Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16

Why give age in info box... ?

Something caught my eye & hit me in a kind of funny way when I read the info box:

Born 21 April 1926 (age 82) Mayfair, London

At first glance, *age 82* between parentheses makes it appear as if Elizabeth was 82 years old when she was born.

Then one realises that *age 82* must have been the age when info box was filled; however, when one looks at the photograph that says *Elizabeth in 2007*, result of the calculation is *81* !!! Very confusing!

Now since someone who reads a wiki article is supposed to be able to read, write & count, (oh! why should wiki readers be treated as if they were first graders???!!!) why is it necessary to put an age beside a date? Queen Elisabeth being born in 1926, she will be 83 on her 2009 birthday, as she was 80 at same in 2006. Anyone should be able to calculate her age & there is no reason to burden the info box with unnecessary details that become obsolete as years change.

An info box should be 'slim', i.e. show exact details in a concise manner, no unnecessary details that either one can calculate or are developed in article. An info box should be read at a glance with no question needed to be asked.

Not an 'habituée' of English history article, I am not going to change anything in info box - only wanted to give my point of view.

Frania W. (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

How is the date under the photograph confusing? Surely if most users can count, most users can also tell that photographs don't magically update themselves every year. Could you explain how anyone could intelligently assume that she is 81 because of that? It also won't become obsolete. The age automatically updates on April 21 each year, as it's an age calculation template. Currently she is 82. On April 21 this year, it will change to 83 without any intervention by an editor.--Ibagli rnbs mbs (Talk) 08:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. Most biography pages list the age after the dob. Check out some other politician's wikipedia pages for comparison. It's perfectly standard. ;) --Cameron* 16:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello! No, it is not the date under the photograph that is confusing, it is the ensemble of dates with the age given between parentheses beside *born*. When you know that it is meant to be the age at present time, it is fine; however, it can be confusing at first glance when one is not used to wikipedia style. Why not have right in front of that age something like *present age*. And I do maintain what I wrote above: Something ... hit me in a kind of funny way, because, if unaware of wikipedia template activities, one reads born on such a date at such an age. That's all! Frania W. (talk) 17:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Previously discussed at Template talk:Birth date and age/Archive 1#born aged 42 - ouch!, Template talk:Birth date and age/Archive 1#Why display the age?, Template talk:Birth date and age#Suggestion: current age. Also raised at other biography talk pages (Spinney, Williams, Hughes, Stewart, Bush, to mention a few). This seems to be a big problem for some, but the people over at the template talk page stress space concerns instead. —JAOTC 18:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Jao: Thank you for forwarding previous discussions on subject. At least it makes me feel less *silly* for having asked the question when others are getting the same impression on reading the age between parentheses after DOB. If that age needs to be shown for a person still alive, then why not put it higher up by that person's name, or have a separate line under born with *age at present* or something of the sort. Again thank you. Frania W. (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

57 years today!

As of today, she has been queen for 57 years, so this needs updating. Is there any way that the length of her reign can be calculated automatically? 62.60.103.9 (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. GoodDay (talk) 16:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Excellent & informative comment GoodDay! Misortie (talk) 15:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Great comment commenting on the comment, Misortie! :)
It would also be nice if readers could calculate in their own head instead of having everything done for them... automatically! How about an automatic reading or thinking *machinepedia*? We have entered the *Era of no effort*! Frania W. (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Why even have Wikipedia? Most of the information on here is available for everyone to find on their own. They shouldn't be so lazy by wanting facts from an encyclopedia.--Ibagli rnbs mbs (Talk) 18:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

"Cough" Misortie (talk) 17:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"one of only a few monarchs to reign over parts of every continent on earth"?

Assuming this bit refers to current monarchs, then surely she is the only one to do so? 81.158.1.233 (talk) 02:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but why are you assuming that? The wording seems rather ambiguous to me. By the way, have you read the #Every Continent? section. —JAOTC 13:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't really accept this claim. There are three sticking points: (1) Asia: the Chagos archipelago is a continuation of the Maldives ridge, and hence part of the Asian continental land mass, but I think it more likely that this claim actually derives from her once ruling in Hong Kong; (2) Antarctica: it can be argued that "reign over" is but a short step from "claims territory in" but this is at best a circumlocution; (3) Africa: St Helena and its dependencies are on the Mid-Atlantic ridge, and so are no more a part of the African plate than the South American one. While one can argue that the islands are slightly to the west of the Mid-Atlantic ridge, and so are a part of the African plate, this is still an argument rather than an undisputed fact. One can also argue that having jurisdiction over barely inhabited islands lying hundreds of miles off the coast of a continent is not the same as ruling part of a continent itself. The ambiguity and complexity of the statement, the lack of a direct cite, and its potential for dispute, are in my view all reasons to remove or at least rephrase it. DrKiernan (talk) 08:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Its a grandiose statement that adds little, is not cited and not true (Antarctica alone makes this point) --Snowded (talk) 08:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, if this page ever does get near Wikipedia:Featured article status, it looks like it'll have to go. DrKiernan (talk) 08:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Your amendment is better - but the sentence should go. Any objection if I remove it? --Snowded (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Not from me. DrKiernan (talk) 08:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The Queen's "surname"

