Talk:Elizabeth II

First paragraph

The first paragraph states that Elizabeth II is the monarch of 16 realms known as the Commonwealth realms and then proceeds to list them, when they are in fact listed on the Commonwealth realm's own page. Therefore, is the listing in the first paragraph on this page really necessary?. Burbridge92 (talk) 14:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

This was discussed before at Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 25#Queen of the UK ? Queen of the world !? and Talk:Elizabeth_II/Archive 26#Current lead needs changing. There was no clear consensus for change, and so the status quo was retained. DrKiernan (talk) 14:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I can understand why the status quo was retained, the information is correct regardless of whether it is replicated elsewhere or not. Burbridge92 (talk) 16:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

My feeling is that, as she's most notable for being a queen, it's desirable to mention prominently in her article the countries of which she's queen. However, since they're also listed in the infobox and at Commonwealth realm, I wouldn't object too strenuously if people wanted them removed from the lead. Alkari (?), 22 July 2011, 04:33 UTC

I feel that would be the most logical thing to do, and that was the reason for me posting this conversation. After all, there is a link to the Commonwealth realms page which shows exactly what realms she is the monarch of. However, as DrKienan has pointed out, the discussion has already been held and a consensus has already been made. Had I been aware of this I wouldn't have posted this topic anyway, as it's not a serious issue. Regards, Burbridge92 (talk) 11:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm obviously no expert on the monarchy, but shouldn't Elizabeth's role as queen of the UK be somewhat distinct from her role as queen of the other Commonwealth countries? (i.e., "Elizabeth II is the queen of the United Kingdom and fifteen other sovereign countries collectively known as the Commonwealth realms:...") I understand that legally all the nations ruled by ERII are equal and sovereign, blah blah blah, but she is only queen of all of them by virtue of her role as the British monarch, yes? --SchutteGod (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

No, that is incorrect. She is monarch of each by virtue of each realm's parliament and constitution. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

That's not strictly true. Whilst each realm's constitution allows her to continue on the throne with regards to that realm, if it wasn't for the fact that she was the British monarch she wouldn't be the monarch of the other realms. The monarchy is only present in the other Commonwealth realms due to their colonial past when Britain controlled them, resulting in them adopting the British monarchy when they originally gained independence. If a country decides to remain with the Commonwealth, then it is their constitution which maintains the monarchy, but that doesn't change the fact that the ties to the monarchy are the result of it being the monarchy of the UK. Furthermore, the monarchy holds two crowns, that of England and that of Scotland, both countries within the UK, there is no "crown of Canada" or "crown of Australia" or "crown of New Zealand", and thus if the monarchy were abolished in the UK it would be highly unlikely to continue elsewhere. Therefore Queen Elizabeth II's primary role is "Queen of the UK", without that position she wouldn't hold the others, and it's clear to see from her residency and actions with regards to the UK as opposed to the other Commonwealth realms. Burbridge92 (talk) 09:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

