This is an archive of past discussions about Elizabeth II. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
It says something lik the queen is estimated by forbes to have $550 million (£XXX-XXX) as the queen is british sholdnt it be £XXX-XXX ($550m)? the rest of the article is layed out this way —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesington (talk • contribs) 08:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
The estimation from the original source is in dollars, so that currency should probably remain as the primary currency in that section.--Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 04:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Order of Commonwealth realms
Latest comment: 16 years ago23 comments10 people in discussion
Why is Canada always mentioned first when discussing multiple Commonwealth realms? This seems to be against Buckingham Palace usage, which is alphabetical as far as I know. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
My general understanding of the matter is that Canada holds a special place in the Commonwealth for a few reasons: first real colony (that is still part of the Commonwealth), still has major ties to the UK, no real Republican movement (unlike Australia, for example, which I believe used to enjoy similarly favoured status). Plus, Her Majesty is very fond of Canada, and her family always has been. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 03:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps, PalaceGuard, because some perceive it to be the largest and first, and so most important, of the former dominions. The former may be true in terms of geographical size but the latter is not.Canada also tends to be presented as a sort of model or template of a realm. THis isnt true either. If it doesn't have a robust republican movement, that's not a reason for regarding it as a more dignified realm.Other realms aklso have 'major' ties to the UK. I would have thought having a monarch who is also monartch of the UK was the biggest tie of all. If more editors get involved the treatment of the realms would be more balanced.--Gazzster (talk) 03:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Then you think wrong. Both in the lead and in the succession boxes, the realms are listed according to when they entered the Crown's possession. That is completely and utterly NPOV. DBD11:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I never think wrong! It is merely a case of everyone else thinking wrong and not recognising my brilliance = ). --Cameron (T|C) 11:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I see. The "when they entered the Crown's possession" criterion seems a tad artificial to me. I think they should be listed alphabetically, as they are at Commonwealth realms#Current Commonwealth realms. My take on the monarchy-and-empire-related articles on Wikipedia is that there are one or several very enthusiastic Canadian editors - which is fine. At the same time, I would submit that, to the rest of the world -- Canada excepted, perhaps -- listing Commonwealth realms by the date they became colonies is not a self-evident and obvious treatment.
This treatment is also prone to ambiguities. For example, Guiana was first colonised in 1604: does that mean it should be listed ahead of all other realms? This does not seem to be self-evident to me.
Date of entry to the Crown's possession is how I have always seen it written. Then again, I am Canadian.. but it seems to be logical. And, uh, no.. House of Commons UK should not simply be House of Commons. Australia has a House of Commons as well, as does New Zealand, I believe. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 00:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I always understood that the list was by order of the date that the realm became a self-governing dominion, in which case Canada clearly has precedence, followed by Australia, etc. This is not unlike what is done in Canada, where the order of precedence for the provinces and territories is when they entered Confederation or were created, and if the date coincides, then alphabetically. fishhead64 (talk) 04:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Except that the way we determine the order of provincial precedence is exactly the same as what I said above, i.e., date of association with the Crown. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 13:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Good to see a robust national pride in this debate. I'll throw my hat in and say, yes, Ibagli, Australia does not have a house of Commons. Give us a break! Why don't we just make the order alphabetical, and Australia can be first!--Gazzster (talk) 03:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I guess provide a credible source that suggests that presenting in any mode other than date of acquisition by the Crown is a) preferred, and b) common. I stand corrected on the 'Commons' issue. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with PrinceOfCanada - this has been the traditional order, and if there's some credible source that suggests ordering alphabetically is common, then a change in this regard would be acceptable. But the fact is I don't believe such support can be found. fishhead64 (talk) 14:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Someone may want to check out Adrienne Clarkson's (tattly) memoir. I seem to recall that she mentions something about a meeting of governors general at Windsor Castle, and an order defined by the dates of the countries' independence. --G2bambino (talk) 15:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
"The traditional order"?? Not so here at the other end of the Empire. Here are some (to my mind) authoritative listings that use alphabetical order:
This page, from the official website of the Queen (in right of the UK) has a navigation menu listing: Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Jamaica, Other Caribbean realms, South Pacific islands, and Overseas territories.
Here is another page from Her Majesty's official website, which lists the members of the Commonwealth.
What, exactly, are the sources which list Canada first? For obvious reasons, I would see British, or at least non-Canadian sources, as more convincing than Canadian ones. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
'Traditional order'. Let us not confuse a tradition within Wikipedia (very much a virtual kingdom cut off from the world, with its own laws) with the traditions of the real world. And it is plural, traditions. Various political and social traditions will order in different ways. So here we may choose whatever order seems reasonable, and we may change it at a later date. And different orders may be used in different articles. Where there is liberty we should not impose dogma.--Gazzster (talk) 00:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the 'very much a virtual kingdom cut off from the world' comment! Here we are arguing about the order of articles listed in the see also section!!! --Cameron (T|C) 14:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The Queen took the coronation oath as Queen of the UK, Canada, Australia, NZ, SA, Pakistan & Ceylon, in that order, ie the order of achieving dominion status. That makes it a firly official practice. Peter jackson (talk)
In her coronation oath she became Queen of (in order) The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, The Union of South Africa, Pakistan and Ceylon. I think we should keep the order trueto that --s4119292 (talk) 14:26, 29 October 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.25.72 (talk)
Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom
Latest comment: 16 years ago15 comments9 people in discussion
Dear Readers,
The United Kingdom of England and Scotland did not come into existance until 1707, it further expanded to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1801 and contracted to the United Kingdom of Great Britain in Northern Irland circa 1916.
At no time in the History of the formation of the Untied Kingdom was there a ruling Queen called Elizabeth.
Therefore she is Elizabeth I of the United Kingdom and not the II.
In fact Elizabeth Windsor is only Queen Elizabeth II of England, she has never been crowned Queen of Scots, despite her ancestral right to that title. A fact that came embarassing clear at the opening of the Scottish Parliament in 1999 when the formality was delayed due the use of Queen Elizabeth II and only achieved by the use of The Queen Elizabeth.
I think it would be more acurate and less racist to use the heading as Elizabeth II, Head of State of the United Kingdom.
The United Kingdom of England and Scotland did not come into existance until 1707, it further expanded to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1801 and contracted to the United Kingdom of Great Britain in Northern Irland circa 1916
Note the continued use of 'United Kingdom'. 'United' is really the important word here.
Became United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland several years after 1916. 1922, if memory serves.
At no time in the History of the formation of the Untied Kingdom was there a ruling Queen called Elizabeth.
True.
Therefore she is Elizabeth I of the United Kingdom and not the II.