I've reverted the insertion of a "surname" for The Queen. Please read Her Majesty's declaration more carefully: (my bold)

My Lords Whereas on the 9th day of April 1952, I did declare in Council My Will and Pleasure that I and My children shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that My descendants, other than female descendants who marry and their descendants, shall bear the name of Windsor: And whereas I have given further consideration to the position of those of My descendants who will enjoy neither the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness, nor the titluar dignity of Prince and for whom therefore a surname will be necessary: And whereas I have concluded that the Declaration made by Me on the 9th day of April 1952, should be varied in its application to such persons: Now therefore I declare My Will and Pleasure that, while I and My Children shall continue to be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, My descendants other than descendants enjoying the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess and female descendants who marry and their descendants shall bear the name of Mountbatten-Windsor.

I took the liberty of reverting as such a change would potentially affect all the articles of titled royals of Elizabeth's close family. --Cameron* 15:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted the deletion of a surname for the Queen. Please read her declaration more carefully: (my bold)
My Lords
Whereas on the 9th day of April 1952, I did declare in Council My Will and Pleasure that I and My children shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that My descendants, other than female descendants who marry and their descendants, shall bear the name of Windsor:
And whereas I have given further consideration to the position of those of My descendants who will enjoy neither the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness, nor the titluar dignity of Prince and for whom therefore a surname will be necessary:
And whereas I have concluded that the Declaration made by Me on the 9th day of April 1952, should be varied in its application to such persons:
Now therefore I declare My Will and Pleasure that, while I and My Children shall continue to be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, My descendants other than descendants enjoying the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess and female descendants who marry and their descendants shall bear the name of Mountbatten-Windsor. FactStraight (talk) 12:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I can't see what you are referring to. I'm reverting for now though, we don't have enough input for such drastic changes (such changes affect the articles on many members of the RF. I took the liberty of putting in a note at the British Royalty WikiProject). Also, I'd like to see a source. Her Majesty's website states she does not need a surname. She signs all official documents with 'Elizabeth' (R) and does not have a passport. Prince Charles, who does have a passport, does not use a surname (a pic of The Prince of Wales' passport). --Cameron* 13:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Reading it very carefully indeed, it would appear that - contrary to expectations, individual members of the Royal Family do not have surnames. What she is saying here is that the Royal Family shall be known as the "House and Family of Windsor" - i.e. collectively. They are, indeed, the Windsor family, but a surname is a more specific legal concept. Those descendants of the Royal Family who don't have royal titles shall, according to this proclamation, have the legal surname Mountbatten-Windsor. But this, quite explicity, excludes all those with a royal title such as HRH or HM. ðarkuncoll 13:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
But you have only addressed part of her declaration. What about the words "My descendants, other than female descendants who marry and their descendants, shall bear the name of Windsor" When she uses the word "name" here, she cannot be referring to "given name", since each family member has one that differs from others'. She can only be referring to the surname of herself and those of her children who are not "female descendants who marry", i.e. Anne. The fact that she and other royals don't use their surname is their business, but doesn't alter the Queen's decree. Her grandchildren with royal titles may have different surnames, because this declaration does not stipulate that their name is Windsor (although children normally take the surname of their fathers -- but if not, that simply means they have some other surname, not that they have none at all). But for the Queen and her own children, where is there doubt? Source? On the Royal Family's official website, in the section called "The Royal Family name", it is stated "In 1917, there was a radical change, when George V specifically adopted Windsor, not only as the name of the 'House' or dynasty, but also as the surname of his family...The Royal Family name of Windsor was confirmed by The Queen after her accession in 1952." If George V had a surname (and he never had occasion to use it), when did Elizabeth II and other royal members of the dynasty lose it? The language is plain, and it is reputably sourced. FactStraight (talk) 15:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
You seem to be ignoring the bit before "female descendents who marry", where those styled HRH and/or who are princes or princesses are also excluded. Aslo the royal.gov.uk doesn't specifically say it was his surnmae, just that it was adopted as the surname for members of the house (implicitly, for those who needed a surname). David Underdown (talk) 15:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I can't see any portion of the decrees of George V or Elizabeth II which leave any of their male-line descendants without a surname. Yes, the surname varies between Windsor and Mountbatten-Windsor, and titulature affects that variance. But it is simply inaccurate for these articles to reflect a view by those who are plus royal que la reine and keep asserting "royalty don't have surnames", despite the historical evidence (Elizabeth I was a Tudor, James I was a Stuart -- no law or decree ever stripped them of those surnames) and decrees (1917, 1960) which definitively state otherwise. No "implicit" deduction can contradict the plain language used by George V, Elizabeth II and the Royal Household website, all of which affirm that members of the Royal Family, with or without "royal titles and styles", do have surnames. Usage is a red herring: I don't have to use something to possess or retain it. And the fact that I sometimes change my name, or call myself by aliases for convenience (noms de guerre, noms de plume, noms de "incognito"), doesn't ipso facto mean that at any point I have no surname at all. FactStraight (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Those earlier ones were of the House of Stuart, or Tudor certainly, but that doesn't necessarily imply a surname of Stuart or Tudor. Returning to the current situation, those who are in the male-line and are HRH and/or Prince are logically excluded from the passage which says "their name shall be Mountbatten-Windsor".
I believe Charles signed his wedding certificate Mountbatten-Windsor but it was emphasized that this was 'in honour of his father'. --Cameron* 13:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Charles and his sons have certainly been known to use both "Mountbatten-Windsor" and "Wales" on official forms and such. ðarkuncoll 13:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, the Yorks use York as a surname sometimes too and Prince Eddy used Wessex while he had his production company. After his exile King Constantine II of Greece has been refused a Greek passport due to the fact that he does not have a surname. Personally, I'd sue them through the European Court of Human Rights but he doesn't seem too worried as the Danish Royal Family have issued him a passport instead. A personal friend of Prince Charles, he is referred to as King Constantine on official royal invitations etc...--Cameron* 14:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Remember, the Queen or her successors, are allowed to change the Royal House name & surnames. It's possible Charlie, may opt for House of Mountbatten (but that's another story). GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
It would be very ungrateful of him to insult his mother that way. 67.100.203.155 (talk) 04:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.203.247 (talk)