It's up to each country to have whomever they please on their respective throne, or to have no throne at all; the ex-colonies didn't have to keep the same royal house and person as sovereign upon independence and, in fact, most ex-colonies - i.e. present Commonwealth members - didn't. Of those that did, the continuity of that royal house and lineage didn't mean a continuity of the same British monarchy over that country; the opposite goes entirely against the very notion of independence. Except for its own, Britain has no control over any of the realms' laws, including those relating to their respective monarchies. Elizabeth thus occupies the throne of Australia, of Jamaica, of New Zealand, of Tuvalu, etc., not because Britain says so, or because it must be so in order for a country to remain in the Commonwealth, or even because those countries used to be British colonies, but because those countries' legislatures say so. In Canada, there isn't any law that even implies the king or queen must be the same person as the monarch of the UK; if the UK altered its line of succession, there would be no effect on Canada; if the UK became a republic, Canada would remain, without question, the same constitutional monarchy it is now, with the same queen and the same succession. That counters completely not only the claim that Elizabeth is Queen of Canada because she's Queen of the UK, but also the spurious notion that there is no Canadian Crown; as if tons of material, printed by that very Crown-in-Council and others, didn't already affirm it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, most of your argument here is just a regurgitation of what I'd already said...the choice of independent nations to maintain the monarchy, Britain has no control over other nations, etc, etc, etc...but you're still missing the point. Elizabeth II is the Queen of Canada BECAUSE she's the Queen of the UK, not because it's enforced, but because the only reason Canada has chosen Elizabeth II (as she is "whomever the country pleases", as you so put it), is because of the colonial past. Yes, Canada did choose to maintain the House of Windsor as it's own of the people's own free will, but they didn't put the names of all the monarchs in the world into a hat and just so happen to pull out Elizabeth's. IF Canada hadn't been colonised then Elizabeth wouldn't be your monarch to this day. So while you are correct in saying that the monarchy is tied to Canada through Canada's own choice, it is the history that has led us to this point, and the history was very much tied with Britain. Now onto your point about their being a Canadian Crown: Is this specific Crown (which didn't exist back when the crown's of England and Scotland were united and was not what I was referring to) strong enough to maintain a complete upheavel of the House of Windsor from the UK into Canada? All of the current possessions connected with the monarchy in the UK: the land, the palaces, the crown jewels, etc, belongs to the state in the UK. Upon the abolishment of the monarchy, in the republic of the UK which you mentioned, the royal family would lose their home and everything associated with their position. Would Canada be able to afford their migration to your shores? Set them up with new palaces? Give them plenty of land which previously they didn't have? Give them a new set of crown jewels? And, at the end of it all, would it be as iconic? Because that's what the united crowns over here are, that's what's special about them and what brings the tourists in. I wouldn't know. It's very possible you can manage that, but would the people of Canada want to cover all those costs? Because, it would be your responsibility, and democratically it should be up to the people to decide, right? OK, what if they chose to move to Australia and set up their normal daily routine there, instead of Canada? Would that have an effect? Do the people of the current Commonwealth realms really want the monarchy, because most of them haven't had the choice to have their say and the ones that I know have had a warped replacement system planned. Burbridge92 (talk) 22:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're still incorrect. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

This debate has already taken place to no avail. The current phrasing (mentioning the UK first) seems like a reasonable middle ground between singling out the UK and, for example, listing the Commonwealth Realms in alphabetical order. Both sides have legitimate points but this has been debated to no avail in the past, and it seems inadvisable to continue to do so. Swarm ^{u | t} 03:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC) Swarm ^{u | t} 03:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Have you left out the Cayman Islands from the Commonwealth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpfisk (talk • contribs) 09:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

As a British Overseas Territory, the Cayman Islands is not an independent sovereign state within the Commonwealth, or a Commonwealth realm. The lead does exclude territories, dependencies, and associated states as a result of a discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 18#Dependent territories and subsequent sections. DrKiernan (talk) 11:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Elizabeth II/GA4. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk • message • contribs • count • logs • email) 19:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

This is quite an article, and, obviously, quite a topic. I'd love to see a good article on the queen, but, obviously, it's an article worth getting right. I am going to start by taking a look back at previous good article reviews. J Milburn (talk) 19:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I've left some initial notes on the prose below. There are a number of other issues I want to check- the sourcing, categories and images, obviously, and I'd also like to see how some other encyclopedias tackle the article. J Milburn (talk) 21:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Lead

• I note that there have been repeated discussions about the need for the list of countries of which Elizabeth is monarch in the first sentence. I have my own opinion about the issue, but it's not really my place as a GA reviewer to express them. The current discussion on the issue does not look like it will conclude in any change.
• The second paragraph of the lead is rather choppy, with short sentences. Also, the note about education seems rather odd when compared with the end of the previous paragraph. Perhaps it should open with a mention of her position on birth (IE, not in direct line for the throne?)

• Expanded very slightly.

• "she married Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh" Unless I'm mistaken, this is incorrect, as he was not D of E until she married him? I see that I was mistaken.

Early life

• "house: 17 Bruton Street, Mayfair;" The use of a colon followed by a semi-colon is rather odd

• Semi-colon removed.

