Talk:Elizabeth II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Elizabeth II is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 2, 2012.

Philip of Greece and Denmark[edit]

What is the best way of mentioning Prince Philip on the main infobox of Elizabeth's article? Should it be Philip of Greece and Denmark or Philip Mountbatten? Because all of the consorts are mentioned on the infoboxes of their spouses' articles by the titles they held before their marriages, for example Queen Alexandra as Alexandra of Denmark, Queen Mary as Mary of Teck and Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother as Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. Keivan.fTalk 13:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I see no easy way of choosing between "Philip, Duke of Edinburgh" and "Philip of Greece and Denmark" because they are as natural, recognizable and precise as each other, as well as being the same length. I wouldn't use "Philip Mountbatten" though because, although it is another of his names, it is far, far less recognizable than either one of the other two. DrKay (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
@Keivan.f: See advice at WP:CONSORTS... Firebrace (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
@Firebrace It's better for you to read WP:CONSORTS again. The most common names for consorts like Alexandra and Mary are Alexandra of Denmark and Mary of Teck. Many consorts, particularly of England and France, are known in English as "{Name} of {Place}". Prince Philip's article must be titled as Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh because he's still alive and maybe after his death the article's title remains as it is. Anyway it has nothing to do with Elizabeth's infobox. The common name usage is a rule for articles' main titles not the names that are used in the body of a page. I just changed the title Duke of Edinburgh to Philip of Greece and Denmark to mention that he had a title on his own before marring Elizabeth. Albert, Prince Consort is also mentioned as Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha on Queen Victoria's article. You can find numerous other examples on the other articles. Keivan.fTalk 07:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Anyway I won't revert your edits until we find a solution here. I don't want to engage in an edit war. Keivan.fTalk 07:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
He disposed of the titles Prince of Greece and Denmark and Prince of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg before he married Princess Elizabeth. At the point he actually married her He was Lt. Philip Mountbatten RN. So I don't think he should be called Prince of Greece and Denmark in the context of his being Elizabeth's husband. I know that Mary of Teck, discarded the Teck title during her tenure of Queen consort, and that her family adopted the surname Cambridge, but at least she was still Princess of Teck when she married. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Not all consorts are referred to by the names/titles they had before their marriages. In fact, Prince Albert (a better parallel to Prince Philip as he was also a male consort and didn't take his title from his wife], is referred to as his post-marriage title of Albert, Prince Consort on his wife's infobox and not his birth given title of Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Psunshine87 (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Well as long as I know he's referred to as Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha on Victoria's infobox. Keivan.fTalk 18:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
He was Philip Mountbatten, Duke of Edinburgh, at the time of his wedding. He had already given up his Greek & Danish titles, fraternal family names & adopted his maternal family's surname. King George VI, had already bestowed the title 'Duke of Edinburgh' on him. GoodDay (talk)
Is that so GoodDay? I own a copy of the order of service for the marriage ceremony. There he is described as Lt. Philip Mountbatten RN. That is not to say that I think he should be described in the infobox as that. He simply should be Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh there. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
He was created Duke of Edinburgh the morning of his wedding (by which time the order of service had already been printed). Biblioteqa (talk) 05:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
As I understood it, he gave up his Greek & Danish princely titles before his marriage. He wasn't created a British prince until 1957. As for his being in the British Navy? we don't really need to show that. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
The forces require surnames, but I believe royals are allowed to choose their own. So Prince Harry chose Wales, while other members of the family chose Windsor. TFD (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh is best because he is most commonly known by both those names. Prince Albert was different, he never received any noble titles in the UK and did not use his German title of Duke of Saxony. Also "Saxe-Coburg and Gotha" became the name of the royal house. TFD (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Length of Reign section[edit]

I am not sure that the person that added this read the article...as in it already mentioned...that said..does it merit its own section? -- Moxy (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

IMHO, the section should be deleted. It's already mentioned in the article that she's now the longest reigning monarch in the history of the British Isles. As for the 'future' dates? those can be added into the article content, when/if she passes those records. Also, a Jacobite pretender's claim, is irrelevant. GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Agree with your assessment. -- Moxy (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
So do I. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Queen role model[edit]

Hi. This is a bit hard to put in, but I want to know more about how the Queen does this big job. She has Queen of many countries, and knows all the leaders and they never oppose her. I we should say something that she is a role-model. She is never geting angry and never argues or fights, and follows her duty. She is always the patron of many groups, but what does she do there. She teaches them by example, not by giving orders. No other leader is like this alive. And always gives encouragement. I am not a good writer, but we should find something to say about this special style of leader. 81.17.242.228 (talk) 22:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)