to the result of the earlier RfC. Someone was bold and went ahead and made the edit.
I think perhaps the list should be re-introduced for two reasons: One, because I am certain that many readers will not notice the drop-down list, and two, because no real discussion was held nor consensus achieved amongst editors of this article for the change. --~Knowzilla(Talk)13:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Until it's agreed to have it at the correct wording, "...of the United Kingdom and 15 other commonwealth realms", the complaints won't go away. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Certain editors have got to let go of their non-British monarchists pride & stop trying to hide the UK's uniqueness among the 16 realms. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's as though you're working for the Canadian Monarchist League & promoting their position. Honestly, give up this sad agenda you've been on these last few years. The international community (books, television, newspapers) consider her the British monarch. Billy & Kate's wedding isn't taking place in Ottawa or Sydney or Auckland etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The opening sentences of this article are amongst the most heavily analysed and debated on Wikipedia. The matter you've raised, yet again, without reason, yet again, has been discussed multiple times and, on each of at least the last three occasions (my memory doesn't stretch back any farther than that), the last being only a couple of months ago, the majority was in favour of not highlighting the UK as "special". Hence this discussion is only about whether to list all the realms or simply refer to them by their collective name. Please focus on that and give the "UK first" argument, and the rest of us, a break. --ĦMIESIANIACAL16:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And RfC isn't a vote. But, allow me to address your semantic critique: at the end of the last three debates on the matter you've raised, there was no consensus in favour of highlighting the UK, with the majority against the idea.
Regardless, you're deflecting from the point: your interjection was repetetive and unrelated to the focus of this discussion; it could only serve to reignite a dispute that was only just settled. You're already well aware of how irritating other users find that habit. Count me amongst them. --ĦMIESIANIACAL16:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way i oppose simply saying United Kingdom and other commonwealth realms. All realms should be listed in the first paragraph of this article. The old version should at least be restored which more people had voted in favour of than this current wording which missing out important information. Better for there to be a dispute about the order of the names than for vital information to be left out. ;\ BritishWatcher (talk) 18:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is just wrong. It makes a mockery of Wikipedia's reputation to not refer to Elizabeth II as primarily the Queen of the United Kingdom. She is the British Monarch paid for by the British State. When she goes on state visits to other countries, she visits them as Queen of the United Kingdom. Does she undertake state visits for any other country? No. I can understand the irritation that this ongoing saga causes but we really shouldn't let it lie because the lead is a joke. What other sources refers to Elizabeth II in this way? Has anyone actually contacted Buckingham Palace for its opinion on this? I am happy to contact it for clarification, or are primary sources not considered?? Ats71 (talk) 03.59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
The original wording should be restored. There was no consensus for the current change which has removed any mention of the UK and other realms from the first part of the introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Northern Ireland was part of the United Kingdom, and the Irish Free State was, at least nominally (yes, I know it's arguable), a Dominion. So, if "United Kingdom" is used instead of "Great Britain", then I think "Ireland" should be cut. Personally, I would marginally prefer "United Kingdom" over "Great Britain, Ireland" because of the arguable nature of the "Ireland" part, and because it is shorter. As I said in an edit summary, we don't have to use the full style and title, just a succinct, correct phrase that encapsulates what he was. DrKiernan (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=logo}
.svg){kind=small}