If you do a web search for "Prince William's Birth Certificate" you can see that there are no surnames on it at all, except in the section for mother's maiden name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.212.36.188 (talk) 22:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Religion

The Queen's religion is described, in the box, as being Anglican, is this technically true?

I do not know anything about her personal faith, but whilst she is Sup. Gov of the CofE, she is also, when in Scotland, Presbyterian.

I am just suggested an edit to "Anglican, Church of Scotland". RAMscram (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Her religious beliefs do not change when she crosses the border. Her personal affliation is CoE. -Rrius (talk) 21:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I can buy that broadly, but the rest of the box is about Elizabeth II qua queen. As private person she may be Anglican, but as Monarch she is a member of the Church of Scotland. RAMscram (talk) 09:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
As Queen of Scotland, Elizabeth is a member of the Church of Scotland. (See the statement on the crown website: "The Queen is therefore not the Supreme Governor of the Church of Scotland, but an ordinary member.") When the Queen worships in Scotland it is with the Church of Scotland (see the Kirk's page on "Church, State and Kirk"), so the royal chaplains in Scotland are Church of Scotland appointments (Kirk webpage: "the Church of Scotland [...] from which the chaplains of the Royal Household in Scotland are appointed" as well as this Scotsman article). And in fact the Queen faithfully attends Kirk every Sunday when she is in Balmoral (see this Scotsman article). (See also the last paragraph of this Telegraph article.) So, on this evidence, she is not only a full member of the Church of Scotland in law, but also a regularly practising member in fact.
(It seems plausible to suggest that Elizabeth thinks of herself as primarily an Anglican and only secondarily a member of the Church of Scotland. But given the facts above, that wouldn't be enough to make her religious affiliation only Anglican and not additionally Church of Scotland. And anyhow I see no evidence here to support the suggestion at present.) RW Dutton (talk) 23:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Is she a member of the C of S by personal decision or just ex officio? 131.111.164.219 (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I would question that the Queen and her Consort attend St George's Chapel, Windsor regularly; I have spoken to one of her personal Chaplains [who used to live locally to me] on the subject and I gather that the Chapel is far too "high Church" for them and "The Royal Chapel of All Saints, Windsor Great Park, is regularly used by The Queen.", to quote from an unnamed website source. They much prefer a simple Book of Common Prayer style of service with Mattins rather than Holy Communion every week - the latter to be preferred for high Holy Days like Chrismas and Easter. [DSB 9/05/09] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.100.104 (talk) 03:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Most English people who are C of E and regular churchgoers, when visiting Scotland would seek out a Church of Scotland church to attend, ahead of a Cathcolic or other church. To me that in itself isn't a sign of a genuine personal Church of Scotland affiliation. There may be other evidence though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.212.36.188 (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

