Talk:Elizabeth II

The appropriate way of addressing and referring to Queen Elizabeth II.

I find it odd that the article refers to Queen Elizabeth II chiefly by her first name. Though this may be a component of the egalitarian, objective nature of Wikipedia, it is not customary to refer to her this way. Rather, she should be referred to as 'The Queen', 'Queen Elizabeth', or Her Majesty.

I ran a quick search on whether this was discussed earlier, though the results were not helpful. Any thoughts on this? Storms991 (talk) 06:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

In this and other articles, we use the person's name. In Her Majesty's Dominions and Territories of course one uses her titles, but outside them it is not required. TFD (talk) 06:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

We're not addressing her personally and in a forum like this, "the Queen" could mean the Queen of Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Spain, etc. She also is a person as well as holding a title. 74.69.9.224 (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It isn't disrespectful at all or "egalitarian" to refer to royalty in books or articles by their first names, that is the convention in fact. You wouldn't call her "Elizabeth" if you met her, but that's not the same thing.Smeat75 (talk) 21:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Technically speaking, she only has one name, Elizabeth, since sovereigns do not have last names. Even her grandchildren, for example, have been portrayed as having 'Windsor', 'Wales', or 'Mountbatten' as last names. Prefacing it with "Queen" everytime would be akin to using "Mr. X" throughout an article as opposed to just X, for example. trackratte (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• In Barbados per the Barbados government it is Your Majesty .Styles of Address, ([ http://www.foreign.gov.bb/ foreign.gov.bb]). Accidentally overwrote a comment. Didn't mean to do that. CaribDigita (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't an instrument of a commonwealth government, or a British citizen, or anything; I think it's most appropriate if we refer to the Queen the way we'd refer to other monarchs past and present. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I find it funny that on WP you can find people by a silly stage names (sobriquet) as their main article name. But the actual name she's known by around the world "Queen Elizabeth the 2nd" is too radical for WP naming conventions. She doesn't go around the world opening buildings as "Elizabeth II". QE2 plaque The ship named after her isn't merely called the "Elizabeth II". CaribDigita (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

And why should Wikipedia refer to Elizabeth II the way she wants to be called, when Kim Jong-un does not get the same privilege? Or do you propose that we, in all instances, refer to him as "Dearest Supreme Leader"? While we're at it, should Muhammad always be referred to as Muhammad sallAllahu `alayhi wa sallam, the way more than a billion people want him to be called? Don't waste your time. Of course this "component of the egalitarian, objective nature of Wikipedia" will be upheld. Wikipedia is not an arm of any government, or so it should seem at least. Surtsicna (talk) 20:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

"Wants to be called"? or is known as? What Newspaper says "Elizabeth II" did '_blah_' today? To spin that on it's head why include "Pope" in the article title for "Pope Francis". He wants to be called "pope" right? If I was not catholic, why not just "Francis" or "Francis of Vatican City" under that same convention? or his real name pre-papal name? CaribDigita (talk) 23:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I think one thing we are all forgetting here is that while she is Queen Elizabeth II of England & Wales I believe, there has never been a Queen Elizabeth of Scotland or a United Kingdom. As the union of crowns and the act of union don't stipulate any provisions for title and names of monarchs, this was obviously a historical mistake and that she was ill advised by ministers or the royal court when she gained the throne. While it caused offence and still rankles with some due to accusations of English bias, I personally believe it was a simple oversight in the use of the royal prerogative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.85.159 (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Her title in Scotland is whatever the law says it is. We are not 'all forgetting' what you, anonymous IP, think and believe on the topic - that has literally no bearing whatsoever on the content of this article. And - obviously - we can't have 'forgotten' your opinion which you hadn't previously provided. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Issue

RfC started 01:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC) My question is: Is there a particular reason why the Queen's children are referred to by the legal term issue, rather than children in this article? Melbourne3163 (talk) 23:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

It sounds de-humanizing. She's human, and her offspring are human...why not use children, the standard name for human offspring? I think it should be changed to children.—140.153.24.155 (talk) 19:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I have been waiting to see if there might be other points of view, with none forthcoming to date (apart from our's), I have now added a 'request for comment' banner to get further input. Cheers. Melbourne3163 (talk) 01:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, the obvious reason for using the word "issue" is that it's the traditionally correct word for "Offspring; progeny" (according to Miriam Webster, and all other good dictionaries), particularly for royal births. If it's de-humanising, then an awful lot of history books are too. A search in Wikipedia for articles containing "died without issue" (just one common usage of the word) quickly found me well over a 1000 entries. There may be many more. Elizabeth herself is listed in the Issue section of her father's article. HiLo48 (talk) 01:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I concur. The criticism implies that "issue" is used more for animals than humans, whereas I've never heard it used to describe descendants of an animal. Properly, "children" is not synonymous with "issue" since the latter may refer: 1. to remoter descendants (e.g., "Elizabeth II's issue include her great-grandson, Prince George of Cambridge"); 2. to living descendants (e.g., "She died bereft of issue, though she became a mother and grandmother relatively young"); to one's biological children, (e.g., "I know that Angelina Jolie has six children; how many are her own issue?"). The more precise and yet flexible term is "issue", which minimizes ambiguity and is used when giving genealogical details for that very reason. FactStraight (talk) 03:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I met with a lawyer recently to revise my will, and we discussed the clause that defines "issue". ("Issue" includes biological children and children by adoption, unless limited by express provision to biological children (as in the case of Ms. Jolie given above). It does not include stepchildren unless extended to them by express provision.) It is evidently a standard term of probate law, at least in the United States, and presumably also in the 16 countries of which Elizabeth II is the monarch. So "issue" is the correct them to include all of the Queen's descendants. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• Reword - At first glance, the word seems entirely inappropriate. Maybe this is some form of Brit English with which I'm not familiar, but it clearly doesn't seem right. Maybe "offspring" or "descendants"? NickCT (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Why is it inappropriate, let alone entirely inappropriate? "Offspring, progeny" is the third of eight meanings of the word given at TheFreeDictionary.com ("an American online dictionary"). It is the standard term in genealogy, law and history. Surtsicna (talk) 21:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
    • It's legalese. NickCT (talk) 05:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Just another opinion, I think descendants would be a better choice from a word choice. Though there is nothing wrong with the terms offspring or progeny, descendants has more weight. Editingisthegame (talk) 01:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
• Keep The term "issue" is used fairly frequently throughout Wikipedia, not just in this page. To me, there seems to be a different implication between what "Issue" entails and what "Children" entails. The former implies (to me) a clear table or list detailing a person's children, grandchildren, and possibly great-grandchildren, while the latter implies that it's going to be somewhat of a discussion on their children - paragraphs, sentences, etc. "Offspring," "Descendants," or "Progeny" come across as adding a third variable to the mix just for the sake of changing things - when "Issue" already appears on many pages. Psunshine87 (talk) 05:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this view of the matter, and support the retention of 'issue'. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Reword "Issue" is archaic. 19th century books would say for example, "John Smith was without issue." Today they would say "John Smith had no children." TFD (talk) 17:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
• Keep as issue appears to be a term specific of genealogy which is rather distinct from (and consequently less specific than) the term "children". Specifically, in royalty, the word "issue" is held apart from "heir". In law, per stirpes is a further distinction when it comes to inheritance and estate distribution. SueDonem (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
• Keep – "Issue" in common law refers to children of legally recognized subsisting marriages. Thus the term is important in articles about royalty in the context of royal succession. Link the term to issue in the Wikitionary. – S. Rich (talk) 06:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2014

It says in the article that both Prince Andrew and Prince Edward were born in 1959 and 1963, but further down the page their date of birth have been published as being in 1960 and 1964. Unless I'm mistaking, I think there's a slight error in this article. Kind regards,

92.233.239.45 (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The article states correctly that she was pregnant in 1959 and 1963 not that they were born then. She did not attend the State Opening of Parliament on 27th October 1959 or 12th November 1963 because she was pregnant. Andrew and Edward were born in the following February and March respectively. DrKiernan (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Number of realms

The official website says that there are 16. I'm not aware of any sources that give a different current number. DrKiernan (talk) 16:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

It says there are 16 "Commonwealth Realms", which are defined as realms that are members of the Commonwealth. There are also realms that are not members of the Commonwealth. TFD (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

There are only 16. The status of the CI/Niue is in a grey area, but in terms of realms they are explicitly within that of New Zealand, and have the NZ head-of-state. CMD (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the lede talks about sovereign states and the Cook Islands and Niue are under the sovereignty of the Queen of New Zealand. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