Arguably, yes. But it has been established that name and numbering of the monarch is exclusively the monarch's prerogative. Also note, for example, William IV of the UK--there were no Williams of the UK previously, but you don't see anyone agitating about it.
In fact Elizabeth Windsor is only Queen Elizabeth II of England, she has never been crowned Queen of Scots, despite her ancestral right to that title.
Actually no, as she was not crowned Queen of England either. She was crowned Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom (and her various Commonwealth Realms &c &c). Nobody has been crowned as Queen (King) of Scots since 1707, if memory serves.
I think it would be more acurate and less racist to use the heading as Elizabeth II, Head of State of the United Kingdom.
You might think so, but you would be wrong. She isQueen of the United Kingdom. Her regnal number is pretty immaterial to that point. Also.. what racism? There is no racism here. At worst it's a bit of insensitivity towards Scots history, and frankly she'd have been at fault either way (if one is insistent on seeing fault)--had she gone with simply Elizabeth, her English subjects would have complained. As it is, she has proclaimed that all future monarchs will take the higher regnal number, whether Scottish or English. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
No, it is not merely "insensitive" to Scottish history. References to Elizabeth II automatically imply that she is the Queen of England and thus that Scotland was incorporated into England in 1707. As pointed out above, she is the first Elizabeth to be crowned Queen of the United Kingdom, therefore it is quite simply incorrect to have II after her name. There is quite literally no logical reason why any English person should be offended by this and if they are then they need to brush up on British history. (||||) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palefire1983 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Hee! I could get used to being called that... the other point I wished to make is, of course, that (well, in most countries anyway) we all have the right to decide what we will be called, within the bounds of public decency. While it's true that what Lilibet chooses to be known as has a little more historical import than what I choose to be known as, it is still ultimately her choice. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 12:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Though it's yet to be put into practice, there's a plan to number future UK monarchs after which ever namesake has the highest previous number in England or Scotland. Basically, (if through massive tragedy), the Queen grandson (Edward's son) James succeeded to the UK throne (and kept his name), he'd be King James VIII of the United Kingdom (as there was more King James's in Scotland's history, then in England's). Ironically, under this plan - William IV, Edward VII, Edward VIII & Elizabeth II retroactively fit (as their names were more numerious in England's history). GoodDay (talk) 18:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
And nor is it likely to be a coincidence, either. I also don't believe that any future monarch will choose a name with a higher Scottish number. A specific problem with "James VIII" is that this was the designation of James, the Old Pretender, so using it would be likely to inflame certain sections of Scottish nationalism, rather than placate it. TharkunColl (talk) 08:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Cool. And the bastard children of various kings have doubtless scattered descendants the length and breadth of the world.In these days of equal opportunity? You never know who could make a claim.--Gazzster (talk) 14:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't the article be simply "Elizabeth II"? "of the United Kingdom" shouldn't be there, since it implies that her other realms are somehow below the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob bobato (talk • contribs) 23:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
That has been suggested b4, if I remember correctly. I think the answer was there are other 'Elizabeth IIs' in other countries. I think it's reasonable tho that the old girl be known by the nation most closely associated with her.--Gazzster (talk) 23:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Bear in mind that it's part of the royal prerogative for monarchs, like Popes, to change name on accession. Robert III was actually christened John, so Prince Charles could follow that precedent & call himself Robert IV, which would be nice.
Just a technical correction. The Queen never announced anything about how future monarchs would be numbered. She has no constitutional power to bind the royal prerogative of her successors. That would require an Act of Parliament, possibly the written constitution Mr Brown is said to be interested in. What actually happened was that the Government pointed out that all post-Union monarchs had in fact used the larger of English & Scottish numberings & that a future monarch with a name with a larger Scottish numbering might well follow this practice, & said this seemed a sensible idea to them. This is perhaps what's known as a hint. Peter jackson (talk) 17:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Title between marriage and coronation
Latest comment: 16 years ago13 comments8 people in discussion
Would Elizabeth have been Her Royal Highness The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh, Countess of Merioneth, and Baroness Greenwich, of Greenwich in the County of London once she married Philip, before her coronation does anyone know? Maybe it's in the article and I've just missed it...if so sorry! :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.172.139 (talk) 15:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Elizabeth ceased to be Duchess of Edinburgh etc at the time of her accession not coronation in the British/Commonwealth monarchy these are two seperate events Penrithguy (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry, I should have been more clear about that. And it's not that she ceased, precisely, it's that 1) the title merged in the Crown, and 2) she cannot hold a dignity from herself as the fount of honour. So.. in some very technical sense she still holds the title, as she technically 'holds' all titles that have ever merged in the Crown, and would revert to it if for example the Monarchy were abolished in her lifetime. Prince of Canada t | c15:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I seem to remember getting into a discussion last year or so, about the situation of "Duchess of Edinburgh" etc. when she acceeded. Technically, the title did not merge in the Crown, because they weren't hers in the first place, they were held in right of her husband. I think Elizabeth II and Queen Anne (formerly Duchess of Cumberland) are the only two examples of this happening to queens regnant. The discussion didn't end with a definite answer, but it would seem natural for her to stop using them as she is above all titles. Craigy (talk) 21:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
The Queen did not hold those tiltes in her own right but only as courtesy titles from being married to her husband so they would not merge in the Crown as Prince Philip's titles are still extant and will be inherited by Prince Charles or merged in the crown if Charles is already king at Philip's death Penrithguy (talk) 21:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
The title Duke of Edinburgh is intended to pass to the Earl of Wessex on the death of his father. I don't know how that works, we can only assume that there has been agreement with the Duke, the Queen and the Prince of Wales rearding the issue.s4119292 (talk) 14:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.25.72 (talk)
As I understand it, the wife of a peer has a life estate in the dignity of the peerage. That is to say she has the right to be called "Duchess" or the like, to be styled a certain way, and to certain precedence, all of which survives the death of her husband and terminates with her death. On the other hand, she has no interest in the title itself. She did not receive a summons to the HoL (pre-HoL Act), and the title did not pass to her heirs unless they were also the husband's heirs. It was this life estate in the dignity of the peerage that merged with the crown. Because it is a life estate, to the extent it has any meaning (or any merged peerage has meaning), it will extinguish with her death and therefore not pass to her successor as monarch in any way. -Rrius (talk) 08:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
"terminates with her death" isn't strictly correct. Officially, a widow who remarries loses the right to use her late husband's titles, tho' this has often been ignored in practice (as long ago as the so-called Empress Matilda/Maud, who should have been styled merely Countess of Anjou, & later Duchess of Normandy). Peter jackson (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, "terminates with her death or remarriage". I don't think the correction addresses the affects the point I was making, though. -Rrius (talk) 18:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Richard Cromwell??