If they're CofE, these days they would probably be more likely to go to the Scottish Episcopal Church actually as that'sthe Scottish province of the Anglican Communion. David Underdown (talk) 19:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Aye, that would be my thinking: The CoE is an episcopalian church, the CoS is Presbyterian. I don't know about "these days", however - the Scottish Episcopal church has a long history, pre-dating the Act of Union - there's been a CoE surrogate in Scotland for many centuries. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 22:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Indeed but it's rather a compliacted history, the non-juring schism drove it underground, and in various discussions here on the early history of the Episcopal Church (United States) it was pointed out that for a long time it was only the most High Church who saw Cofe and SEC as natural counterparts, may would simply switched from one established church to the other as they crosse dthe border (as HM still does, though of course CofS is no longer actually established). But this is getting a little off topic for this article now. David Underdown (talk) 09:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect attribution of Thatcher Quote

Treknet1 (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The Thatcher quote (footnote 108) is incorrectly cited. The webpage to which the citation points does not have the actual quote in the body of its text.

However, the quote is correct. It comes from the following source.

Thatcher, M. (1993). The Downing Street Years (p. 18) New York: HarperCollins. ISBN 0-06-0170565

The article text should be updated to cite it accordingly. However, my account is not autoconfirmed so I don't have the ability to do it myself. Anyone who can assist would be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Treknet1 (talkcontribs) 21:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