• What was the name of her maternal grandmother?

• Cecilia. Rather than add this incidental point, I've added "paternal" to "Mary after her paternal grandmother".

• Have you considered mentioning that the baptism was C of E? The religion of the monarch is obviously, historically, of great importance

• Added "Anglican archbishop..."

• "George V cherished his granddaughter, and during his serious illness in 1929 her regular visits raised his spirits and were credited with aiding his recovery." This line is perhaps not the most neutral. Are these his own words?

• Two new sources added and re-phrased. On the first clause, Pimlott calls him "a doting old man" and quotes Mabell Airlie saying "Lilibet came first in his affections ... and loved to have her with him". Lacey says "he felt a special affection" for Elizabeth.

• "Elizabeth's only sibling was Princess Margaret, born four years after Elizabeth" Clumsy phrase

• Changed to "in 1930"
• Changes for this section. DrKiernan (talk) 09:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Heiress presumptive

• "Elizabeth's father became king, and she became heiress presumptive, with the style Her Royal Highness The Princess Elizabeth." Reference?

• Added.

• "Vice-Provost" Do we have an article on this? It's hardly the most familiar term.

• Added link to list of provosts.

• What precisely was her role in the Women's Auxiliary Territorial Service?

• It was just honorary, but the training was real. She completed her training just two weeks before the end of the war in Europe.

• "The idea was supported by Home Secretary Herbert Morrison but rejected by the King because he felt such a title belonged solely to the wife of a Prince of Wales" Comma after "Morrison"?

• Added.

• "fell in love with Philip" Again, whose words are these? This seems to be quite a declaration to make.

• All three sources—Jenny Bond, Gyles Brandreth, Robert Lacey—support it; Brandreth says it's what the Queen said.

• Do we know anything about the public reaction to the marriage? A line about that would be a welcome addition to the paragraph starting "The marriage was not without controversy"

• Quote from Crawford added.

• "Ronald Storrs claimed that another notable absentee, Elizabeth's aunt, Mary, Princess Royal, refused to attend because her brother Edward, the former king, was not invited; she gave ill health as the official reason for not attending." The fact Edward was not invited is surely worth more of a mention than that subclause?

• Switched the order so he comes first.

• "a royal and princely status to which they otherwise would not have been entitled" Why not?

• Reason added.

• "A second child, Princess Anne, was born in 1950." I know it's obvious, but... Reference?

• To be quite honest, I think that's taking citations too far.
• Changes for this section. DrKiernan (talk) 12:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Reign

• Again, sorry- "In 1960, she married Antony Armstrong-Jones, 1st Earl of Snowdon. They were divorced in 1978. She did not remarry." Reference?

• Added.

• "Instead, Parliament was opened by Royal Commission, and the Lord Chancellor delivered the speech from the throne." Ref?

• Cut.

• "and was alarmed by high unemployment, a series of riots, the violence of a miners' strike," We must have some articles to link to here?

• Two links added.

• "Intense media interest in the opinions and private lives of the royal family during the 1980s led to a series of sensational stories in the press,[98] not all of which were entirely true." Some examples?
• "The Queen was reportedly worried that British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's economic policies fostered social divisions, and was alarmed by high unemployment, a series of riots, the violence of a miners' strike, and Thatcher's refusal to apply sanctions against the apartheid regime in South Africa.[fn 4] Thatcher reputedly said the Queen would vote for the Social Democratic Party—Thatcher's political opponents.[102] Despite such speculation, Thatcher later conveyed her personal admiration for the Queen on film[103] and in her memoirs.[104] Further belying reports of acrimony between them, after Thatcher's replacement by John Major, the Queen gave two honours in her personal gift to Thatcher: the Order of Merit and the Order of the Garter.[105] She also attended Thatcher's 70th and 80th birthday parties.[106]" These paragraphs do not seem to give any credence to the view that the Thatcher/Elizabeth relationship was less than friendly.