Latest comment: 16 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion
It says that "Richard Cromwell was the longest lived ruler of England"---That is pushing a point pretty far. Richard Cromwell was only Lord Protector for a year----and died in 1712 at the age of 86. Who cares how long he lived after he was no longer Lord Protector. It's hardly relevant. Both Victoria and George III were 82 when they died. That seems a far more relevant notation than Richard "Tumbledown Dick" Cromwell, who barely made any impression in the history of the realm at all.69.153.170.254 (talk) 15:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)Pastor R
Oh dear. You're right. I'm seeing him everywhere these days! Well, he would've agreed. Eh, Cameron? Why mention the son of a regicide in this article? I'll go an lie down now lol.--Gazzster (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Gazzster mistook your grammar correction of my edit, for being my own edit. Thus he believed my posting was yours. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Now that we've cleared that up. (Sorry Cameron) Yes, I think giving such an honour to Richard Cromwell, though strictly true, is not really warranted. He was the longest lived person who was a ruler of Britain, but not the longest lived ruler, if that makes sense? The latter honour should remain in the keeping of Queen Vicky.--Gazzster (talk) 04:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
It's an interesting notion, all the same (speaking as an unreconstructed antipodean infracaninophile). I wonder if we'd be quite so quick to dismiss this form of words if the subject had been, say, Edward VIII, who actually was a king (for a while), and who was around in living memory (mine, anyway). If the Duke of Windsor had lived to 90, would we be prepared to say that he was "the longest lived ruler of the UK", or merely "the longest lived person who was a ruler of the UK"? I wonder. -- JackofOz (talk) 10:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Later thought. We talk of Gerald Ford being "the longest-lived President of the USA". Those guys serve for a maximum of 8 years and typically live for another 25 years or so as ex-presidents. Same for Prime Ministers of whatever country. I suppose the distinction we're making here is that UK royalty is generally assumed to serve for life, and those who leave the job earlier for whatever reason are the exceptions rather than the rule. Richard Cromwell presents a further exception in that his name is probably the last one to spring to mind when one says "ruler of England", and many people would never even have heard of him. Still, the point has some merit, I think. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I cringe in advance when making this comment, but "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" is not a regal title at all, anywhere. The naming of Wikipedia articles on sovereigns who've reigned over more than one country is governed by a policy founded on POV about which of the countries was/is more important than the others. --G2bambino (talk) 20:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't personally see it as anything about POV re: importance. She is most widely known as Queen of the UK, that's all. I understand that some people -- Tharky, e.g. -- don't see it that way. Whether it is factually correct for her to be widely known as such is a matter of some debate (that I would really, really prefer to not get into), but the fact remains that if you ask the average person on the street, their top of mind recollection will be that she is Queen of the UK. And yes, I'm aware of the difficulty in using that metric--we'd have an article at Princess Diana if we held to it blindly. I guess what it boils down to is that the name of this article needs to be something, and her best-known title seems to be a pretty reasonable something for it to be. Prince of Canada t | c22:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
What I say doesn't apply only to this article; it's for all articles that are on monarchs who reigned over more than one country. The policy in place has nothing to do at all with titles (as I said, "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" is not her title anywhere), but about which country tops the others. Thus, England is chosen over Scotland, the United Kingdom over Hanover, Sweden over Norway, etc., etc. In an encyclopaedia that goes to great lengths to avoid POVs about what's more important than what, the rule regarding the titling of personal union monarchs is a real wrench in the system. I'm sure there are plenty of Scots who resent the fact that their country has been placed by Wikipedia behind England when it comes to their own King James VI. --G2bambino (talk) 22:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd be fully behind a proposal to move such monarchs to "of Great Britain". It was the title they used by royal proclamation. --Cameron*09:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Well.. I'd say it's a semantic argument that 'of the UK' isn't one of her titles. Yes, 'of the UK of GB & NI' is more accurate, but slightly unwieldy as an article title. I agree about the James I/VI thing; that's a bit off. UK over Hanover..well.. that's a bit more problematic. I could see the argument based on 'Hanover is gone, UK is still here', I suppose. But.. they say that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, and is certainly the hobgoblin of Wikipedia, and what we are discussing here is specifically EIIR. I'm not particularly invested; I just think that 'of the UK' is the most logical of all the potential article titles. Prince of Canada t | c23:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
As pointed out above (and many times before) - Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is the proper title for this article. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
At the risk of going into this issue again (which may be no bad thing) there is much to what G2 says. Despite the various rules attempting to circumscribe POV issues, POV cannot, in the end, be avoided. And this is not so much the consequence of users' actions, as of the fact that this is the English Wikipedia. It is written and read in a particular context. In particular it is very much expresses an Anglo-American view of the world. One of the joys of Wikipedia, however, is occasionally seeing the viewpoint scewed. For example, kudos to the Scots for taking pages and pages of discussion space to challenge the English view of themselves and the world. But in the end I must agree that in the absence of a title that is both neutral and commonly accepted E2 of the UK is as good as any.--Gazzster (talk) 23:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
There is also, I think, some ambiguity in the phrase '..of the Commonwealth realms'. It may imply that the realms are a single political association, which, of course, they aren't.--Gazzster (talk) 23:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I need to say up front that I certainly don't support moving the article. However, the "average person on the street" argument doesn't really hold water. Such a person would almost certainly call her the queen "of England" (which of course is incorrect as there's no such thing as the crown of England any more; but the "UK" version, while closer to the truth, is incomplete, so take your pick). Confine your search to the average well-read person who understands some of the more interesting points of constitutional and political terminology, then you might have a better chance of finding someone who'd call her "E2 of the UK". But I know many such well-educated people who call her the "Queen of England", because that term is firmly culturally entrenched, it's comprehensible to everyone, and it's easier and shorter to say than "Queen of the UK", so it's not a certainty. But that's all by the by. There's no way we're ever going to call her "Queen of England", and there are other, and better, arguments for having the article the way it is now. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh yes, that is an excellent point of course--which is why I compared 'public knowledge' to the whole 'Princess Diana' ridiculousness. To be thoroughly pedantic, I'll amend my point to: most common correct title as known by average person on the street, if that helps. Prince of Canada t | c13:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Jack makes a good point. Particularly not Brits (but on occaision I have even heard Brits) use the title Queen of England. Even well educated people who know exactly that the title is incorrect use the title for the sake of being understood by the average person. --Cameron*09:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