First Monarch to Circumnavigate

The article incorrectly states that Elizabeth II was the first monarch to circumnavigate the globe. The first one to do so was King Kalākaua of Hawaii in the late 1800's. The article should be changed to reflect that she was the first British monarch to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.34.145 (talk) 19:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have source for that claim? --Knowzilla 09:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The Queen of Tahiti also did, at the same time of history. Gallagher06 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.52.58.88 (talk) 01:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Do either of you have sources for either of those? -Rrius (talk) 06:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Both of these IPs have only under 3 edits. No sources provided for either of the claims. I am unable to find any reliable sources for these claims, after so long. I'm going to place that sentence back in the article, there's enough evidence for it. Make any objections here, just as long as you have evidence. --Knowzilla 15:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Queen MARAU, who was the consort to King Pomare V of the Kingdom of Tahiti and dependencies (which was united with France in 1880), travelled to France and back to Tahiti. However she was a Queen-consort, not a Monarch in her own right. I also question the fact that King George V may also have circumnavigated (which I'm not sure), along with his brother (the one who died before him), before he was king, when he was in the Navy?
I recently placed the sentence back in the article, but it was taken off again by User:Snowded. There is enough evidence for that sentence, a simple google search proves so [1]. --Knowzilla 15:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I took it out because you reinserted it without citation after it had been challenged. I also think its not of particular note, most widely travelled is. A lot of the google search results are wikipedia links or web site without any great authority. I didn't trawl through them as I think its un noteworthy, but if you can find a government site or similar that supports it I won't oppose. --Snowded (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
The Hawaiian King's article describes his circumnavigation with a cite to a writing by the King describing his travels. Perhaps adding the sentence back but qualifying "monarch" with "British" would be reasonable. -Rrius (talk) 20:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
"British monarch", yeah, nevertheless George V might have perfomed the circumnavigation as well, though he was not a King yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.52.58.88 (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
If you can find any evidence, have at it. In the meantime, I'm adding it back with a ref. -Rrius (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
If she was the first British monarch to circumnavigate the planet, then surely she was the first Australian monarch, South African, Canadian, and the like, to do so as well. I tentatively put in "Commonwealth realms monarch" to npov the statement, but also avoid the implication that there's any kind of supernational title. --Miesianiacal (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I reject that "British" was POV. Being underinclusive is not the same thing as expressing a particular point of view. The continued use of the terms "POV" and "NPOV" when it is not, or not necessarily, applicable is unhelpful as it tends to pointlessly inflame passions. I doubt that was your goal, but I know you are aware that that happens quite easily around here. -Rrius (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I realise the point of view acronym has become tinged with a pejorative flavour around here, but by using it I meant that one particular national descriptor was being singled out for no apparent reason other than personal choices (not to single you out as being guilty alone, of course). It certainly wasn't intended as an accusation of any purposeful promotion of a pov, merely that it seemed one had occurred, as being under-inclusive leaves one begging the question: why was Britain highlighted with favour over all the others? I believe that sometimes what one doesn't say can have as much meaning as what one says. --Miesianiacal (talk) 23:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
But even your language here, "one particular national descriptor was being singled out for no apparent reason other than personal choices", implies an intentionality, which implication is not warranted. The point is that most people, if put in the position of having to qualify the claim that she was the first monarch to circle the globe after learning that another country's monarch did it first, would use the term "British" or even "English" without second thought. It is by no means a conscious choice, but rather a reflection that she is most closely associated with the UK and that in her day-to-day life, she acts mostly within her role as Queen of the UK rather than Queen of any other realm or all of those realms put together. To be clear, it is not an attempt to disguise her associations with the other realms because of the major association with Britain, rather it is an unconscious reflection of the latter.
It's been a long time since I've read WP:NPOV, but I vaguely recall that it is not just about intentional POV-pushing, but also about unconscious expressions of one's point of view. None the less, as the terms "POV" and "NPOV" are used on talk pages, they generally refer to intentional acts, and are going to be understood that way by editors. That is especially the case on talk pages with many UK-Commonwealth, monarchy-republican, and unionist-separatists discussions. I can maintain a sense of humour about allegations of POV in these debates because I am an American, but on a broader level, I think the best if we try not to throw around those terms. Anyway, pontificating over, carry on. -Rrius (talk) 00:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
If I may reiterate my previous statement: It certainly wasn't intended as an accusation of any purposeful promotion of a pov. We all harbour our own povs, and no doubt express them even when unaware of doing do; I'm sure I'm no less guilty of doing so than anyone else. My apologies if the way I expressed my observations was muddied enough to cause misinterpretation. --Miesianiacal (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
No offence was taken, and I don't believe you intended to cause any. I just wanted to make the broader point because Wikipedia became more combative and less fun for me a couple months ago. -Rrius (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough; I understand. --Miesianiacal (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Rrius, I don't have any reliable or academic sources for George V, but the Wikipedia page for George V (as well as his brother's one) lists the country where he went while in the Navy (including North America, Australia etc.) 92.143.83.199 (talk) 23:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Wonderful, but going all kinds of places on multiple trips (it was as a boy, not in while serving in the Royal Navy), does not mean circumnavigating the globe. Circumnavigating means going from point A back to point A in a path that circles the globe. I have put in a reference to a site saying EII was the first of them to circle the world. It is of course possible that it is wrong, but it is on you to prove that, not merely to raise the possibility that it is. So, once again, if you have any evidence, have at it. -Rrius (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Rrius, is the site you put in reference an academic source? On the "Royal visit in Australia" Wikipedia page, I can read: "The first visit was by Prince Alfred, son of Queen Victoria, in 1867, during his 'round-the-world voyage. (...) Prince George, aged 15, visited Australia with his older brother Prince Albert - age 17, in 1881, as midshipmen in training on the HMS Bacchante." The same story is written on the British Royal Family official website at [2]: "The very first Royal visitor to Australia was Prince Alfred, Queen Victoria's second son, and later Duke of Edinburgh" (...) "In 1901, the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and York (later King George V and Queen Mary) visited Melbourne to open the first Federal Parliament" (...) "Edward, the Prince of Wales arrived in Victoria on 2 April 1920 representing his father, King George V". Obviously, Prince Alfred never became a Monarch. What about Prince George (future King George V)? "For three years from 1879 the royal brothers served as midshipmen on HMS Bacchante, accompanied by Dalton. They toured the British Empire, visiting Norfolk, Virginia, the colonies in the Caribbean, South Africa and Australia, as well as the Mediterranean, South America, the Far East, and Egypt." From London to the West Indies, South Africa, Australia, South America, OK. Does it mean they circumnavigated? I don't know. I can't say. 92.143.83.199 (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I imagine that the Biography Channel has some standing as a reliable source. The other royals you mention - besides there not being any hard evidence that they circumnavigated the globe in reaching and returning from Australia - were not monarchs when they undertook those voyages. Is it necessary to say "first reigning monarch" in order to avoid any potential problems? --Miesianiacal (talk) 00:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
The one quotation you provide that refers to circumnavigation is from Wikipedia. Try again. The others only suggest that these people traveled. You seem to acknowledge that they do not establish the George V or anyone else circumnavigated the globe, so what was the point of listing them? -Rrius (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

William N. Armstrong's Around the World with a King is just one of many sources for Kalakaua's journey. The source provided for Elizabeth's claim does not say "first Commonwealth monarch"; it says "first monarch", which is wrong. I think the phrase should be removed. I've never had much time for the "reliability, not truth" dictat. We should aim for truth; just because someone in authority makes a mistake, does not mean that we have to slavishly follow their errors. DrKiernan (talk) 08:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You are assuming that the source has no context. I don't think it is supposed to mean the first monarch from any country. Without a good reason to challenge the veracity of the statement, we should let it be for the time being. -Rrius (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. The two statements bracketing the claim in the source indicate a global context. Note also that she is called the first reigning monarch of Fiji, though supporters of Cakobau's claim to that title will disagree. It ignores the achievements of native kings, and concentrates solely on a traditional white European interpretation. Our article should be neutral as well as factual. I appreciate that the inherent racism is both unintentional and a matter of perception, but I don't think there's a need to include dubious and potentially offensive claims when they are unnecessary and the article can quite happily exist without them. DrKiernan (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, British should be re-inserted as Elizabeth II is known internationally as Queen of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 15:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Issue