• Well, there's your example of not entirely true reporting! Seriously though, I'm reluctant to add an example because there's a danger the paragraph will become bloated by claims and counterclaims. There is a source saying some of the reports were false and no source saying all the reports were true, so the statement "not all of which were entirely true" is representative of the sources. As soon as you start saying "Edward wasn't gay" or "Koo Stark didn't steal from Buckingham Palace", someone else resourceful enough can come along and provide a source (the original reports) that implies he was or that states she did.

• Maybe my own view of the matter is skewed, then- I'm more than happy to defer to you. Are you saying, then, that the overwhelming consensus among historians/analysts is that the Thatcher/Elizabeth relationship was as strong as any PM/monarch relationship? J Milburn (talk) 12:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• I would say that the overwhelming consensus is that she has always been scrupiously impartial, and never exceeded constitutional boundaries. I'm not saying either way that their relationship was cold or warm; and the sources do not assist in deciding. We can only say what is reported, what is speculated, what is denied and what their public actions were.

• "to patch up their differences." Colloquial

• Changed to "reconcile".

• Sometimes you italicise "annus horribilis", sometimes you do not

• Corrected, apart from a title that isn't italicized.

• "The year ended with a lawsuit as the Queen sued The Sun newspaper for breach of copyright when it published the text of her annual Christmas message two days before its broadcast. The newspaper was forced to pay her legal fees, and donated £200,000 to charity.[119]" I did not know that. I'm learning. :)
• "media speculated whether the Jubilee would be a success or a failure." I think that should be "as to whether...".

• Added.

• "Though Elizabeth has enjoyed good health throughout her life" Had?

• Shortened as part of the chop back below.

• I get the distinct impression that the queen's relationship with Tony Blair is barely mentioned

• It's considerably more than many of the other 150 prime ministers she's had. I think it'd be undue weight to expand much further, and to be honest, is there much more to be said?

• "The last visit by a British monarch was in 1911, before Irish independence in 1922." Reference?

• Removed as part of the chop back below.

• "Elizabeth plans to celebrate her Diamond Jubilee in 2012, marking 60 years as Queen. She could become the longest-reigning monarch in the history of any of her realms and the longest-reigning queen regnant in world history (surpassing Queen Victoria, who celebrated her Diamond Jubilee in 1897) if she reigns for another 1471 days, until 10 September 2015." Unreferenced paragraphs don't look good

• Removed as part of the chop back below.

• I worry that the article is suffering from a degree of recentism. The section on the 2000s is approaching twice the length of the section on the 1990s which, what with the death of Diana and such, is surely of greater significance.

• I've tried to address that by cutting back the section.[1] DrKiernan (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• Definitely an improvement. Now, I'll leave this up to you, but, looking at "UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon ... victims of the 11 September attacks.[142][143]", I'd be inclined to say that the Ireland visit is more important. This is all comparatively standard stuff for the queen- Canada, compliments and remembrance- but the first state visit to Ireland (in the wake of years of near-enemity) seems to be something of an enormous event. Obviously, it's very hard for us to judge its lasting significance due to its incredibly recent nature, but it just seems to be far more important. J Milburn (talk) 12:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• I think that's arisen because the Irish visit has its own article. I've cut the quote. DrKiernan (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Public perception and character

• There is a degree to which this section just feels like a repetition of the more carefully written sections previous.

• We usually end the royal articles with a "Legacy" section of how the monarch is perceived by biographers and history. This is our attempt to do a similar thing here.

• "Under pressure from public opinion, she began to pay income tax for the first time" This implies it was her choice- earlier in the article, you imply that she was forced to.

• She wasn't forced into it, but there was public pressure. In the earlier section, we say "planned for at least a year" to imply that it was a long-term plan not just something that came as a result of Diana's death.

• "referendums" referenda?

• Changed.

• "– are owned by the Sovereign in trust for the nation, and cannot be sold or owned by Elizabeth in a private capacity." Ref? Is there any similar land in other states?

• Added a ref, but I'm not keen on adding information about Crown land. I think we're moving away from a biography in the "Finances" section.