The policy is "neutral point of view", not "no point of view". Everything in Wikipedia is a point of view of one sort or another (even the first sentence of this article - Jacobites would certainly disagree with "Elizabeth II is the Queen regnant of sixteen independent states and their overseas territories and dependencies."). If we were saying "the United Kingdom is the country that should be in the title because, well, it's just the most important country in the world, and all those other silly little countries she rules are just irrelevant", then clearly that wouldn't be neutral at all and we'd have a huge problem. But if what we're saying (the most relevant country to this article is the United Kingdom) is both backed up by verifiable sources (which it is - she's generally known to the world as a British monarch, not a Canadian, Australian, etc. monarch) and has some logical basis to it (it's where she and her family lives, the original kingdom, the country she has by far the most role in, the only kingdom where she's not represented by a Governor-General, etc.), then there's absolutely no NPOV problem at all. Proteus(Talk)07:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
It does seem that the monarchy, and in particular The Queen seems to have become a supranational institution. Establishing one empire with The Queen as head of state with lots of politically independant (sub)kingdoms (UK, Can; Aus, NZ...) would be a good idea. Now we just need to think of a name for this new empire, get all the parliaments of the 16 countries to agree, and then we can have one uniform title for this article. Until then I suggest we stick with "of the United Kingdom", although I personally would prefer "of UK of GB and NI". --Cameron*09:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Good one, Cameron. Yes, either title would suit. It's interesting to discuss the POV issue, but really, what alternatives are? You could name it 'Elizabeth II of Saint Lucia' or 'of Papua New Guinea' and it would be technically correct. But the UK has pride of place in HM's titles, at least in the eyes of the world.--Gazzster (talk) 09:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
It's really a primus (prima?) inter pares issue these days, as evidenced when there was talk of the UK being expelled from the Commonwealth during Margaret Thatcher's time, but the Commonwealth would continue with the other members, and the Queen would still have been the Head. The obvious analogy is how a Westminster government is named after its Prime Minister. Constitutionally (I know this differs from realm to realm, and it's not usually codified), a PM is just another minister, but his/her particular role happens to include being the leader, and advising the monarch/governor-general on certain issues. Other ministers can have an advising role as well. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
The UK may be primus inter pares in the Commonwealth, but the Commonwealth isn't automatically the deciding factor. We (somewhat wrongly I feel) portray the Queen as "Queen of lots of Commonwealth realms, chief of which is the United Kingdom", whereas the World (well, except the non-UK Commonwealth realms, at least) generally sees her as "Queen of England/Britain/the United Kingdom, and also Queen of lots of different countries as well, which are all part of the Commonwealth". When seen from the latter perspective, the legal and practical distinctions between the UK and the other Commonwealth realms become almost irrelevant — to most people they're an interesting fact about her other roles, not her main role or even a crucial factor in her main role. Proteus(Talk)09:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
True. And that's part of the reason why countries like Australia have a healthy pro-republican movement, and why in the opinion of many people it's only a matter of time before an Australian republic comes into being. However, I can't see the Commonwealth doing anything other than continuing indefinitely, and the Republic of Australia would certainly continue to be a member. But from Wikipedia's perspective, we have an educational role to play, which includes presenting material factually, in a NPOV way, without regard to the perspectives and possible biases of external persons or countries. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Again, I feel that's a misunderstanding of our policy: we're after verifiability, not truth. Every time this comes up, someone will start citing the Statute of Westminster, etc., to prove that all realms are equal, etc., but this is missing the point. It doesn't matter how the relevance of certain issues should be seen, it matters how they are seen. This isn't something that can be treated as a fact that can be proven — the Queen's role in the world is a matter of political and social perspective, not of law, and it's not our job to correct the World's perspective, even if we feel the truth lies elsewhere. Proteus(Talk)09:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I think I know where you're coming from, Proteus. I've learned to keep my finger off the save button when I believe something to be the case but can't verify it with a good source. But if I can play devil's advocate for a moment, surely what you're saying is an argument for having an article on "Queen Elizabeth II of England", because that's what the majority of the world actually calls her; or of saying that the Gettysburg Address starts off with "Four score and seven years ago, our forefathers ....", because that's what a lot of people firmly believe Lincoln said (he actually used the word "fathers"); or ... or ..... These and millions of other inaccuracies can all be verified - there's an entire industry in internet rubbish trivia, and they also sometimes appear in otherwise reputable sources - but there's no way I'd ever agree to them remaining in one of our articles. -- JackofOz (talk) 10:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
(removing indent) The crucial thing with those things is that they can be verified — both in a technical sense (i.e. there is a definitive correct answer) and in a practical sense (i.e. there are plenty of reliable sources that can verify that correct answer). Here what some people are trying to do is not only prove something that can't really be proven (whether she is "Queen of the United Kingdom" rather than "Queen of England" is a factual matter, but whether the fact that she is Queen of the United Kingdom is more "important" (in a practical real-world sense, not in a legal sense — perhaps "relevant" is a better word than "important") than the fact that she is Queen of the Solomon Islands is not, it's a matter of political reality, which doesn't make it impossible to verify but certainly makes it harder) and are trying to do so not with the very strong sources that would be necessary to verify such a complicated claim but instead with original research. If we allow this, how are we supposed to back up our claims? A footnote next to "she rules over all these countries equally" saying "on the talk page of this article a group of knowledgeable Wikipedia editors have decided that, on a correct reading of the Statute of Westminster, this is correct"? I know there is a problem, in part because of the success of Wikipedia — on topics like this we've essentially outclassed the existing sources, and are examining things that no one else has examined before — and maybe this means that on some matters — matters where nothing has been written before — we have become arbiters of truth rather than collators of information, but this shouldn't mean we should try to do that on matters where there is a real-world answer, even if we don't like it. And above all we should reflect reality rather than theory — we would be doing our readers a disservice if we didn't make it clear to someone reading this article that, unless you live in a Commonwealth realm, the Queen is almost universally seen as a British Queen. Yes, we should educate them about the true legal situation, but not at the expense of the practical situation, which is what they're going to find most helpful in the vast majority of situations. Proteus(Talk)11:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
'....On topics like this we've essentially outclassed the existing sources..' 'We have become arbiters of truth rather than collators of information.' Indeed. And nowhere is this truer than in the Social Sciences, where so much is subject to interpretation. Wikipedia very often becomes self-referencing to the extent that it often does not even go to the trouble of providing a source for a particular oft-stated 'fact', phrase or interpretation. In other words, we become introverted, as if Wikipedia were the world. So yes, as Proteus says, it does us no harm at all to step back and try to express ideas as the world understands them, and then, yes, we may, with good sources, educate about the legalities and nuances.--Gazzster (talk) 13:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I seem to have opened a can of worms...I just think its abit odd that when she is Queen of 16 countries the only one referenced is her native land...I have no strong opinions on the matter though...was just wondering. (Shes not even the legitimate Queen) Gavin Scott (talk) 15:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