Is it normal to refer the the children of the UK royal family as Issue. Perhaps this can be changed to Children instead. scope_creep (talk) 13:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Its normal --Snowded (talk) 13:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Normal, if you're British.... Tvoz/talk 21:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Contradictory info in article

In the introduction it says She is the fourth longest-reigning British monarch, after Victoria (who reigned over the United Kingdom for 63 years), George III (who reigned over Great Britain for 59 years), and James VI (who reigned over Scotland for over 57 years).

Yet in the subsection "Health and reduced duties" it says: after which she became the third longest reigning British or English monarch.

I am guessing there are differing interpretations of whether Scotland is to be included in "British" here, but as an American reader, it appears to be contradictory. So, perhaps it should be re-worded. Tvoz/talk 21:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

She is currently the fourth longest. 4: Herself. 3: Victoria. 2: George III. 1: James VI. ðarkuncoll 23:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
In fact, Victoria is the longest reigning monarch in British history, so the list just above ought to be 4: Herself. 3: James VI of Scotland. 2: George III. 1: Victoria. Ondewelle (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

1. She's the third longest reigning British monarch, and the 4th longest reigning monarch on the British Isles. James VI reigned first in Scotland, and later as King of Great Britain, England and Scotland after the Act of Union. Thankfully, after October she'll be the third longest reigning monarch of Britain and in the British Isles, and so we won't need to make the distinction. Benkenobi18 (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Not correct when you mention James VI reigning as King of Great Britain as James I from 1603. The Act of Union between England and Scotland did not take place until 1707. England, Scotland, and Ireland were all completely separate countries with their own legislatures and Head of State until the Act of Union of 1707 (where England and Scotland merged to form the country of Great Britain, with the Scottish House of Lords and Commons being abolished. However, Ireland was not part of this Union, and contiuned as a completely separate country with its own House of Lords and Commons until the formation of the United Kingdom in 1801). So James VI ascended the throne of Scotland in 1567, and separately ascended the throne of England in 1603. Since he died in 1625, James VI & I (which is his correct designation) reigned for 58 years in Scotland only and 22 years only in England (together with 22 years only in Ireland). So his most enduring reign of 58 years is solely a Scottish one, NOT a British one. However, if you wish to use 'British terminology' here, you need to adopt the geographical (not political) terminology of 'British Isles'. However, even today this terminology is now avoided since, geographically, this includes the island of Ireland, which is not necessarily welcomed by the Irish! The formal reference used for the 'British Isles' in Foreign & Commonwealth memoranda is 'North West European archipelago'. So, to be politically correct, and up-to-date, if you wish to refer to James VI's 58 year reign in Scotland in a geographically (and not politically) British context, you need to rank him in reference to the delightful term 'North West European Archipelago'. So it is incorrect where it states in the article that Her Majesty is the 'third-longest' reigning monarch in 'British/English' history. In terms of the British Isles, she is fourth longest as noted above (1. Victoria 63 years as Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland 2. George III nearly 60 years as King of Great Britain and Ireland and then United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland 3. James VI 58 years as King of Scotland 4. Elizabeth II currently 57 years as Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). 'Third longest' is wrong factually within the context of the British Isles, and 'British-English' is terribly wrong in both political and geographical terminology from every angle you care or wish to mention!!!

Ds1994 (talk) 10:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ds1994 (talkcontribs) 10:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 

Nothing on protocol when meeting the Monarch.

Hmmm. I just heard a commentator on CNN says that there was "no protocol when meeting the Queen." So I decided to check here if Wikipedia had anything on protocol. What does everyone think? is it worth it to start compiling?

  • For example you're not supposed to extend your hand out to shake the Queen's(or Monarch's hand) unless they extend theirs first.
  • Michelle Obama did a big "no-no". You're really not supposed to hug the Queen or touch the Monarch in anyway outside of their hand.