• I see Crown land has been added without a reference. Given that the issue is not discussed in any of the standard biographies, I'm inclined to cut this. DrKiernan (talk) 18:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• No, I agree, we don't need an in-depth discussion of what is and isn't the queen's. J Milburn (talk) 12:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• I'll take it out again then. DrKiernan (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

@DrKiernan 190.46.80.76 (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@DrKiernan 190.46.80.76 (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• "Elizabeth has received honours and awards from countries around the world, and has held honorary military positions throughout the Commonwealth, both before and after her accession." Ref? An inline link to the list would be good here.

• In addition to the link at the top of the "Titles and styles" section? DrKiernan (talk) 14:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• Yeah, I think it would be helpful. I think people sometimes ignore hatnotes. Repetition wouldn't be a problem style-wise, as the link wouldn't use the same words. J Milburn (talk) 12:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• Added. DrKiernan (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• Ethical Dilemma: Can anyone please tell me how an illegitimate Duke of Normandy becomes legitimate!? A Title HM Claims since at least Coronation 1953?--Mifren (talk) 04:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• Personally, I'd say it was a style she is known by, rather than an actual title. At the time of William the Conqueror, titles were not hereditary by primogeniture in the way they are now: power could be acquired by conquest or passed to younger or illegitimate sons instead of the eldest. DrKiernan (talk) 08:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Other encyclopedias

I'm taking a look at other encyclopedia entries on Elizabeth, the logic being that, as shorter articles written by professional writers, anything they include should be included here. Take it or leave it, I'm just leaving some thoughts. It goes without saying that this article is far superior to theirs. (I can provide the citations if you want to reference these pages in particular.) J Milburn (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The Columbia Encyclopedia

• "At age 18 she was made a State Counsellor, a confidante of the king."

• Added.

• Describes her as "formal and unemotional" in public.
• Points out the fact that '92 was her 40th year on the throne

• That's in the article already.

• Apparently was the richest woman in England

• I think there's sufficient coverage of her wealth, and the disputed estimates.

The Palgrave Macmillan Dictionary of Women's Biography

• In education, "She particularly enjoyed history, languages and music"
• Mentions how "her ‘walkabouts’ have become a traditional part of such occasions" referring to her tours

• Added.

• "She takes a particular interest in Commonwealth Affairs, and intervened directly (an extremely unusual step) in the aftermath of the coup in Fiji in 1987." This point isn't mentioned in this article at all- seems to be something of an omission.

• I've added in Fiji as I've thought about adding it for some time. I don't think it's that unusual though: she did the same (i.e. support the legal executive power) for Rhodesia. DrKiernan (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Chambers Biographical Dictionary

• "The Queen has aimed to modernize the monarchy and make it more informal, introducing luncheon parties for distinguished individuals and pioneering royal walkabouts" Again, this seems to be an element missed

The Hutchinson Unabridged Encyclopedia with Atlas and Weather guide

• Also mentions the State Counsellor thing- "and by an amendment to the Regency Act she became a state counsellor on her 18th birthday."

The Penguin Biographical Dictionary of Women

• Opens with the claim that "Elizabeth II has set out to continue and strengthen the reputation for royal dignity and sense of responsibility established so successfully by her father. She has continued his efforts to adapt Victorian ideas of monarchy to fit the expectations of modern times."
• Again, "developed a liking for history, languages, and music"

A Dictionary of Contemporary History - 1945 to the present

• "Elizabeth had a close relationship with her father, who prepared her for the succession by making her a State Counsellor at the age of 18"
• "The queen appeared to meet Bagehot's requirements in The English Constitution (1865) for a monarch who was an exemplar of family life, a moral example and also a religious figurehead (she was head of the Church of England). Yet Prince Charles, the heir to the throne, said in an interview with Jonathan Dimbleby that he grew up feeling 'emotionally estranged' from his mother, craving affection which she seemed 'unable or unwilling to offer'."