No, all of the others are referenced in the appropriate places. The one that is used for the article title is, well--see above. This has been dealt with exhaustively. As for "Shes [sic] not even the legitimate Queen"... oh dear. Talk about a can of worms. The short answer is: under the laws of the UK, she is absolutely the legitimate Queen. You may believe otherwise, but you would be incorrect. Prince of Canada t | c15:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
We wont discuss this here, as it was mainly a joke haha, but for the sake of argument. Any Law of the UK is a law in her name. Thus any law saying she is the rightful monarch is just her saying she is the rightful monarch...which isnt really an argument...anywhoo...I have no strong feelings towards the article title- I was just curious. Gavin Scott (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Oh and FYI you should read the Declaration of Arbroath...it could easily be used to eject her from any position of Queen of Scots...if you interpret the UK in a certain light...Gavin Scott (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Err... actually no. Laws that were enacted centuries before her birth are what make her the legitimate monarch today. As for the Declaration, I presume you mean the bit about 'under English rule'. Scotland isn't under English rule; the countries are united equally. Prince of Canada t | c16:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The Laws of Great Britain depend on the Crown though- do they not? She is the embodiment of the Law- its self-sustaining. As I said, it depends how you interpret it- Mr. Salmond would certainly argue Scotland is under English rule. I myself am a Unionist however, I have no care for our anti-catholic monarchy. Gavin Scott (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Just curious; what's being argued here? I thought we agreed to keep this page as Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom (the way George III to George VI, is)? GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
That is what's been agreed, and the only user proposing anything different is Gavin, who's now 'fessed up that his original post was a bit of a joke, or just mild curiosity. The silver lining is that it's been an opportunity for an interesting and amicable discussion, which I suspect has now come to its natural conclusion. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, I was just wondering why it was Queen E of UK and not otherwise- seemed a bit Brit-centric to me but, if thats whats agreed, thats whats agreed. Gavin Scott (talk) 00:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Berean's suggestion sounds OK but I really don't see the problem with the text as it is at the moment! --Cameron*17:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Her Oldest Realm
Latest comment: 16 years ago42 comments14 people in discussion
Is it accurite to call the UK Queen E's oldest realm? Didn't she aqquire all the realms at the same time upon the death of her father? Or does it mean the UK is the oldest country of the Commonwealth Realms? Gavin Scott (talk) 00:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not disputing that its intended to be. I am just asking if anyone else thinks that perhaps it reads like it means it is the realm over which she has been Queen longest. Gavin Scott (talk)
Well, if you read it that way, someone else will too. So by all means, reword the statement.(And besides, the statement as intended isn't even true. The United Kingdom is 300 years old. The first Canadian settlements are over 400 years old- yes, I'm being pedantic, but only to agree with you that the way we read things is important)--Gazzster (talk) 01:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Would anyone object to the oldest realm part just being removed then- and have it say "she is resident in and most directly involved with the United Kingdom, over most of whose territory her ancestors have reigned for more than 1000 years." Also, what does it mean by "most of whose territory"? As in what particular parts of the UK is it referring to? Gavin Scott (talk) 01:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I believe the claim about 'most of whose territory' may be contentious. Scotland was only united from 1803; Ireland was in and out of her ancestors rule for a long time. Then there was the brief period of the Republic. So you're right. REmove the last section of that statement.--Gazzster (talk) 01:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
What's so contentious? Her ancestors reigned over Scotland and Ireland (even if only for periods). It's not an incorrect statement. --G2bambino (talk) 01:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, I think the real issue here though is whether or not "her oldest realm" should be removed...although I can't help but feel that the sentence after is POV pushing- subjects in the UK trying to establish some sort of superior claim to the monarch over the other realms. Even if that is not the case- I can't help but feel the whole sentence is abit out of place. Gavin Scott (talk) 01:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't see why "oldest realm" is contentious at all. Oldest clearly refers to how long the realm has existed, not how long she has held it. I don't think the words can reasonably be read to refer to the latter. -Rrius (talk) 02:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Well my point is that the English UK) monarchy has not reigned over Scotland and Ireland for over '1000 years'. --Gazzster (talk) 02:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect you may not think that "oldest ream" can be "reasonably read" to mean the realm she has held the longest- In my ever so humble opinion (which you have labeled unreasonable) the first port of call most people will make is to assume that Oldest Realm means the one she has had the longest- not the oldest existing nation. Furthermore- there are three possibilites of what "oldest realm" could mean.
The Realm QE has reigned over longest.
The Realm which is the oldest. (GB came into existence in 1707, UK 1801, Canada 1867)
The Realm over which her Family/Ancestors has ruled over for the longest time.
Which one is it? The sentence about her family ruling it for 1000 years seems to indicate the third option. Yet GoodDay and Rrius said it was the second. I originally thought it meant the first... Gavin Scott (talk) 02:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
'she is resident in and most directly involved with the United Kingdom, over most of whose territory her ancestors have reigned for more than 1000 years'. How could this be, if you read 'United Kingdom', in the strict sense, as being 300 years old? Before 1603 the Queen's predecessors did not held permanent sway in Scotland. And her ancestors occupied Ireland and Wales from the 13th and 14th centuries respectively. So what does the author of the statement mean by 'most of whose territory....for more than 1000 years', except that 'most' means England? If so, why not say, 'her ancestors have reigned over England for more than a 1000 years?'--Gazzster (talk) 03:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with your interpretation and think it is not a reasonable reading of the text. I was not calling you or your opinions unreasonable, so I don't appreciate the snark. With all due respect, I think your interpretation is unusual and the relative stability of the text as written bears that out. You provide no evidence for your suggestion that your interpretation would for most people be the "first port of call". Since oldest modifies realm and not reign or the like, and it should most reasonably be interpreted to refer to the age of the realm, not the period for which it has been reigned over by Elizabeth or her ancestors. Frankly, any confusion is cleared up in the very next sentence, which states, "She ascended the thrones of seven countries in February 1952 on the death of her father King George VI". Oldest realm is a simple way of describing the situation, and the fact of its being the oldest is important to the sentence it occurs in. If you have a different way of putting it that won't be a miscue to people who, for whatever reason, read it as you did, go ahead. The idea should be there, and it should not be stated in a way that would make the passage unreadable. -Rrius (talk) 04:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I hadn't focussed on this till it was raised, but now that I have, I can see a few problems (slightly off topic, but it's part of the same sentence):
"over most of whose territory her ancestors have reigned for more than 1000 years" - could be read as suggesting the UK as such has been in existence for more than 1,000 years
What does "most" mean? Take out Scotland pre-1707 and we're talking about only about 55-60% of the total area. Maybe "over large parts" or "over various parts" would be more accurate.