I also thought it was funny they gave HM an IPod but she has already done quite a few Podcasts. CaribDigita (talk) 21:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If memory serves Her Majesty already had an iPod. As protocol isn't really a set of written rules, I don't think we need an article on it. However I do find it rather nice to see the president bowing to The Queen...especially as nowadays Brits aren't 'expected' to let alone foreigners. --Cameron* 22:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Ahhh, Obama bowed? He weren't suppose to, as he's also a Head of State (or as the US calls it, Chief of State). GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean, "as the US calls it"? Since when? -Rrius (talk) 03:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The President of the USA is described as Chief of State. I'm sure I read this somewhere. GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
He's also Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm very surprised Obama bowed. There was a minor kerfuffle when Ronald Reagan declined to bow and some palace official got his knickers in a twist about it; Reagan explained that the U.S. President is head of state of a sovereign country and does not bow to other heads of state. The rules about who should bow/curtsey surely do not extend to people who are not subjects of the Queen, and certainly not to heads of state. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I remember the exact opposite. Reagan did bow, which caused some surprise because the official protocol was for him not to bow (nor the Queen to bow to him). DrKiernan (talk) 07:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, one of us is mis-remembering. I wonder which one it is.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 09:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Who says Obama bowed to the Queen? I've only heard about his bowing to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. -Rrius (talk) 08:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You can see a video of the "bow" on the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7977618.stm . DrKiernan (talk) 08:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Concerning protocol for addressing royals -
What I find is not about Reagan bowing but Nancy refusing to do so...and the palace's official position is that there is no protocol for foreigners meeting the royals..please see this.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 10:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps we need to distinguish between a formal bow and simply nodding the head when you meet someone, which many of us do, including the Queen herself — I have often seen her nod briefly when she is shaking hands with someone. Ondewelle (talk) 17:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Queen's dogs

Please can someone assist? What's the name of the breed of her Majesties dogs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.186.189.87 (talk) 10:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

They are called Pembroke Welsh corgis. -Rrius (talk) 11:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
See also HM's own dog breed (actually a hybrid), presenting the Dorgi...the result of her Corgi's liason with a Dachshund! --Cameron* 19:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

"of the United Kingdom"

Why does the title read... Elizabeth of the UK? Isn't she monarch of sixteen independent realms? Surely it should be: "Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth"?

It is unacceptable the title of this article ignores the fact that Her Majesty is queen of 16 separate countries. Regardless of the fact that she is mostly associated with the UK, that does not accurately reflect reality. I realize that simplicity is an issue, but an extermely large percentage still believe that she is Queen of England and not Queen of Canada, Australia, etc in addition to Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. As such, I recommend that the article be re-titled Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth. Some have previously stated that this is unacceptable because the title simply does not exist. Well, "Elizabeth II, ... Head of the Commonwealth" appears in all of her titles throughout the Commonwealth Realms, so this seems to be satisfactory and reasonable naming convention. Nonetheless, the present title "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" should continue to exist, but only as a page that is linked to the newly renamed article. --Jagislaqroo (talk) 19:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
A request to move the title, reached no consensus (see near bottom). GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


This comes up from time-to-time. "of the Commonwealth" would be rather in an invention, she isnever referred to as such. Yes she is Queen of 16 independent countries but the UK is where she is largely based, in the other 15 coutnries the duties and powers are exercised by the relevant Governor-General in her name. The article can only exist at one title, all the other relevant national titles redirect here anyway. David Underdown (talk) 10:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
It would be alot easier if we could just have Queen Elizabeth II as the title, but stupid wikipedia naming conventions come into play. This articles name isnt as bad as James I of England though, he was the Scottish King and yet it is placed under an English title, very misleading and offensive. But wikipedia doesnt operate via commonsense sadly. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
You have to remember that James I of England and James I of Scotland were completely different people. James I of England also happened to be James VI of Scotland, but we can't have 2 articles on the same person. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Archive 14#Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth Realms for a list of links to previous discussions. —JAOTC 19:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to end the "unjustice" and/or "offensivness". If historians tend to call one man James I of England more often than James VI of Scotland, why should Wikipedia call him the way we think is "fair"? Historians tend to refer to Elizabeth II as Queen of the United Kingdom much more often than as Queen of Tuvalu or Queen of Commonwealth (which is a non-existing title). Wikipedia relies on secondary sources, not on "commonsense" or "fairness". Surtsicna (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't that be James I of Great Britain? As for Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth, she's never referred to as such. Benkenobi18 (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Nope, it was James I of England and Ireland & James VI of Scotland. There was no 'Kingdom of Great Britain' during James' reigns. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, and I see someone has done that with Anne so that it is Anne of Great Britain. Benkenobi18 (talk) 19:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Yep, the 2 Kingdoms were united under Queen Anne. GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

James VI declared himself "King of Great Britain" by proclamation in October 1604, but the English Parliament refused to allow him use of the term in English legal documents. DrKiernan (talk) 07:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

cromwell

There is an error re. her being the longest running head of state - it says she will overtake Richard Cromwell in 2012...