There are 16 Commonwealth Realms, but the opening talks about sovereign states. The Realm of New Zealand is made up of three sovereign states (and the territories/dependencies of New Zealand), meaning Queen Elizabeth is the head of state of 18 sovereign states. See the List of current heads of state or the debates about Niue and the Cook Islands being sovereign states. [Soffredo] 17:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Consensus is clear. You will not change consensus unless you provide sources that Cook Islands and Niue are "sovereign states known as Commonwealth realms", which judging from your own statements, you know does not apply to either country. DrKiernan (talk) 20:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you even reading what I'm saying? The Cook Islands and Niue are not Commonwealth realms. They are sovereign states that are part of the Realm of New Zealand. The opening sentence should be

"Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is the constitutional monarch of 18 sovereign states which, along with their territories and dependencies, make up the 16 Commonwealth realms. She is also the head of the 53-member Commonwealth of Nations. "

Also, saying the consensus is clear is unfair since I was blocked from Wikipedia while discussions began. [Soffredo] 23:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have read your statements. That's why I said "judging from your own statements". However, you changed the article so that it could be misread as meaning that they were Commonwealth realms: "18 sovereign states, known as Commonwealth realms". I'm objecting to an edit that serves to confuse and misinform rather than clarify. DrKiernan (talk) 08:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

A Commonwealth Realm is a realm of the Queen that is a member of the Commonwealth. A realm that is not a member of the Commonwealth is not a Commonwealth Realm. A member of the Commonwealth that is not one of the Queen's realms is not a Commonwealth realm. The Cook Islands and Niue are not members of the Commonwealth, hence they are not Commonwealth Realms. The definition of a Commonwealth Realm is provided by the palace and they provide a list. TFD (talk) 05:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for once again agreeing with me that "The Cook Islands and Niue are not Commonwealth realms". They are, however, sovereign states with Elizabeth II as their head of state. I feel like I'm repeating myself, but... The Realm of New Zealand, one of 16 Commonwealth realms, is made up of three sovereign states: the Cook Islands, Niue, and New Zealand (along with its territories). If you Google search Queen of Cook Islands or Queen of Niue, it will give you an infobox of Queen Elizabeth. Searching up Queen of Tokelau or Queen of Ross Dependency, which are the territories of New Zealand, does not give that same infobox as they are not sovereign states. [Soffredo] 13:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Whether they are "sovereign states" is open to debate. We list them at list of sovereign states because they meet the criteria for inclusion for that list, and we then explain the situation in that case. That does not mean that they are unambiguously and unquestionably sovereign states as per your wording. Rather it means that there is a debate and that they fall on that side of a specific set of criteria. The places where you wish to change things do not lend themselves to this kind of explanation.

It is true that Niue and the Cook Islands are not members of the Commonwealth. But they are unambiguously part of the Commonwealth as they are included in New Zealand. The edit proposed claims her as Queen of the Cook Islands and Queen of Niue, she is not. She is Queen of New Zealand, which for this purpose happens to include the Cook Islands and Niue. Kahastok talk 14:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

So we should completely ignore the list of sovereign states and list of current heads of state and government? Elizabeth II is the head of state of 18 sovereign states that, along with their territories (British, Australian, New Zealander, etc.), make up the 16 Commonwealth realms. I don't see the point of pretending the Cook Islands and Niue don't exist. Maybe we should phrase it as it is in the list of current heads of state:

"Queen Elizabeth II is separately and equally monarch of 16 sovereign states and 2 associated states sometimes known collectively as the Commonwealth realms."

Would this compromise work or should we pretend that two sovereign states don't exist? Also, other articles on Wikipedia talk about Transnistria, Abkhazia, Taiwan, Kosovo, and other places as if they were sovereign states. Why not the Cook Islands and Niue? My proposed edit even had a little note explaining that the Cook Islands and Niue are in free association with New Zealand. [Soffredo] 15:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth II is not separately monarch of Niue and the Cook Islands, and her position with respect to Niue and the Cook Islands is not equal to her position with respect to Canada or Tuvalu. Niue and the Cook Islands are not known as Commonwealth Realms. So your proposal is inaccurate on several points.

It's also far too much detail for the location where it is to be placed. We should take account of List of sovereign states - but that means taking account of all of it, including the bits that point out that some of the edges are rough and that some of the statuses are not clear cut. We should also take account of the official status as provided by the official sources, which are very clear that the number is 16. The status quo is fine in these circumstances.

And I see good reason to object when people try to claim that places such as those you list are unambiguously and indisputably sovereign. They are not unambiguously and indisputably sovereign, and claiming that they are is strongly POV. Kahastok talk 16:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

"Niue and the Cook Islands are not known as Commonwealth Realms." I'll repeat myself for a third time: "The Cook Islands and Niue are not Commonwealth realms". Sources say she is the Queen of 16 Commonwealth realms; 15 of these realms are just sovereign states, while the Realm of New Zealand compromises 3 sovereign states. She is the head of the 16 Commonwealth realms which are made up of 18 sovereign states. We shouldn't ignore the Cook Islands and Niue. [Soffredo] 04:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

And you shouldn't ignore the multitude of editors who have repeatedly informed you that the CI/Niue are not unambiguously sovereign states. CMD (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

It seems like the wording here leaves something to be desired. Niue and the Cook Islands are recognized as sovereign states, even if they're not unambiguously so. While Elizabeth II is the Queen of 16 Commonwealth Realms, the number of sovereign states that make up those realms is disputable. As such, the wording in the lead should probably be changed; perhaps instead of "Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is the constitutional monarch of 16 sovereign states known as the Commonwealth realms, and their territories and dependencies" we could use something more like "Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is the constitutional monarch of the 16 Commonwealth realms and their territories and dependencies". The link for New Zealand within the list of the Queen's realms should direct to the Realm of New Zealand instead of the sovereign state of New Zealand Psunshine87 (talk) 05:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

We should present information in accordance with how it is presented in reliable sources. Since they give very little prominence to CI and Niue, they should not be mentioned in the lead. Perhaps "territories and dependencies" is too narrow, because it excludes states, provinces and associated states. TFD (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

As I said before, I think that best compromise would be to say she's the monarch of 16 sovereign states and 2 associated states. This statement isn't wrong, while saying she rules just 16 or up to 18 can be debated. [Soffredo] 19:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Trouble is, that statement isn't accurate. She is not Queen of Niue and she is not Queen of the Cook Islands. She is Queen of New Zealand, which includes Niue and the Cook Islands. In the same way, she is not Queen of Wales or Queen of Scotland, but Queen of Great Britain, and she is not Queen of New Ireland or Queen of Bougainville but Queen of Papua New Guinea. Kahastok talk 19:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Then maybe we should instead say she's the head of state of 18 sovereign states (or 16 sovereign + 2 associated)? Also, the places you've listed are not sovereign states, unlike the Cook Islands and Niue. [Soffredo] 19:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

It is not clear that the Cook Islands and Niue are sovereign states, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you. Kahastok talk 19:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

So just because their international status isn't clear, we should just ignore them? There's no denying that they are "self-governing states in free association" so why not say she's the head of state in 16 sovereign states and 2 associated states? [Soffredo] 19:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

So, just because you want to get the Cook Islands and Niue in, we have to lose the fact that she is monarch from the first sentence? I think your solution loses a sense of proportion. And in any case, I don't accept that the statement is accurate. If we're accepting that she isn't Queen of the Cook Islands or Queen of Niue, are you saying she's President? Prince? Big Cheese? Kahastok talk 20:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Far more interesting than the CI/Niue are the Australian states and the Canadian provinces, where while not being officially titled "Queen of Y province" she has a separate legal personality, and the states and provinces have their own Governors/Lieutenant-Governors. The Queen's Representative in the CI is similar to the Australian Governors in that they are appointed by the Queen rather than the Governor-General. That said, the first sentence shouldn't get into all the sub-realm detail. The lead as a whole shouldn't touch it either, as it doesn't fit in that short a summary of Elizabeth II. "territories and dependencies" is a nice vague encompassing term whose vagueness should be used to avoid complicated semantics not get into them. We may actually benefit from removing "and their territories and dependencies", as the 'crown' for each realm would encompass all territories/dependencies anyway. CMD (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

And we seem to have forgotten Jersey and Guernsey, as well. (Though, they may be what "dependencies" refers to.) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we should remove "and their territories and dependencies" as well, as CMD's argument makes sense. We don't need to get into the sub-realm details at all, but Soffredo has a valid point in that the Cook Islands and Nieu are not a part of the sovereign state of New Zealand, nor are they clearly territories or dependencies. Given as the sentence itself isn't sourced, it seems like it would be easiest to simply say that Elizabeth II is the monarch of the 16 Commonwealth Realms and leave it at that. Is it really important that "sovereign states" be included? Psunshine87 (talk) 07:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. TFD (talk) 07:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'd say the "sovereign" or "independent" part is rather important. A great many people think that the realms other than Britain aren't independent precisely because Elizabeth is their queen.