Do we say anything like this in George VI's or earlier monarchs' articles? If not, why is it important to say it here? Is it just because she's the current monarch; and should she die, we'd transfer this wording to Charles's article? What's the rationale for this?
I don't like "over most of whose territory", as personal pronouns should be reserved for people. But "over most of the territory of which" sounds pedantically worse. There has to be a third way, if we keep this in the article at all, about which I'm not convinced is necessary. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Her ancestors did reign over Scotland pre-1707, though. English monarchs aren't her only ancestors. Before 1603, two ancestors reigned at once over their respective Kingdoms.--Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 06:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
True, but only since Margaret Tudor(d.1489). Her son, James V, reigned over Scotland, but nowhere near 1000 years ago.--Gazzster (talk) 11:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused by this. Elizabeth II is a descendant of James V and, by logical extension, both of his parents. Obviously Margaret Tudor is of the English line, but the ancestors of James IV were Scottish kings. As a result, Elizabeth would be descended of the Scottish monarchs to the same degree as was James IV. -Rrius (talk) 20:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm actually starting to see how the sentence could be read to be saying the UK is 1000 years old. The original intent was, breaking the sentence down, to say: she is resident in and most directly involved with the United Kingdom [speaks for itself], over most of whose territory [this is speaking of the acutal areas of land, not the political state] her ancestors have reigned for more than 1000 years [her ancestors have reigned over the area previously described, though that area may previously have been divided differently]. Like Jack, though, the only alternatives I can come up with are pedantically worse than what's there now... --G2bambino (talk) 12:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
My observation is that her ancestors have not reigned over Scotland, Wales and Ireland for a 1000 years. I have seen the statement that she can trace her ancestry for more than a 1000 years. This should perhaps be said without any reference to the size of territory.--Gazzster (talk) 13:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how you can make that claim. At what point does her lineage within the British Isles begin, if not more than 1000 years ago? --G2bambino (talk) 13:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Her lineage is a 1000 years or more old, in England. But look at the sentence in question. It says her line has reigned over most' of what we now call the United Kingdom, for 'over 1000 years. --Gazzster (talk) 13:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
She can also of course trace her line from the House of Hanover, and before that, the House of Guelf/Wettin, as well as the Royal houses of France, and Portugal (amongst others) which could of course also be mentioned.--Gazzster (talk) 13:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Surely you're not disputing that England is in the British Isles... So, is it the use of the word "most" you object to? --G2bambino (talk) 13:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
How about: Over the past 1000 years, her ancestors have reigned over most parts of the British Isles. Collectively, ancestors in her line have ruled over each constitutent country (England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland) individually as well as all evolutions of the country we now know as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Or something like that. It's a bit awkward, but I hope you see what I'm getting at? The idea is to break up the clauses to allow for clarity. Prince of Canada t | c14:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I am surprised at the ignorance of Scottish history among some contributors. Elizabeth II is not just descended from the early kings of England and Wessex. She is also descended from Kenneth MacAlpin, traditionally regarded as the first king of Scotland, and the majority of later Scottish monarchs, Kenneth may have been descended from earlier kings of Dalriada and the Picts, although this is disputed. PatGallacher (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
<== Another possibility:
Though she holds each crown and title separately and equally, she is resident in and most directly involved with the United Kingdom, a realm consisting of territories that her ancestors have reigned over for more than 1000 years.
Nice work. It may need to be tweaked to clarify that some parts have not been ruled by her ancestors for that long, i.e., Wales and N.I. I think it carries that meaning now, but the unionist-nationalist sentiments tend to require these things to be stated explicitly. -Rrius (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
One doesn't reign a territory; one rules a territory, or reigns over a territory. How about breaking it into 2 sentences: "She holds each crown and title separately and equally. However, she is resident in and most directly involved with the United Kingdom, a realm consisting of territories over which her ancestors have reigned over for more than 1,000 years"? -- JackofOz (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, G2: it is the word most I object to. I don't really see the significance of the statement in the first place. If the idea is to say, her ancestors have reigned over England for over 1000 years, why not say so? What exactly is meant by 'most'? This is what is unclear.--Gazzster (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
It's not just England, though, as has been explained numerous times above.
Elizabeth II -> George VI -> George V -> Edward VII -> Victoria -> George III -> George II -> George I -------> James I/VI -> Mary I -> James V -> James IV -> James III -> James II -> James I -> Robert III -> Robert II -> Robert I -> some confusion -> David I -> Malcolm III -> Duncan I -> Malcolm II -> Kenneth II -> Malcolm I -> Donald II -> Constantine I -> Kenneth I
Yeah, fair enough. But why not say her ancestors reigned over England Scotland, instead of 'most' of Britain, whatever that they mean? I think the present edit is good.--Gazzster (talk) 05:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, one reason is that the UK includes Wales and NI, and if we only refer to the historical rulers of England and Scotland, almost as if they were the only parts of the UK that really mattered, the others are likely to get their noses out of joint. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I doubt it. Many Welsh and Irish people may be proud that they have not been ruled by the ancestors of Elizabeth II for 'over 1000 years'.--Gazzster (talk) 10:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Nevertheless the statement is still correct. Even if it weren't, most could still be used to describe England and Scotland which make up a large part of both the land and population of the British Isles. = ) *cheeky grin* --Cameron*19:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
"Ancestors", strictly speaking, refers to direct ancestors only, excluding Edward VIII, William IV, George IV, Anne, William & Mary, James VII & II, Charles II, Charles I, Elizabeth I, David II & many other monarchs, so it's doubtful whether her ancestors did actually reign for most of the time. Contrariwise, many European monarchs are also ancestors of hers. The actual point we want to be making is that there are reasonably continuous hereditary lines of succession going back to William I & Kenneth I. Peter jackson (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we should be talking about her "predecessors", rather than her "ancestors". Some of her predecessors were her ancestors, but generally speaking they weren't her ancestors. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
The term "ancestors" can be used for those who are not direct ancestors - which is why the phrase "direct ancestors" exists. It depends on context. ðarkuncoll10:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Hypothetical scenario
Latest comment: 16 years ago25 comments12 people in discussion
I understand that George VI went to bed on the night of 5 February 1952 and was found dead on the morning of the 6th. He was the only British monarch of modern times whose precise moment of death was not recorded. Hence, the precise moment of Elizabeth’s accession is not known. They must have come up with an estimated time of death, if only to know whether it happened before midnight (on the 5th), or after midnight (on the 6th). But they couldn’t have had it any more precise than, say, some time between 1 am and 3 am.