Marquis Who's Who in the World

• "Awards: Named one of The World's Most Influential People, TIME mag., 2007, 100 Most Powerful Women, Forbes mag., 2007—09 Achievements: Achievements include fluent speaker of French"

That's all for now. I checked a few others, but they didn't have anything that wasn't already covered. I also intend to check Britannica, but I do not currently have access. J Milburn (talk) 17:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Source review

• First of all, there are an awful lot of unwarranted italics. Article titles do not need to be italicised like book titles- instead, they should be in speech marks.

• Removed.

• "Daily Mail, 15 March 1929" Can we have a little more than this? Author? Title? Page number?

• Replaced.

• "Quoted in Brandreth, p. 105; Lacey, p. 81 and Shawcross, pp. 21–22" Format seems inconsistent

• Changed.

• "Assheton, Ralph (18 December 1936), The Times: 10" Again, article title?

• Added.

• "Official website of the British Monarchy" versus "Royal Household"

• Made consistent.

• "Archive:Children's Hour: Princess Elizabeth, BBC, 13 October 1940, retrieved 22 July 2009" I don't see why "Archive" is italicised

• Changed.

• "London Gazette: (Supplement) no. 36973. p. 1315. 6 March 1945. Retrieved 5 June 2010." Why not format this like other newspaper articles? Again, title of the article would be good
• "London Gazette: (Supplement) no. 37205. p. 3972. 31 July 1945. Retrieved 5 June 2010." Again
• "London Gazette: no. 38128. p. 5495. 21 November 1947. Retrieved 27 June 2010." Again. There may be others, but I won't list them.

• All three retained but formatting of other cites changed to match.

• "Davies, Caroline (20 April 2006), Philip, the one constant through her life, London: Telegraph Media Group, retrieved 23 September 2009" Seems very odd to mention the Telegraph Media Group but not the newspaper.

• Changed.

• Books in footnotes are formatted inconsistently with the books in the bibliography. Examples: "Bradford, Sarah (1989), King George VI, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, p. 424, ISBN 0297796674" and "Petropoulos, Jonathan (2006), Royals and the Reich: the princes von Hessen in Nazi Germany, Oxford University Press, p. 363, ISBN 0195161335", but there are others. The way you format the books in the bibliography is much neater.

• Changed.

• "Briggs, Asa (1995), The History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom, 4, Oxford University Press, pp. 420 ff., " What's going on there?

• Changed.

• ""Elizabeth II touring India". Amritt. Retrieved 22 May 2011." What is Amritt, and why is it reliable? Also, be consistent with whether full stops are given after retrieval dates.

• Removed.

• "Heinricks, Geoff (29 September 2000), "Trudeau: A drawer monarchist", National Post: B12" This is an example of how newspaper articles would be best cited
• Be consistent as to whether you give publisher locations for books/newspapers. Also, consistency as to whether publishers of newspapers are listed (and how) would be good. I wouldn't bother with newspaper publishers- if people really care, they can check the article on the paper.

• Publishers removed.

• "Thatcher to Brian Walden quoted in Neil, Andrew (1996), Full Disclosure, London: Macmillan, p. 207, ISBN 0333646827
• Andrew Neil quoted in Woodrow Wyatt's diary of 26 October 1990 (Wyatt, Woodrow; Edited by Sarah Curtis (1999), The Journals of Woodrow Wyatt: Volume II, London: Macmillan, p. 372, ISBN 0333774051)" Check that- there seem to be a couple of minor problems

• Both checked.

• "Bridcut, John (Producer) (2002), Queen and Country (Documentary), BBC" Could this citation be expanded a little? No chance of referencing the material elsewhere? Also, "(Documentary)" needn't have an uppcase d, nor be italicised

• Cut.

• "Whittaker, Thomas (14 December 2006), "Corgi put the queen in plaster", The Sun (London), retrieved 18 August 2011" Must you reference The Sun?
• "Address to the United Nations General Assembly, 6 July 2010, retrieved 6 July 2010" Publisher?

• Added.

• Be consistent as to whether you list publishers as the Mail Online or the Daily Mail. I'd go for the latter. If the former, italics aren't needed.

• Done.

• "UK CPI inflation numbers based on data available from Lawrence H. Officer (2010) "What Were the UK Earnings and Prices Then?" MeasuringWorth." Accessdate?