Adding "fully" before "sovereign" would differentiate the realms from places like Niue, Jersey, and Manitoba. Also, how is it that Niue and the Cook Islands aren't dependencies of New Zealand? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The CI/Niue have signed agreements with NZ which makes them officially states in "free association". This grants them complete independence with regards to their affairs, but they have chosen to maintain NZ citizenship and keep the NZ head of state, and agree to act with respect to NZ in those regards. They are freely able to move towards complete sovereignty at any point without NZ approval. (Whether or not this is a "dependency" depends on the definition of dependency of course.)

On the matter at hand, how about changing the current one to "16 separate sovereign realms, each with a legally distinct monarchy."? The Commonwealth of Nations bit should probably move to a separate sentence, it's not of the same significance as actual monarchy. CMD (talk) 15:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer to say "16 Commonwealth Realms", then add a sentence explaining what the term means, since it is not commonly understood. "A Commonwealth Realm is a member of the Commonwealth that shares the Queen." The monarchy is btw legally distinct regardless of the degree of independence. One cannot pay a debt to the crown of New South Wales to the crown of Queensland. But in foreign affairs, the crown of Australia will sign treaties. TFD (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The monarchies are not unambiguously legally distinct. It is a shared monarchy in some aspects. So, it's clearer to say that the realms are separate, sovereign and independent rather than the monarchies. DrKiernan (talk) 16:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

What about the draft below? DrKiernan (talk) 16:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC):

Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is the constitutional monarch of the Commonwealth realms: 16 sovereign states and their associated states, territories and dependencies. She is head of the 53-member Commonwealth of Nations and Supreme Governor of the Church of England, carrying the additional title of Defender of the Faith in some of her realms.

According to the Law Lords, "But it is now clear, whatever may once have been thought, that the Crown is not one and indivisible....The Queen is as much the Queen of New South Wales...and Mauritius...and other territories acknowledging her as head of state as she is of England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom."[1] But most sources on the Queen do not mention this and therefore it is probably best to omit it in the lead. The types of territories over which she is queen is a long list - dependencies, crown dependencies, overseas territories, associated states, states, provinces, countries of the U.K. or in the case of England and Wales, two countries. TFD (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

It is not clear to me whether you are dissenting or agreeing with the new draft. DrKiernan (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

In line with CMD's and Mies arguments above (not the place to get into sub-realms, include 'fully sovereign'). Taking Dr. Kiernan's proposed draft, I would like to see something a lot simpler (keeping in mind the majority of readers have no background in politics or necessarily know about the Commonwealth).

Perhaps along the lines of "Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is the sovereign of 16 fully independent Commonwealth realms."

Sovereign of 16 independent realms is easily sourced, if someone is unsure what a Commonwealth realm is they can click the blue link. If someone wants to know what those realms are, they're available in that same blue link along with a detailed explanation on the status of Nieu and the Cook Islands. I would say the vast majority of readers do not care to know the intricacies of "associated" vs "independent" vs "fully independent" vs "dependent" states vs "territories" with commonwealth-realms-that-are-all-states-except-for-New-Zealand, etc etc. In the lead to an article about Elizabeth II we're presenting concise, pertinent, non-contentious, quickfacts. If we're so far into the weeds into this issue, still after more than a year of debate, it doesn't belong in the lead. trackratte (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I would support this option, or something that similarly omits all reference to states/territories/provinces outside the 16. This is the first sentence of the lede, so we don't want to get into any more detail than is really necessary. Kahastok talk 21:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Or we could say "of the United Kingdom and 15 other independent member states of the Commonwealth." DrKiernan, I think it is best to keep the lead simple.

I think the UK should be mentioned because it is the only kingdom, and if it were not she would not be styled as queen in her other dominions and territories. TFD (talk) 22:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Or "(she) is the shared Monarch and Chief of State for 16 separate kingdoms known as Commonwealth Realms." -- Comment' A Kingdom (simpler) can be made up by any number of "territories", "dependencies", "colonies", "protectorates", and "associates states" etc. can be made up of any number of parts and doesn't lose its meaning. During the 1960s the Eastern Caribbean islands were an "Associate States" with the U.K. proper. Formerly known as the U.K. and the West Indies Associated States. New Zealand sounds similar to that relationship. She head of separate Kingdoms but they're all led by the same singular Monarchy under various titles.' CaribDigita (talk) 01:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

@Carib. I still think that is getting sucked down the rabbit hole so to speak. Looking up realm in the dictionary, it simply says "a kingdom", with "synonyms: kingdom, country, land, dominion, nation". With Kingdom as "a country, state, or territory ruled by a king or queen" with "synonyms: realm, domain, dominion, country,...nation, state". We don't have an article titled "Commonwealth kingdoms" for a reason I think, for the same one we don't say "Chief of State", they are simply not the terms commonly used (even though they essentially amount to the same thing). The job of an encyclopedic article is to document not to create.

• The Preamble of a Constitution doesn't need to say "The Kingdom of Barbados" for Barbados to be called a Kingdom. The Federation of St. Kitts and Nevis doesn't need to be called The Kingdom of the Federation of St. Christopher and Nevis" for that to be a Kingdom either. P.S. There are other "Realms" in the Commonwealth of Nations besides the one Queen Elizabeth leads. Lesotho For example is a Kingdom and a member of the Commonwealth of Nations. Anyway, is there a source that says she's head of The "Realm of New Zealand"? Or was that made up too? CaribDigita (talk) 03:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

@TFD. We've gone down that path I think, and my reasoning remains the same. First, '16 realms' is simpler than 'UK and 15 other realms' (the 16 obviously include the UK as per the Commonwealth realm blue link, so its redundant), second, it is not the only kingdom, any state with a monarch is technically speaking a kingdom, so they're all kingdoms, and third, singling out one country ahead of the others (particularly the UK), smacks of vieux-monde imperialism.

"Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is the sovereign of 16 fully independent Commonwealth realms.", or something similar seems to me to be as simple as it gets, while still containing that key, most basic info required for the lead. Any hints of subtleties regarding the state of certain countries over others (or 'sub-realms' for that matter), or any explained deviations from common terms employed in media/academia/etc are better placed within the article itself I think. Particularly as it seems that nearly every 'subtlety' (kingdom or realm, 16 or 15, mention state or no, etc) all seem to result in argument. The above statement, or something near, I think is as bare-bones and contention free as we may be able to manage, seeing as many of the arguments put forward have been ongoing for over a year (if not longer) and are still not properly resolved. trackratte (talk) 02:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

If it smacks of imperialism, it is because that is how the monarch of the United Kingdom came to be sovereign of so many territories. All these territories were acquired by conquest, cession or settlement. In no case did any foreign country actually request annexation by the British crown. And it is olde worlde, or vieux-monde if you prefer, to have an hereditary head of state, particularly one who happens to live in the old country. Not of course that there is anything wrong with that, but it is wrong to ignore reality.

It is only in 13 Commonwealth Realms where the Queen's office title is Queen of [local country other than the UK]. Throughout the world both within and outside the Commonwealth she is referred to as Queen of the UK, and even Canada and Grenada put that title before her title as monarch of their countries.

I suggest that the United Kingdom is far better known than the Commonwealth, even if it is redundant it provides clear information to readers.