I’ve been wondering what would have happened had Elizabeth had some nasty accident while in Kenya (eaten by a tiger, for example) and died the same night. Let’s assume her exact moment of death would have been recorded, say, at 2:37 am (UK time) on the 6th. How would they decide who was George's legitimate heir? If Elizabeth died before her father, Charles would have directly succeeded George. But if she died after her father, she would have been Queen for an hour or so, then succeeded by Charles. It wouldn’t affect the later succession, but I’m interested in knowing how they’d have determined whether Elizabeth was to be counted as a very short-term monarch, or never a monarch at all. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
But what if she was already dead before George died? That's my question; and how would they tell which death came first? -- JackofOz (talk) 00:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
If it couldn't be medically proven who died first? Then Charles would've been recognized as George VI's immediate successor. GoodDay (talk) 00:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Under British law, if 2 people die at the same time, and it is unclear who died first, the older is presumed to have predeceased the younger. So she could have been held to have reigned for a legal "spit second", this did happen with one peerage, see the Guiness Book of Records. PatGallacher (talk) 00:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
But then one could argue that British law only applies to Britain. = ) Sorry, couldn't help myself! --Cameron*19:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, that is a point, Cameron. And remember she would have died about two hours ahead of the death of the King, according to Kenyan time.--Gazzster (talk) 05:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I did specify "2.37am (UK time)" because I anticipated such a nitpick. Apparently my efforts were in vain. :) But, seriously, the monarchy laws apply to the heir personally, and wherever they happen to be at the moment of their accession is immaterial. Otherwise, it could be argued that Elizabeth II is not a legitimate British monarch because she wasn't in Britain at the moment of George VI's death. However, she would still have been Queen of Kenya. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
In reality, there is a substantial likelihood that the PMs would confer to decide whether the middle person had been monarch. Their decision would be based, I have little doubt, on the perceived popularity of the middle person, popular opinion as to whether the person should be counted, and other political concerns. For instance, if the players are Elizabeth, Charles, and William, I could see a decision to call Charles king based on how long he waited or a decision to say he was not king so the politicians could avoid the Camilla question (i.e., is she Queen Dowager, etc.). After the PMs came to an agreement, the Accession Council(s) would act accordingly. -Rrius (talk) 04:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
If we're going to explore these sorts of things: what about this one? The first birth of aqueen regnant or the wife of the king: they are identical twins, and both boys. Who of the boys is the heir apparent? The one who appeared first?--Gazzster (talk) 05:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
And what if,later, the supposed heir presumptive disputes the succession, saying, 'the midwife told me I came first!'--Gazzster (talk) 05:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I predict with no authority whatsoever that if it was known that a birth of royal twins was expected, they would use the wonders of medical science to have one born several days before the other.--Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 07:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure twin boys have happened before in the peerage, and it would be the one that pops out first, whether 6 hours or 30 seconds before the other. That's what "first born male child" means. These days, they would be well aware in advance that it was to be a multiple birth (if not necessarily knowing the sexes in advance), and there would be numerous timekeepers on hand to avoid the issue of the 2nd child disputing the order. But identical twins could present an interesting dilemma of another kind. That wouldn't be a dispute about the order of birth as such, but a dispute about the claimed identity of each of them ("I'm Nigel" - "No, I'm Nigel and you're Marmaduke"). Rrius presents an interesting proposition, but wouldn't that be ignoring the law? The accession is legally determined by who's actually at the top of line of succession at the moment of the death of the monarch, not by a council having a vote on who's the best candidate based on popularity or other extraneous factors. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The royal succession is the only known thing that travels faster than the speed of light. If the heir was on the other side of the universe he would still become king instantaneously, regardless of distance. So, given this unusual natural property, we could use it to send messages across interstellar space. First we'd have to breed thousands and thousands of monarchs, each with their own royal lines. All the heirs could be sent to the places to which we wanted to send a message. And then, when an instantaneous message becomes necessary, we could line them up and using some sort of on/off code, such as morse, kill some of them (or perhaps more humanely, get them to abdicate), and leave others still reigning. The message would instantly appear at the other end, in the form of a line of monarchs and non-monarchs spelling out the agreed code. TharkunColl (talk) 09:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Even as a staunch monarchist, that made me actually L out L. You owe me a new keyboard, Gazz, as my current one is now soaked with beer. Prince of Canada t | c02:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
British law on the presumption of earlier death? Or just English? Doesn't matter in practice, as the Acts of Union explicitly refer to the English Act of Settlement for the succession.
I suspect in fact for the monarchy, as distinct from peerages, an unproclaimed monarch would not count. A possibly related anomaly is if the Queen Consort is pregnant at the time of the King's death. This hasn't happened here, but John I of France, Alfonso XIII of Spain & Shapur II of Persia all succeeded posthumously. In such a case, if a son is born, he is counted as king from birth, with an interregnum leading up to that. Otherwise, the next heir's reign is backdated. Peter jackson (talk) 17:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
There are quite a lot of such cases, and I believe WP has the best list available anywhere. I've just added Shapur II to the list, so thanks for the info. If you know of any others, feel free to add them on. -- JackofOz (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Forgive me for adding to what is already a pointless hypothetical digression, but after reading this discussion re: Queen Liz and tigers and Kenya, I thought as a lay awake last night of a slightly less hypothetical situation involving the monarchy but not the current monarch. So, Sophia of Hanover was Queen Anne's heir, though she ended up dying before her by only a couple of months -- and surely, due to random fortune, either of their death dates might have fluctuated a bit. Sophia also lived in Germany, and in the early 1700s I assume that news would take at least a couple of days to get from London to Herrenhausen. So, imagine the following two scenarios:
Queen Anne dies while Sophia is still alive, but she dies before the news reaches her.
Queen Anne dies after Sophia, but before news of Sophia's death gets to England.