• Template:Inflation-fn does not appear to support one.

• "The Times, 9 July 1971. Colville was her former private secretary and a director of her bank, Coutts (Pimlott, p. 401)." Again, could the newspaper citation be expanded?

• Done. DrKiernan (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Another look through

This article's really shaping up. Unless I see something striking very soon, I am fairly sure I will be promoting it.

• Queen Mary is mentioned in para 2 of "Succession", but she's introduced in para 4.

• Thanks. Amended.

• I still think the sections in the '90s-00s need touching up a little, with regards to ensuring that important details are included, while more trivial details are not. I'm happy with them for the purposes of GAC, but I think they will need revisiting before any future FAC.

• I'm not sure I've got the courage to take this to FAC just yet.

• A thought about references- again, not something about which I am concerned here, but something which may be worth thinking about for FAC. Sometimes, you group multiple references into a single footnote- other times, you have multiple footnotes grouped together

• I've tried bundling those together.

This is about there, I think. I still wonder about including some of the details from other encyclopedias (perhaps something to revisit before any future FAC) but I'm happy to go with your judgement for now. J Milburn (talk) 15:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for going through the article so carefully. DrKiernan (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• I'm promoting the article now- brilliant work. I hope, firstly, you can keep such a highly-viewed article in such a good state, and, secondly, that this will someday be ready for FAC again. Good luck, and well done! J Milburn (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not quite the first paragraph but in the third this is very oddly worded: "she became queen of 25 other Commonwealth countries as they gained independence". It sounds like her ascendance to queen happened at the same moment they gained independence. Perhaps it could be changed (I cannot change as this is locked) to "she oversaw 25 other countries that subsequently became republics" or something along those lines? Thanks. 98.206.241.221 (talk) 15:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Bloated Lead

Honestly folks, do we have to have all 16 commonwealth realms shown in the opening paragaph? GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

My feeling is that we should: she's notable for being a queen, so we ought to prominently indicate what she's queen of. If, as I presume, you want to omit them (or some of them), could you explain why that's desirable? Alkari (?), 28 September 2011, 21:46 UTC

A shortening to ...of the United Kingdom and the 15 other commonwealth realms, would be one solution. But, it'll likely 'again' be rejected. GoodDay (talk) 02:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Then why bring it up?... Again. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Because of the PoV reasons this article's title was moved, its intro was changed & its infobox section heading was altered. GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

And you want them undone for your own POV reasons. It's just that your POV has been repeatedly found to be unacceptable as the sole parameter guiding the composition of this article. The lead of this article may not be the most elegant piece of writing ever produced; but it is a compromise, between the Britannicentric "of the United Kingdom and 15 other Commonwealth realms" and the less detailed and, thus, less communicative "of 16 countries known as the Commonwealth realms". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The lead's too bloated. GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

So, "of 16 independent states known as the Commonwealth realms" is a condensation acceptable to you? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah it's acceptable, though not my first choice. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

First coronation broadcasted on TV?

The first TV broadcasted coronation was of King George VI in 1937. Here is some off-air footage of that event. --Alex:D (talk) 06:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hers was the first service or coronation ceremony to be televised, though her father's procession had been. DrKiernan (talk) 09:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe this should be specified, just for clarity? The article about the Coronation states: The coronation of the Queen was the first ever to be televised (although the BBC Television Service had covered part of the procession from Westminster Abbey after her father's coronation in 1937). --Alex:D (talk) 09:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

It is specified as "coronation service" and "the entire ceremony". If George VI's coronation has to be mentioned, then I think it's misleading to say the service was not televised, as it implies that it wasn't shown at all. It would also need to be said that it was filmed and shown in cinemas. Given that two qualifying explanations are required as a minimum, I would prefer not to complicate the claim by adding the extra details. DrKiernan (talk) 09:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