TFD (talk) 04:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

While imperialism may be how these territories became Commonwealth Realms, Elizabeth II's page is not the proper place for a discussion on this history or imperialism, particularly in the first sentence. Nor is it necessary to delegate the other realms into being somehow less than the United Kingdom in that same sentence. Simply saying 16 realms is simpler and removes redundancies. Calling these realms "kingdoms" is inaccurate as many of them have never used "Kingdom" in their official names (i.e. Canada, Australia, and New Zealand were all Dominions, not Kingdoms). An ammendment to DrKiernan's draft could be:

Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is the constitutional monarch of the 16 Commonwealth realms, the head of the 53-member Commonwealth of Nations and Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

As such, what constitutes a realm is removed from the Queen's page - as it's not necessarily relevant to her page itself - and redirects it to the actual Commonwealth Realms page. Psunshine87 (talk) 07:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Niue, ironically given the start of this conversation, did actually request to be part of British dominion. CMD (talk) 09:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy to drop the definition of Commonwealth realm ("fully independent", "sovereign state", etc.) because the independence of the realms is explained in the second paragraph, so I don't think it's immediately necessary to say "independent"/"sovereign", etc., in the first paragraph as well. DrKiernan (talk) 10:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Psunshine87, I m not suggesting that the article discuss the history of imperialism, merely that we describe the Queen the way reliable sources do. The palace website says, "The Queen is Head of State of the UK and 15 other Commonwealth realms." The Royal Style and Titles Act, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, says that her title in Canada is "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith."[2] TFD (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

You're giving undue weight to one British website and one title out of sixteen. This give-the-UK-prominence matter is unrelated to the subject of this discussion and has already been settled via a very long round of debate and discussion, anyway. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

TFD's "The Queen is Head of State of the UK and 15 other Commonwealth realms" wording is what we should be using. MIESIANIACAL and other royalists continue to support the weird, non-natural, undue and slightly perverse current wording while desperately claiming the discussion over the wording is "settled" and not worth continuing. NickCT (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The website is not just "one Britixh website" but the website of the person written about in this article. I have set up a discussion thread at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Elizabeth II. TFD (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The statement that Elizabeth II is the constitutional monarch of 16 sovereign states known as the Commonwealth realms is absolutely correct, neutral, and doesn't in any way negate the opinion that Niue and the Cook Islands are sovereign. If "dependencies" doesn't cover Niue and the Cook Islands, I suggest changing the opening sentence to Elizabeth II is the constitutional monarch of 16 sovereign states known as the Commonwealth realms and their dependencies and associated states. That covers those entities that aren't part of any of the sovereign states: the British Crown dependencies of Jersey, Guernsey, and the Isle of Man, and the Cook Islands and Niue, which are states in free association with New Zealand. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

But the what about the "overseas territories" Mies? Or Australia's legally undefined "external territories"? We really don't need a list of political statuses.

Anyway, this "UK and 15 other" vs "16" is another discussion from what we were discussing earlier, so I've edited the article based off Trackratte and Psunshine's suggestions. CMD (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality does not mean even-handedness to all aspects of a subject, but presentation with the same emphasis on different aspects as provided in reliable sources. BTW AFAIK Man and the CI are not dependencies of the Crown not the UK. In fact the constitutional language is that the Queen not the UK acquires overseas territories. TFD (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the way the lead sentence is worded now (after CMD's revision) is suitable, neutral, factual, and simple. If someone wants more information on any of the realms, territories, constituent parts, whatever term you want to use, etc, clicking on the Commonwealth realms blue link gets the reader that in-depth information if they so choose.

Regarding the "16" vs 'two and a half dozen of the other' conundrum, placing the UK ahead of the others is simply UK centric. The palace website is a British website, none of these other realms' monarchs have Buckingham palace. For example, Elizabeth II's Canadian Website simply states "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada. She has dedicated her life to public service and continues to serve Canada and Canadians after 60 years." I don't then use that reference to argue that the lead should state that "Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada and 15 other Commonwealth realms". Using a Canadian website to push a Canada centric lead is POV, just as using a British website to push a British centric lead is POV. "16 Commonwealth realm" is neutral, simple, factually correct, and non-contentious. trackratte (talk) 22:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Your link is not to the Queen's "Canadian website", but to a website run by the Canadian government. It in turn links to Royal Style and Titles Act R.S.C., 1985, c. R-12, which btw has the force of law in Canada and says, "The assent of the Parliament of Canada is hereby given to...the following Royal Style and Titles, namely: Elizabeth the Second...of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen."[3] The "British website" otoh is "the official web site of the British Monarchy. Written and managed by the Royal Household at Buckingham Palace, the site aims to provide an authoritative resource of information about the Monarchy and Royal Family, past and present."[4] Whether or not the site is "UK centric" is irrelevant - that is how the world knows her. TFD (talk) 23:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Right, the official site of the British monarchy says Queen of the UK. The official site of the Canadian monarchy says Queen of Canada. The fact is they are both right. To take one to overrule and cancel out the other is simply POV.

The law you refer to states that the Queen of Canada's titles are "Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith" (thus Royal Style and Titles Act, there are three titles). The style within the Royal Style and Titles Act is "by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories". So no, Elizabeth II is not titled 'Queen of the UK' in Canadian law. Her Style includes the UK for historical and cultural reasons, just as it includes "Grace of God", "other Realms", and other "Territories". The inclusion of "Her other Realms" within the Style has no bearing on her constitutional role in Canada, and subsequently no bearing on her legal title. trackratte (talk) 00:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but your statement that the website you provided is the "official site of the Canadian monarchy" is false. It is no such thing nor does it pretend to be. The other website of course is the official website of the monarchy. And while the Queen's constitutional role in Canada is her position of Canadian head of state, it is significant that Canada's law provides priority to her position as Queen of the UK, which of course does the rest of the world, except 13 Commonwealth Realms, representing less than 25% of the population in her realms and territories, about 2% of the world's population and less than one half of one percent of the rest of the world where she is referred to almost exclusively as the Queen of the UK. TFD (talk) 00:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Canadian law does not "provide priority to her position as Queen of the UK". That would mean that Canada is in fact not an independent and sovereign state if it 'gave priority' to a foreign head of state over its own, which is obviously not the case, simply because the Queen of the UK (or any other foreign head of state for that matter) has no bearing on Canadian law or its constitution. The last vestiges of that ended in 1982. And X percent of the world's population uses Y term is not only impossible to definitively prove, but is also irrelevant. EII is not simply the Queen of the UK in 15/16 Commonwealth realms. All of these realms are equal. Your attempts at twisting things around in an attempt to push your personal POV that the UK is better or more important than 15 other states is misguided at best. trackratte (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

In case you missed it, the Revised Statutes of Canada (i.e., Canadian law) says, "The assent of the Parliament of Canada is hereby given to the issue by Her Majesty of Her Royal Proclamation under the Great Seal of Canada establishing for Canada the following Royal Style and Titles, namely: Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith." The Canadian constitution says that the provinces requested to be "federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland."[5]

I fully understand that the Queen in relation to Canada, Ontario, or the British Antarctic Territory is queen of those places, as they are not part of the United Kingdom. But that has no relation to what she is called. In Ontario for example she is called Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, etc. It may be that Ontario should call her the "Queen of Ontario" or the Queen's website is in error calling her the British monarch, rather than the Ontarian monarch, and you are welcome to write to the palace about this. But the issue is how is she known throughout the world.

TFD (talk) 02:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

You continue to interpret the Royal Style and Titles Act as if it were called the Royal Title Act. "Queen" is a title. "Head of the Commonwealth" is a title. "by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom" is not a title. It's a Royal Style. The use of a style as a title would be awkward at best: 'What's your job?', 'Hi, I'm the by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories, nice to meet you'. I hope you're able to now see the difference between a style and a title, and subsequently why the Act explicitly differentiates the two.

And you do realise you are quoting a passage from laws as passed in 1867, when Canada was actually still part of the UK? When the Constitution Act, 1867 says "under One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain" it's because there was no such thing as the Crown of Canada at that time, so Canada was literally part of the UK. The idea of Canadian independence rose in tandem with the concept of a Canadian Crown (obviously) coming to a head in 1931. Canadian citizenship did not exist until 1947. Full Canadian independence did not exist until 1982. And you're quoting passages from 1867 as proof that Canada is still beholden to the Queen of the UK as opposed to the Queen of Canada? EII isn't simply called the Queen of Canada, she is the Queen of Canada, and in constitutional law, the Queen is Canada (corporation sole). trackratte (talk) 03:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The term used is "style and titles". Your opinion that the act is referring to two different things is incorrect and you have provided no sources to suggest otherwise. A "style and title" by the way is distinct from a job, although it may describe the job. Being a knight for example may be a job but nowadays usually isn't. The Queen btw is not "by the grace of God of the United Kingdom", but by the grace of God Queen in all but one of her realms. It even says it on Canadian coins.