can someone correct it please! Thanks. S —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.169.153.190 (talk) 22:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not clear what you think the error is? Richard Cromwell was Oliver's son and briefly acceded as lord Protector following Oliver's death and prior to the Restoration. David Underdown (talk) 08:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
You misunderstand, 94.169.153.190. In 2012, she would be the longest-lived British head of state. While R. Cromwell was only briefly head of state, he lived to a ripe old age. -Rrius (talk) 08:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that the whole paragraph containing the Richard Cromwell remark is a paragraph of hypothetical statistical matter of little interest which is well below the general standard of the Elizabeth II article. It reads

"To become the longest-lived British head of state, Elizabeth would have to live to 29 January 2012 when she would overtake Richard Cromwell. If Elizabeth lives until 19 September 2013, and her son Charles, the Prince of Wales succeeds her, he would become the oldest ever to succeed to the throne, surpassing William IV, who was 64. To overtake Queen Victoria and become the longest reigning monarch in British history, Elizabeth would have to live to 10 September 2015, when she would be 89. To surpass the reign of King Louis XIV of France, and become the longest reigning monarch in European history, Elizabeth would have to live until 26 May 2024, when she would be 98."

Let's delete this, please.

Ambrose H. Field (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Whereas others find it interesting, notable, and worthy of inclusion. Let's keep it in. -Rrius (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Could be shortened to:
"Elizabeth could become the longest-lived British head of state surpassing Richard Cromwell on 29 January 2012, the longest reigning monarch in British history surpassing Victoria on 10 September 2015, and the longest reigning monarch in European history surpassing Louis XIV of France on 26 May 2024."
Sounds good; it might be good though to include her age (89) for the middle one to help people calculate ages in their heads for the other two. -Rrius (talk) 08:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I found it difficult to put that into the sentence without it becoming confusing. So, I've put her age for the final one instead. DrKiernan (talk) 08:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Records

when will the queen breack the record of longest ruling monarch in europe? or even all time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.237.54.62 (talk) 06:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

See List of longest reigning monarchs of all time article. GoodDay (talk) 14:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Valid link for Prince Charles

In right side info bar. Prince Charles is not linked. Someone forgot to put the brackets around his name, therefore rendering it not hyperlinked to a subsequent page. I'd do it myself, but it won't allow me to edit even though I'm logged in. Thanks. Dferg47 (talk) 05:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

He is linked a few lines further up though, under "heir apparent". I guess that avoiding double-linking is why the one under "issue" has not been linked, although I wouldn't see any harm in the extra link here. (By the way, if you're interested, see WP:AUTOCONFIRM for the reason that creating an account in is not enough to edit this article.) —JAOTC 08:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Well done

I have just read the article for the first time today and think it's very good indeed. Why it's not a featured article is a puzzle, but thanks to everyone who has contributed to it anyway. Taam (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth the first of Britain

When King James VI of Scotland unified the crowns of England and Scotland in 1603 he became James I of Britain. Therefore really the present Queen should only be Queen Elizabeth I of Britain as the previous Elizabeth was only Queen of England not Britain. Neil MacCormick a Scottish solicitor famously argued this in court in the 1950's and in Scotland she should be styled Queen Elizabeth I. Stevephillip (talk) 14:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, he didn't argue it successfully. Convention is to use the highest number throughout the Commonwealth, so, although there has only be one Queen Elizabeth of New Zealand, since there has already been a Queen Elizabeth elsewhere in the Commonwealth, she is referred to as Queen Elizabeth II of New Zealand. There are several Scottish kings' names for whom the same rule would apply were there to be a monarch with that name. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 15:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
There is an article about the case: MacCormick v. Lord Advocate. The case was dismissed because the crown cannot be sued, and the numbering is a Royal Prerogative. Another point: King James VI of Scotland didn't actually became James I of (Great) Britain, although he wanted to be styled as such; both England and Scotland were independent of each other albeit in a personal union. He was James VI in Scotland and James I in England. --Joshua Say "hi" to me!What I've done? 18:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Right, James VI was before the Act of Union (but after the Union of the crowns) - there was no united kingdom for James to be king of (despite his best efforts to claim otherwise, "Great Britain" remained a dream and the separate kingdoms of England and Scotland resisted his dream). "James" was actually the name I was thinking of: it's been speculated that Charles will be "King James VIII" - I'll see if I can dig out a ref (and if anyone can tell me why monarchs don't use their real names it would be appreciated!) Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 18:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Monarchs do use their own names. They use one of their baptismal names as their regnal name. The Prince of Wales's real names are Charles, Philip, Arthur, and George. That means that he could reign as King Charles III, King Philip (II, if King Philip of England is considered a monarch), King Arthur, and King George VII. Princess Beatrice could reign as Queen Beatrice, Queen Elizabeth III and Queen Mary III, etc. Surtsicna (talk) 21:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, they can rule under any name they want. The Queen could've chosen to be Queen Jane II — that would be within her royal prerogative DBD 20:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)