One possibility, that doesn't involve any additional material, is to change the sentences to read: Despite the death of Queen Mary on 24 March 1953, the coronation went ahead on 2 June 1953. Before she died, Mary had asked that the coronation not be delayed. The ceremony in Westminster Abbey, except the anointing and communion, was televised for the first time,. It's actually one word less than before. DrKiernan (talk) 12:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's better. --Alex:D (talk) 11:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 26 October 2011

|Wealth "$500 Million (as at May 2011)" http://www.therichest.org/most-influential/queen-elizabeth-net-worth User:Petermcelwee (talk) 12:13, 26 October 2011

If you follow that link, it says "Source: Forbes" at the bottom. The source at Forbes is this story: http://www.forbes.com/sites/luisakroll/2011/04/22/just-how-rich-is-queen-elizabeth-and-her-family/ which includes a credit to wikipedia. That story itself links to "the most recent rankings" which lists her at $450 million. I don't think we should change the material as the source is self-contradictory, and possibly tainted by a circular reference back to us. DrKiernan (talk) 12:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done, per DrKiernan. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Queen regnant

It's alright to use King & Queen regnant in the other European monarch bio article intros, yet it's not alright here. Why is that? It's time the constitutional monarch term was correctly replaced with Queen regnant; come on folks? GoodDay (talk) 01:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

It's called usage. Rothorpe (talk) 03:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

"Correctly replaced"? There's nothing wrong with constitutional monarch. As it is both more familiar to readers and more explanatory, I think it should be retained. DrKiernan (talk) 10:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree - current terminology is fine, "regnant" is unnecessary and quite obscure. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Queen regnant is educational. Again - why is this monarch being singled out? GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

My guess is that because she is currently in power. Just a guess, but I wouldn't be opposed to adding it either. See no logical reason not to.--JOJ ^Hutton 14:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Margaret II of Denmark, Beatrix of the Netherlands, Harald V of Norway, Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden (for examples), are current monarchs. We're not using constitutional monarch in their intros. GoodDay (talk) 14:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll go to bat and side with GoodDay on this. He's right. No logical reason this page should be different than the others.--JOJ ^Hutton 14:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Albert II of Belgium, uses both. GoodDay (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

This article is a good article, and those are not, for a reason. It is because this article is better written. We don't need an obscure term in the first sentence when a standard term is fine. DrKiernan (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll have to disagree. Constitutional monarch being used, isn't the difference betwee GA & not GA. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) Yes its a Good Article for a reason, but are you suggesting that its because of this? Really? It couldn't be for any other reason? Maybe because this article gets more edits than those others, because she is more popular or well known, so editors are more inclined to improve the article and work for GA status. That comment actually made me shake my head in disbelief.--JOJ ^Hutton 15:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Is this disingenuous sarcasm or did you really miss my point? Making a good article consistent with bad ones is the wrong way about. You should be trying to improve those articles, not making this one worse. DrKiernan (talk) 15:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Gee, I must have missed your point then. What I inferred from your statement is that adding "Queen Regnant" to this article not worthy of GA. Am I correct in assuming that? How so then? Because I see that argument at an Informal fallacy, with no proof whatsoever that that would be the case.--JOJ ^Hutton 15:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I doubt Queen Regnant and Constitutional Monarch make or break a GA either way, and I don't see anyone suggesting either. Can I suggest a compromise here? Leave constitutional monarch (which explains itself and is fine), but in the second paragraph change "Elizabeth became Head of the Commonwealth and queen of seven independent Commonwealth countries" to "Elizabeth became Head of the Commonwealth and queen regnant of seven independent Commonwealth countries". That hopefully clarifies the type of queen for those who want regnant in, and doesn't exactly cause any issues (as far as I can see). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Ditto.--JOJ ^Hutton 16:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

In the first paragraph, we should have Queen regnant along with Constitutional monarch, just like at Albert II of Belgium. You'd have the title & the description. GoodDay (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Where would that fit, prose-wise? The Albert II article is sadly badly written, not a good comparison. At any rate, her status as queen regnant is implied in calling her the monarch is it not, while constitutional monarch also gives information on the type of governments she presides over. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I rather replace Constitutional monarch with Queen regnant, but atleast we've now got 'queen regnant' in there. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)