Canada was never "literally a part of the UK", nor did the Canadian Crown originate in 1931. Where are you getting these ideas? I have provided the opinion of the House of Lords on the divisibility of the Crown, and you counter that with unsourced assertions based on what?

TFD (talk) 03:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Why, exactly, is Canada's royal style and title law important here? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It is important because it refutes the claim that giving priority to her title as Queen of the UK is biased. TFD (talk) 16:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

So, you're saying that because the words "United Kingdom" and "other Realms" are included in the Canadian Royal Style, that the lead to this article should be 'UK and 15 other realms' instead of '16 realms'...? trackratte (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Certainly not. But if Canadian law refers to the Queen as as Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada and her other realms and territories, then having this article referring to her as Queen of the United Kingdom and her other realms is certainly not biased. You should read The Queen v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ex parte Quark Fishing Limited where the House of Lords explains the nature of the Crown.[6] But the relevant policy here is weight, viz., how do reliable sources describe the Queen's offices. TFD (talk) 01:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Just because Canada has "other realms" and "United Kingdom" as part of the Royal Style for obvious historical and cultural reasons, does not mean that when discussing the completely different topic of 'how many realms is Queen Elizabeth II the Sovereign of' within an international context, that undue weight should be given to one state above all others. For example, a random British site uses both perspectives, stating both that there are 16 realms, as well as UK and 15. This Australian site uses 16 realms. This Political Geography Now site uses 16 realms. The Commonwealth of Nations site states "16 of these are realms with Queen Elizabeth II as head of state". So, a cursory overview based on the first page of a Google search supports both usages, British sites seem to use both, other sites seem to use the '16 realms'. In any event, it is completely irrelevant, both usages purvey the same fact, that QEII is 'head of state' of a list of 16 sovereign states. This is a stylistic decision by editors. The current consensus is to convey this fact in the lead in as clear and neutral way as possible. '...of the United Kingdom and 15 other sovereign and independent realms' is less clear and less neutral than '...of 16 independent realms'. trackratte (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Political Geography Now says, "you may have heard it mentioned that Elizabeth II is not just the Queen of England and the U.K., but of 15 other independent countries as well." It then lists the 16 Commonwealth Realms, starting with the United Kingdom.[7] On the Commonwealth website, click "Queen Elizabeth II" and it says, "Aside from the United Kingdom, there are 15 Commonwealth realms in existence today...." Your "random" websites are the British Monarchist Society and the "Australian Monarchist League." Not interested in reading what they say.

The bitter reality is that mainstream sources list the Queen's position as Queen of the U.K. first. The only exception is the "Style and Titles" acts in most of the former colonies, except Canada and Grenada, which btw represent the majority of Commonwealth citizens in Commonwealth Realms outside the UK. TFD (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Right, so Political Geography Now says "Queen Elizabeth's 16 Countries" in the title, "the Queen of England and the U.K., but of 15 other independent countries as well", and "Queen Elizabeth II is the official head of state for 16 different independent countries, known as the 'Commonwealth realms'". So it twice uses '16 realms' and once uses 'UK and 15'. So once again, it's a stylistic choice on how to represent the same fact.

It's not a matter for your questionable and convoluted method of 'Style and Titles acts for the highest percentage of population of former colonial states equating with forcing editors on Wikipedia to take one stylistic choice over another'. Frankly, your entire argument hinges on the fact that Canada's Royal Style includes the words "United Kingdom", so therefore the lead to this article needs to say 'UK and 15 other realms', which frankly makes no sense. trackratte (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

No, it hinges on the fact that that is how the vast majority of sources would phrase it, assuming they decided to mention the Queen's other realms. Therefore that is how policy says we should describe it. I presented the Canadian example not as evidence of how we should phrase but to counter the suggestion that it was somehow not neutral to mention the U.K. first. I am sure that you may believe that if you asked the man in the street who the Queen of Tuvalu was he would be as likely to know the answer as if you asked him to name the Queen of the U.K. But this is supposed to be an encyclopedic article, not an article for a monarchist fan club. TFD (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Do we have a number for this "vast majority" of sources? One, four, ten? Something like that? I'll bet that whatever number you come up with, I can find twice as many sources mentioning "The Queen of England". Using this sort of logic, we fill our encyclopaedia with questionable content. The Queen is the monarch of sixteen realms. We are certain of that. Once we start listing them or putting one above another, we get into difficulties of opinion. --Pete (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

All the reliable sources presented here - the Queen's website, the Commonwealth website, etc., mention her position as queen of the UK first, with the possible exception of the websites of other realms explaining their head of state. Few reliable sources refer to her as the Queen of England. A Google books search for "queen of england" returns 898,000 results, the vast majority for pre-union queens. "Queen of the united kingdom" returns 940,000 results. "Queen of canada" returns 93,200 results. "Queen of tuvalu" returns 444 results. TFD (talk) 23:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

So when we examine the facts, this "vast majority" you claim is actually two websites? Perhaps we could dispense with hyperbole, and perhaps you could address my other points. Let's see how we go with that approach. --Pete (talk) 02:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

No, they are just two examples, and there are none for the current wording. Since you did not look at the Google books sources mentioned, here are the links:

• "queen of england" - 898,000 hits (mostly for monarchs who were queens before England and Wales merged with Scotland into the United Kingdom)[8]
• "queen of the united kingdom" - 940,000 hits[9]

"queen of tuvalu" - 444 hits[10]

As for your other "points", it is not up to us to correct the prejudice in reliable sources. That's the role of the monarchist leagues.

TFD (talk) 02:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Once again, that line of reasoning is nonsensical. You are conflating a few things here. Tuvalu with a population of 10,387 will have far fewer mentions of its head of state than the U.K. with its population of 64 million people. One has a population over 6000 times greater than the other. However, QEII's role as Sovereign of the UK, and her separate role as sovereign of Tuvalu for example, are completely equal. One is not 'more right' than the other, and saying that she is equally head of state of both is completely correct. trackratte (talk) 03:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Not nonsensical. Obviously the Queen's role as head of state of the UK will receive more mention than her role as queen of Tuvalu. That is the point. That is the weight provided in the real world and what we should follow. TFD (talk) 03:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, TFD. As you didn't provide any examples from your Google searches - and of course many of them would be fiction, movie plots, blog entries and the like - I took it that you weren't serious about your "vast majority" claim. Not to worry.

The situation as I see it is that we have no consensus to alter the existing wording. Without consensus, any change will be promptly reverted. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 03:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

We all know that whenever any source discusses the many crowns of the sovereign that her role as queen of the United Kingdom is almost always mentioned and mentioned first, while the list of other realms is mentioned next if at all. Instead of misrepresenting the facts and arguing to provide the wording you favor, it would be more productive to admit the facts and argue for your preferred wording. TFD (talk) 04:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The UK is by far the largest of the 16 realms in terms of population, economy, military power, cultural recognition, political influence, etc, etc. Naturally, all British sources will place the UK first. And naturally, outside (outside of the 16 realms) sources will place 'Queen of the UK' more prominently than 'Queen of X', simply due to the above. However, this article is not about Elizabeth II in her role as Queen of the UK (there's other articles for that), but as her as a person, of which she is equally sovereign of 16 different realms. Her sovereignty over the UK is no more important than her sovereignty over any other realm. The realms themselves may be deemed more important than another according to any given set of criteria, but that is not what is being discussed, and the importance of individual realms is beyond the scope of this article. You are conflating the importance or weight of the UK, for the importance and weight of the legal relationship between EII and her realms. trackratte (talk) 03:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy requires that we provide the same emphasis to aspects of subjects (if you will excuse the term) as do reliable sources. It is not important whether the Queen's role as sovereign of Tuvalu is as important as her role as sovereign of the U.K. but how reliable sources order the different offices. TFD (talk) 05:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

And every single hit in your Google searches is a reliable source? Different reliable sources give different emphasis to different realms, anyway. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

It is a Google books search. Of the ten hits on the first page for "queen of the united kingdom", ten were rs. Since some of these books were 19th century, I am searching for 21st century books.[11] Again of the first ten hits, 10 are rs. I provided links so that you could look at the sources yourself, but you appear to not have availed yourself of the opportunity. The reality is that how reliable sources normally describe Elizabeth II is "Queen of the United Kingdom." TFD (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

What does it matter if they're Google Books sources? Google Books doesn't always bring up reliable sources; I've frequently seen books there that are just print versions of what we're writing here on Wikipedia. Even following your link above, the first hit I see is one in which "Queen of the United Kingdom" is used in the context of a question asking in what role Elizabeth performed some act. The second one talks about how she used to act as Queen of the United Kingdom for the affairs of the Australian states. As I said, I don't know, four times now? You're just dumping numbers out, completely ignoring both the context around the use of the words "Queen of the United Kingdom" and the nationality of the author and/or publisher of the source. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion going nowhere

Given as this discussion seems to be going nowhere, does anyone other than TFD support the "UK and 15 other realms" or can we say that the consensus is in favour of retaining "the 16 realms"? Psunshine87 (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Retain - I don't think we really need to |vote on this. It just seems to be TFD extending discussion past the obvious point and into waste-of-time territory. --Pete (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I am merely replying to your comments, such as above, "As you didn't provide any examples from your Google searches - and of course many of them would be fiction, movie plots, blog entries and the like." Obviously you did not look at the links provided or you would have realized that Google books returns hits for books not blogs. That's why it's called "Google books" and not for example "Google blogs." TFD (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

See my comment directly above. I stand corrected on the blog thing, but IMHO you're flogging a dead horse. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should the first sentence of the lead mention that Elizabeth II is Queen of the United Kingdom?

Which of the following should be used as the first sentence in the lead?

1. Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is Queen of the United Kingdom and of fifteen other independent nations, Head of the Commonwealth and Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
2. Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is the constitutional monarch of sixteen realms of the 53-member Commonwealth of Nations (the "Commonwealth"). She is also the head of the Commonwealth, and the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
3. [Other]

TFD (talk) 22:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Survey

• Support 1 as nominator. TFD (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
• Retain 2 - longstanding consensus wording. --Pete (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support 1 - much clearer. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support 2 Option 1 is misleading. There is no justification for highlighting the UK out from the rest of the Commonwealth realms with whom it is entirely--legally, actually--equal. Giving the UK a POV special status would not explain that Elizabeth II is more often directly involved in the governing of that country; words explaining she is would. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
• Retain 2 As per the multiple reliable sources provided below. 1 is simple POV and contrary to policy. trackratte (talk) 00:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support 2 While it's not the best worded sentence, Option 1 puts undue weight on the UK. Psunshine87 (talk) 08:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support either if

  (a) the second sentence becomes "She is also Head of the Commonwealth, the Supreme Governor of the Church of England and, in some of her realms, titled "Defender of the Faith" [something; see below]. ";

  and, if option 1 is used, (b) the first sentence becomes "...is Queen of the United Kingdom and of fifteen other realms of the Commonwealth of Nations (the "Commonwealth")." Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose putting 'Defender of the Faith' so high up. It's really not that relevant. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• Okay – but is there something that might take the place of the "Defender of the Faith" phrase in order to maintain the sentence's "...X, Y and Z" structure? (There's probably one of those Classics words that encapsulates what I mean.) Otherwise, I imagine I'd try to incorporate the Head and Supreme Governor information in a different way, e.g.

"[Elizabeth II ...] is the Head of the [53-member] Commonwealth of Nations (the "Commonwealth"), the constitutional monarch of sixteen of its realms and the Supreme Governor of the Church of England."

Sardanaphalus (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd think her role as monarch (which comes with exercisable power) is more important than her role as Head of the Commonwealth (which is purely ceremonial). I'd flip the wording, then:

Elizabeth II is the constitutional monarch of 16 realms in, and head of, the 53-member Commonwealth of Nations, as well as Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

--Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

How about:

"[Elizabeth II ...] is the constitutional monarch of sixteen realms of the Commonwealth of Nations (the "Commonwealth"). She also serves as its head [and as...]"...?

Mention (or not) of her being Supreme Governor of the CoE, "Defender of the Faith" and/or any other role deemed sufficiently significant may then follow. Sardanaphalus (talk) 07:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• Retain 2 per Miesianiacal. I think that the undue weight argument actually cuts against option 1. In particular, it seems to me to be undue weight to include her position as Supreme Governor of the Church of England in the first sentence, when her positions as Queen of various countries are not mentioned. If you're going to start singling out countries, then you need to explain why other realms that aren't mentioned aren't as significant as her position in the C of E. I see no evidence that reliable sources give her role as Supreme Governor of the Church of England more prominence than her role as, say, Queen of Canada or Queen of Australia. Neljack (talk) 03:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
• Other I agree with Neljack that the Supreme Governorship should be dropped. On the format of the first sentence, I propose that it is clearer and neater to reverse the usual order in this case and put head of the Commonwealth before the queenships, like so:

Elizabeth II is the head of the 53-member Commonwealth of Nations and the constitutional monarch of 16 of its member states. DrKiernan (talk) 07:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• "[Elizabeth II ...] is the head of the Commonwealth of Nations (the "Commonwealth") and the constitutional monarch of sixteen of its member states [or: its 53 member states]."...? Sardanaphalus (talk) 07:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

*Support 2 - The status of the commonwealth realms is equal to the United Kingdom; there is no reason for it to dangle out. Arfæst Ealdwrítere (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• Note Arfæst Ealdwrítere has been indef blocked because CheckUser evidence confirms that the operatore has abusively used multiple accounts. [12]. --TFD (talk) 04:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support 1 - For example, as the monarch of Canada her official title is "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith". Almost everybody would acknowledge her predominately as the Queen of the United Kingdom. This is understandable given the history of the British Empire.ThoAthena (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The words "United Kingdom" are part of the Canadian Royal Style not her Canadian titles. Her official titles, as per the Act, are "Queen", "Head of the Commonwealth", and "Defender of the Faith". Thus, the Royal Style and Titles Act (a style and titles, plural). trackratte (talk) 23:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support 1 - Elizabeth's role as Queen of England/UK is clearly more notable than her role as the monarch of other realms. The lead should duly reflect that fact by specifically calling out the UK. NickCT (talk) 19:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - So everyone is aware, there are a bunch of royalist editors here (i.e. a bunch of sad guys who have some kind of perverse and likely unhealthy attraction to the queen) who are desperately trying to make the point that, legally speaking, the queen is equally the queen of the UK as she is queen of all the other realms. To that sad group of guys; We hear you. We get the point. But Wikipedia is not some kind of technical study in royal legalese. The project is written for your average reader, for whom the most notable "realm" Elizabeth rules over is the UK. NickCT (talk) 19:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I gather you don't have any actual arguments, which is why you are forced to resort to personal attacks and unsupported assertions. As a republican, I am rather amused by your belief in a conspiracy of royalist editors here, though less so by your offensive slurs against those who disagree with you. Neljack (talk) 04:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Not sure that anybody who refers to the "Queen of England" is knowledgeable enough to comment, really. --Pete (talk) 06:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that monarchists are intrinsically too biased to comment on this? As if republicans wouldn't also be? AlexTiefling (talk) 09:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@Neljack: - Actually, if you'd learn to read you could see some of my actual arguments above and strewn throughout multiple archive pages. You, Neljack, like your little pal Mech belong to one of the "15 other realms", and think it unfair that you don't deserve the same mention that the UK gets. Well guess what. You don't deserve the same mention the UK gets cause you come from a nowhere country with more sheep than actual people and GDP that makes you slightly less important than such notable places as Malaysia and Khazakstan. Now get off your patriotic high horse, recognize that WP is not a soapbox, and recognize that the entire rest of the world (i.e. all the important places in the world), sees QEII as the Queen of the UK.

@Skyring: - Good retort. Really.

@AlexTiefling: - I guess I'm suggesting that everyone voting for option 2 here is either doing so b/c they want to conflate the importance of the monarchy, or (in the case of some republicans) conflate the importance of their individual "realm". NickCT (talk) 13:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you can conflate only one thing. What are they conflating those respective things with? And I think your claim steers awfully close to assuming bad faith on the parts of people you disagree with, rather than debating the proposal on its merits. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@AlexTiefling: - I'm sorry. My vocab is failing me. I meant "inflate" (as in, "inflate the importance of"), not "conflate"..... NickCT (talk) 14:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

NickCT, are you unable to engage respectfully with people who disagree with you? Until you came along, this discussion was focusing on the issues. You are derailing it with your incivility and personal attacks. Neljack (talk) 12:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@Neljack: - So I take it when you said that I didn't have any "actual arguments" you felt you were "engag[ing] respectfully". Don't play the game if you ain't willing to take the pounding. NickCT (talk) 14:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

NickCT, if you are unable to abide by WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, then perhaps Wikipedia isn't the "game" for you. An observation that your resort to personal attacks suggests that you lack proper arguments is perfectly legitimate and a far cry from referring to other editors as "a bunch of sad guys who have some kind of perverse and likely unhealthy attraction to the queen". Neljack (talk) 23:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@Neljack: - If a comment isn't directed at any one person Nel it by definition is not a personal attack (which makes it different from your comment). If you felt that comment touched a little too close to home, perhaps you should ask yourself why. NickCT (talk) 04:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

NickCT, there is nothing in WP:NPA that says a personal attack cannot be directed at more than one editor. Your personal attack certainly did not "[touch] a little close to home" - the main reason that I decided it wasn't worth reporting you to ANI was that your statement was so ludicrous that nobody coming across it here would take it seriously. It serves only to discredit you, not any royalist editors there may be here. Neljack (talk) 08:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

@NickCT: You're coming across more like someone who's acting petty and lashing out against those ho have a view different to yours simply because your view isn't (at this time) winning. Personally, I voted for option 2 not because I'm from one of the other 15 realms (although I am) but because the argument in favour of "the UK and the other 15 realms" didn't seem as strong as the argument for "the 16 realms." Psunshine87 (talk) 01:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@Psunshine87: - Does it not strike you as just a little odd that essentially everyone here from one of the "15 other realms" is supporting option 2, and virtually everyone not part of the 15 other realms is supporting option 1? NickCT (talk) 14:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@NickCT: I haven't spent that much time investigating where different users are from. I do find it interesting how you're making this argument only to go on and criticize someone who votes in favour of supporting 2 and is from the US (Jojhutton). Finding ways to belittle people for how they're voting is just you being immature. Psunshine87 (talk) 19:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@Psunshine87: - Come off it. I wasn't belittling anyone. Hutton hit the nail on the head. He recognized it's a question of perspective based on where you are from. The only problem is he didn't realize his "American" or Global perspective is the right perspective here. NickCT (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support 1 Britannica[13] and Burke's[14] both open by describing her as queen of the UK. Even the British Monarchy site puts this title first: "Head of State of the UK and 15 other Commonwealth realms."[15] Clodhopper Deluxe (talk) 10:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Those are British sources, so evidently their British POV is no suprise. Encyclopaedia Britannica literally means "British Encyclopaedia". Burkes is a reference for the British peerage. The British Monarchy site is exactly that. This is not a British article but an international one, so a purely British POV based on British sources is innappropriate in my opinion. trackratte (talk) 12:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

So the Royal family is biased in calling themselves British because they are British and therefore have a British POV. Is that your argument? TFD (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

1. Elizabeth II, the person
2. Monarch, the office
3. Royal family, the people

These are three different concepts. It is unhelpful to talk about one as if it were another. The royal family, for example, is comprised of several different individuals, all resident in England, and all (SFAIK) born in England and citizens of the UK. They have various British titles, for example Duke of Cambridge, Prince of Wales etc. There are no corresponding Australian or Canadian or Jamaican titles. There are no Australian Princes. No Canadian Dukes. No Papua New Guinea Earls. The only member of the Royal family to hold a title in each of the 16 Commonwealth realms is the Queen. Do you understand this? --Pete (talk) 23:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, not understandng your point. The Prince of Wales is just as much the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Cambridge, etc., in Canada as he is in England or Scotland or Wales. The Queen's style and titles in Canada is "Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, [etc]." But articles should be based on reliable sources, not OR TFD (talk) 01:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. Let's break it down for you.

1. Elizabeth II, the person
2. Monarch, the office
3. Royal family, the people

These are three different concepts? YES/NO --Pete (talk) 02:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

What does any of that have to do with this RfC? (And can you please take your comments to the discussion page below.) TFD (talk) 21:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Just responding to you, comrade, where you responded to trackratte above. If you want to move the discussion further down, that's fine. However, i notice that three times you've avoided addressing my point about the royal family not being the same as the Queen or the monarchy. If you don't want to clear this up, that's fine, I'll accept that you prefer obfuscation rather than anything more conducive to productive discussion. --Pete (talk) 23:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support 2 Too much undue weight to mention a single country over the others. I realize that she is best known as the Queen of England, but from my American perspective, I feel that it is my own bias to think that way. So basically I am throwing out my bias and moving toward neutrality.--JOJ ^Hutton 17:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

  @Jojhutton: - From your Global perspective. Not your American perspective. Remember, most those supporting 1 are doing so because they have a perspective from "inside the empire" so to speak. NickCT (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support 1 A lead sentence should succinctly describe what the person is notable for. The Queen's position in the UK is far more heavily discussed (i.e. more notable) than her position in the other 15 realms, so it should be more heavily weighted in the lead. Those citing WP:Undue weight should read it more carefully, as it is explicitly not a demand for "equal weight". Toohool (talk) 01:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support 1. Maybe I'm biased because I'm from Britain .. although maybe I'm also biased in some other way as someone who has no interest whatsoever in the royal family, but the forced equality that prevails in the current wording sits oddly, and is also pretty vague and unclear, with its reference to her being "monarch of sixteen realms". The queen is primarily noted and described, surely, as being the queen of the UK. She and her predecessors are/were only head of state elsewhere for historical reasons to do with the former British empire. As noted, due weight and NPOV are about giving proportionate weight, not equal weight or false equivalence. N-HH talk/edits 08:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support 1 For readability. I don't see a problem with it as while she would be notable for her roles overseas, she is clearly best known for her role in England. --Jersey92 (talk) 14:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• '"Neutrality" requires us to provide the same weight to different aspects of a topic that is found in reliable sources. Most sources mention her office of Queen of the United Kingdom first, if the other nations are mentioned at all. The monarchy's official website says, "The Queen is Sovereign of 15 Commonwealth realms in addition to the UK. She is also Head of the Commonwealth itself, a voluntary association of 54 independent countries."[16] The article about Elizabeth II on the Commonwealth website says, "Aside from the United Kingdom, there are 15 Commonwealth realms in existence today."[17] The Canadian parliament has determined by law that her title in Canada is "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith."

The articles about her predecessors, George VI, George V, Edward VIII, Queen Victoria and so on all place the office of sovereign of the UK first.

The Law Lords wrote in 2005, "But it is now clear, whatever may once have been thought, that the Crown is not one and indivisible.... The Queen is as much the Queen of New South Wales and Mauritius and other territories acknowledging her as head of state as she is of England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom."[18] So legally there is an argument that the Queen's role as head of state of the UK, 15 other sovereign states, and dozens of other territories including overseas territories (some uninhabited), Crown dependencies and sub-national countries, states and provinces is equal. However, neutrality does not require we provide them equal weight in this article.

Also, I think we should avoid jargon such as "Commonwealth realm" in the lead.

TFD (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Your premise is unclear. Here you're all about "putting the UK first". At the NPOV noticeboard you were arguing the opening should be "Queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other sovereign states" because she's "generally known in the world as the 'Queen of the United Kingdom' or the 'Queen of England'." The former doesn't address the latter.

Ignoring the "she's more widely known as" bit, the claim "most sources mention her office of Queen of the United Kingdom first, if the other countries are mentioned at all" is a defence reliant entirely upon the false premise that popularity equals accuracy and neutrality; it does not take into consideration quantification, the quality and origin of the sources, nor the context in which the words "Queen of the United Kingdom" are used. And all you've presented to support it is two or three misrepresented quotes. As has been pointed out to you already by other editors, what you misleadingly call "the monarchy's website" is, in fact, the British monarchy's website, which will, of course, highlight the UK (though, it places the UK last in your quote, not first); the website of the Canadian Crown, of course, refers to her as Queen of Canada. Further, you've already been told the Canadian Royal Styles and Titles Act (even if one does read it as you do, and you know others don't) is one of two oddities among the sixteen there are. How does that do anything but undermine your case? And, yet again, you've ignored context: the biographies of Elizabeth's predecessors use the wording of the time when they reigned; you didn't mention that the articles actually say those monarchs were sovereigns "of the United Kingdom and the Dominions of the British Empire". The UK could not be included among the Dominions since it wasn't one, which is exactly why the term Dominion was abandoned at the beginning of Elizabeth's reign, so the equality of her countries could be communicated by using one term to describe all of them: Commonwealth realm.

So, without a solid argument explaining why the UK should be mentioned first when describing what EIIR is, you present a proposed change that doesn't just mention the UK first--saying she's "the constitutional monarch of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda and Saint Kitts and Nevis" just puts the UK first, as the first sentence of the lede's second paragraph already does--it singles out the UK from the other realms as though it and EIIR's role as Queen of the UK somehow had special status apart from and above the rest of them. That contradicts the established equality of the realms to each other and the equality of Elizabeth's place as queen of each in favour of reflecting your unfounded opinion, which violates WP:NPOV and WP:V. There are various sources that affirm the equality you deny:

• "[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."p.3
• "Britain had to reconcile itself to the fact that it no longer had elevated status within the Commonwealth and that their queen was now equally, officially, and explicitly queen of separate, autonomous realms."p. 28
• "The royal titles adopted in each of the fifteen realms, of which she was equally Queen, would require the assent of the Parliaments of each."[19]
• "The Acts passed by each of the then members of the Commonwealth after the 1952 conference had to reflect the fact that the other members of the Commonwealth were full and equal members with the United Kingdom, so that the Queen was equally Queen of each of her various realms, acting on the advice of her Ministers in each realm."p.18
• "Elizabeth II embodies in her own person many monarchies: she is Queen of Great Britain, but she is equally Queen of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Pakistan, South Africa, and Ceylon... it is now possible for Elizabeth II to be, in practice as well as theory, equally Queen in all her realms."p.52, 369
• "Elizabeth II was equally Queen of Canada and the United Kingdom. The monarch remained shared, but the institution of monarchy had now evolved into independent constitutional entities... Although there was no hesitation among the Queen's realms in showing allegiance to their sovereign by appearing at her Coronation, their lack of official participation in the ceremony itself proclaimed to the world, in a dignified yet visible fashion, their status as equal, independent, and autonomous constitutional monarchies... [T]he Statute of Westminster, passed in 1931, had granted the former colonies full legal independence and had declared that the British and Dominion parliaments were equal in status."[20]
• "We in this country have to abandon any sense of property in the Crown. The Queen, now, clearly, explicitly and according to title, belongs equally to all her realms..." [House of Commons, vol. 512, col. 199]
• "In the Commonwealth the path to equality has led to separate but equal facilities. Perhaps the clearest illustration of this process is the way in which the monarchical part of the constitution has been domesticated in the Commonwealth countries overseas."[21]
• "Britain could no longer rest on its imperial laurels and dreams of former glory; it had to reconcile itself to the fact that it no longer had an elevated status within the Commonwealth and its queen was equally queen of separate autonomous realms."p.144
• "The Imperial Conferences of 1926 and 1930... declared the Dominions to be equal in status with the United Kingdom...

"So what changes in that constitutional relationship had occurred, which the Royal Style and Titles Act reflected? Australia, as a Dominion, was given equal status with the United Kingdom."pp.81, 111

So, the UK is, in fact, not elevated above all and apart from the other realms and Elizabeth II is not more queen of one country than the other.

And, by the way, your header for this survey is also misleading: the first sentence already says Elizabeth II is Queen of the United Kingdom; the United Kingdom is one of the Commonwealth realms. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality does not mean that we treat each office equally, but that we reflect how reliable sources treat them. As I pointed out, the Queen is equally sovereign of all her territories, but that is irrelevant. And what you call the "British monarchy's website" is the website of the royal family, maintained by them, while what you call "the website of the Canadian Crown", is actually the page of the Government of Canada website explaining Canada's head of state. But as you accept, the Queen's official title in Canada is "of the United Kingdom, Canada....Queen." TFD (talk) 02:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Your first sentence: reliable sources treat them equally, see the 10 sources just presented. 2nd: That is not what he calls it, its what it calls itself with a header of "Welcome to the official website of the British Monarchy", it can't get any clearer than that. 3rd: www.royal.gov.uk/ is a gov website. canadiancrown.gc.ca is a gov (gc) website in exactly the same way. 4: Abjectly false. trackratte (talk) 02:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, it pointed out that the Queen is equally queen of all her territories. But reliable sources still normally refer to her as Queen of the United Kingdom. And while the British government hosts the royal family's website, it is the royal family's website as you have just quoted. It says it is prepared by Buckingham Palace staff. It has sections about her roles in all her various realms and territories and information about her family and how to contact them. The Canadian government web page merely explains her role as head of state of Canada. TFD (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The website that you're citing is a British site for the British monarchy. It is a government site maintained by the British monarchy. The website for the Canadian monarchy is run by the Canadian government and names Elizabeth II as the Queen of Canada, as does the website for the Canadian Governor General, the Queen's representative in Canada. The website for the Governor General of New Zealand refers to her as the Queen of New Zealand. This site is run by the government of New Zealand on behalf of the Queen's representative in New Zealand. And so on. Saying that because the official website for the British monarchy refers to the Queen as the Queen of the UK and the other Commonwealth Realms it's appropriate for Wikipedia to do so is displaying a bias towards the British monarchy over the other 15 realms that also have the Queen as the head of state. Furthermore, on the website for the British monarchy the Queen is referred to as "Queen of X" when you go into the individual pages for her realms, where X is that realm, not "the UK and whatever realm's page we're on." In fact, in all of the pages it says some variation of "The Queen's relationship to St Vincent and the Grenadines is unique. In all her duties, she speaks and acts as Queen of St Vincent and the Grenadines, and not as Queen of the United Kingdom." Psunshine87 (talk) 08:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The site says, "This is the official web site of the British Monarchy. Written and managed by the Royal Household at Buckingham Palace, the site aims to provide an authoritative resource of information about the Monarchy and Royal Family, past and present."[22] It says on the home page "Choose your Commonwealth Realm". IOW Elizabeth II is responsible for the website. She is not responsible for the Government of Canada's page explaining the role of the Crown in Canada. TFD (talk) 15:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

"This is the official web site of the British Monarchy." That's your problem, right there. --Pete (talk) 20:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

That is how they choose to describe themselves, consistent with how they are normally described in reliable sources. If you want to persuade them to change that description, then I suggest you contact them, but Wikipedia is not the place to correct common usage. Tell them you think it should be called "the official website of the Monarchy/(Monarchies?) of 16 Commonwealth Realms." TFD (talk) 00:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you really not see the problem? This whole lengthy discussion is just your failure to understand? --Pete (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

That is how they choose to describe themselves in Britain. In other nations they refer to themselves as being of that nation. Psunshine87 (talk) 16:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

That is how they choose to describe themselves period. There are links on the website where you can contact them and ask them to describe themselves differently. TFD (talk) 03:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

You're not getting it. Why on earth should the British monarchy describe itself as something else? Looking at it another way, it's like describing the USA as California and 49 other states. --Pete (talk) 09:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I thought your point was that in Australia for example they might describe themselves as the Australian royal family. TFD (talk) 12:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

What an odd concept. No. --Pete (talk) 16:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

So what is your point about the royal family calling themselves on their website the "British monarchy" (your hightlights)? TFD (talk) 05:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The point about the monarchy is that it is divisible. You can't do that with the people. You do understand this point? --Pete (talk) 06:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Certainly the monarchy is divisible. That is explained in the House of Lords decision which you read http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd051013/quark-1.htm[ here] The Crown in Right of the the United Kingdom was divisible from the Crowns in right of New York, India, Ontario, Hanover, etc. But George III was called the "King of the United Kingdom" in the colonies, the Empire was called the "British Empire". subjects of Her Majesty were called "British subjects" until 1981. even if they lived in republics. The first divided Crown must have been when Cabot claimed Newfoundland, but we do not call Henry VIII king of two realms. But the issue is not constitutional law, but terminology that is normally used. Charles is the "Duke of Cornwall" and called that in Cornwall. But his article calls him the "Prince of Wales" because that is how he is called outside Cornwall. Do you think that is an anti-Cornwall POV? TFD (talk) 06:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

What I'm seeing is you flogging a dead horse. --Pete (talk) 10:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

@Skyring: - You're more of a stubborn mule than a dead horse. NickCT (talk) 19:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Duke of Normandy

The "Duke of Normandy" is her highest title in the Channel Islands, according to the British monarchy's website[23]. On the other hand, everywhere else her highest title is "Queen..." hence adding the "Duke of Normandy" to the top of the page but not "Duke of [some place in England]". SteveSims (talk) 00:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no section on the power QE has

This article is like PR given out by the Queen's press officer. The Queen has considerable powers in the UK. These are not mentioned. She is NOT a symbolic head of state. She has power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.64.123.151 (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Covered in Monarchy of the United Kingdom. This article is about her as a person rather than the powers, or otherwise, of the office of monarch. DrKiernan (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)