So, in those situations, how would the monarchs be reckoned? In both scenarios, Sophia would have been proclaimed as Queen in Britain; would history list her among the monarchs in scenario one? --Jfruh (talk) 00:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm hardly an expert, but I don't think there's anything that says you have to know you are the monarch to be the monarch. -- Jao (talk) 01:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
interesting fact
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Because that is rank conspiracy theory of the worst tinfoil-hatted type? It bears mention in an article about crackpot conspiracy theories, not about the Queen of the UK (&c &c). Prince of Canada t | c03:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Why not...its a notable thing with plenty of sources...On the Moon article they talk about how people believed the moon to be a deity. We know it is not true now, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be noted. We do not know that the Queen is not a lizard and it is a very prominant theory about her, surely therefore it is notable. Gavin Scott (talk) 03:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
No, it's not notable. Crackpot ramblings--Unabomber, etc, aside--are not particularly noteworthy. The article on the moon contains such things because the moon has played a significant role in just about every mythology and religion on the planet. The Queen's status as a human being is not in doubt; she has four children. More to the point, one cannot prove a negative. If you are so bent on this, please find credible sources that state she is a lizard. Otherwise, please drop this. Prince of Canada t | c04:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Two questions, what is credible as a source (please don't nother linking me to the Wiki Policy on that because I have a feeling you have your own ides.) Also, how does one go about getting arbitration for a discussion on what should be included in an article? (should the need arise). Gavin Scott (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I will direct you to the policy, because the policy of credibility is what is at issue, here. As for what to be included in an article.. Be bold and include whatever you think should be included; arbitration isn't necessary unless/until an argument ensues. Please include sources to back it up. I'll warn you now, such inclusions won't be likely to stand, for a variety of reasons:
It is a conspiracy/tinfoil hat/crackpot theory that has no actual bearing on the person in question. Yes, conspiracy theories are noted in articles for, say, Diana and 9/11. In those cases, however, the theories are notable due to the wide-ranging ramifications if true. Also because some of those theories are actually plausible, unlike the contention that the Queen is, in fact, a lizard of some sort.
Due to its fringe nature, there isn't actually any verifiable, scholarly evidence to suggest that the Queen is actually reptilian. Yes, there is evidence to suggest that people believe it, which brings us back to..
It's not notable. At best, it's a minor piece of trivia that you want to add to an article that is already (necessarily) too long by WP standards.
If you really want to go ahead and add it, by all means do so. However, it is incumbent upon any editor who wishes to add information to show that the information is both verifiable and notable to the article in question. Your proposed inclusions will fail on one or both counts. Prince of Canada t | c05:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I for one would actually like to see some evidence that anybody in the world seriously, honestly, genuinely believes she's a reptile, just so that I can have the biggest laugh of the week. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
The Queen, Dubya, Kris Kristofferson and ... Boxcar Willie???? I really would be laughing if it wasn't so sad. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I had to reread this several times, each time not believing someone could think that the Queen was a reptile. I laughed so hard, lol. It does remind one of that tv movie V, in which lizard people came to earth to eat us! lol. This is so funny though.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk04:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Prince Philip
Latest comment: 16 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion
Please remember he wasn't a Prince from his renunciation of his Greek & Danish titles before marriage until 1957, when the Queen gave him the British title. People often got this wrong even at the time. Peter jackson (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
And since this is covered not only at his article, but here, I am left to once again wonder what the point of this admonition was. -Rrius (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
My point was: How does one renounce titles? I've a friend who doesn't use their title but legally they still hold the title. Answer on the Prince Philip talk page. I'm posting a thread there. --Cameron*15:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
And my point was that rather than correct this perceived problem or point out specific instances for discussion. Instead, you made a general admonition that did no good. Also, depending on the specific examples, "Prince" may refer to his current title, not any supposed past title. For example, there would be no problem with saying "Queen Elizabeth was born on 21 April1926". She was not Queen the day she was born, yet the sentence is still correct. -Rrius (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I think you have to use a bit of common sense here. "Queen Elizabeth was born on 21 April1926" wouldn't mislead anyone that way. The statement in the article before I corrected it that she married Prince Philip might well do so.
There seemed no point in raising particular issues as I'd already corrected those I noticed. The note was to remind those who hang around this article regularly (as distinnct from occasional visitors like me) to keep a look out for such things. Peter jackson (talk) 09:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Germanic heritage
Latest comment: 16 years ago28 comments13 people in discussion
A few reasons why Germany doesn't need to be linked in the lead:
The link is piped to House of Windsor, which is already linked elsewhere, and deals exhaustively with Germanic roots
The section discusses her links to the British Isles specifically; Germanic heritage is irrelevant in that context
Her Germanic heritage is alluded to elsewhere in the article, particularly her family tree
This has nothing to do with 'anti German bias', and frankly it is extremely rude to say that it does. Further, saying that Germany is her main lineage is POV. Accurate in some senses, but POV nevertheless. Prince of Canada t | c06:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I often wonder how people come up with the view that she's primarily German. One German grandparent and some other German ancestors a few generations back hardly make her German, especially when her mother had as British of an ancestry as anyone can get.--Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 07:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
It's an interesting application of the 'one drop rule', I think. Either way.. consensus? Germanic heritage not needed in lead due to my reasons noted above? Any dissent? Prince of Canada t | c07:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I too am puzzled as to how people come to this conclusion. I recently read an interesting article about her English, Scottish, and Welsh roots. --Cameron*09:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I certainly agree that edit which state "British Monarch is a German" (which is wrong) or "Her main lineage is German" (which I stated only in comment but not in the article) certainly require POV/Source attribution.
However, my edit merely state that she has a German lineage. House of Winsor is a branch of Wettin and Oldenburg, both German. Excluding mere mention of German linage, when the statement refers to her lineage in general does seem odd, to say the least.
Shafting mention of German/European lineage elsewhere seems like a POV content forking, given that renaming of Windor was specifically done to dissociate British Monarchy from German root.
Now a day, not even German bother about British monarchy's German lineage. I'm rather amused by the reaction to my edit. Long Live the Queen!! Vapour (talk) 10:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
It's not POV to say "House of Windsor is already linked elsewhere in the article, at which page Germanic heritage is covered in depth." Which still doesn't address the main point, which is: the paragraph is discussing her UK heritage in the context of the UK. It is not a discussion about her heritage "in general"; it is very specifically discussing the UK quite specifically. As such, her Germanic heritage--which is, again, covered quite extensively elsewhere--is irrelevant.
Oh, and it's not "POV content forking", as the renaming of the House is--again--dealt with at the House of Windsor page.
As pointed out below, where do you draw the line? The answer: you don't. You deal with her lineage in specific contexts, and again, it is covered in depth in a multitude of other articles. Prince of Canada t | c10:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
The Queen & Prince Philip are both German in the male line. However, looking at male lines produces some rather startling results, eg
the Royal House of Hanover were Italian
the Royal House of Stewart/Stuart were Breton
the Earls of Perth, who I think are Chiefs of Clan Drummond, are Hungarian
If you look at the overall mix of blood, you note that Queen Mary had a Hungarian grandmother, Countess Claudia von Rhedey, so George VI was more than 1/8 non-German. If you then examine the Queen Mother's ancestry, you find that her non-British ancestry is less than that much. So the Queen is more British than German, tho' still < 1/2 British. Prince Philip is mostly German, so Prince Charles is getting on for 3/4 German; > 1/2 anyway. Diana was mainly British, so Prince William is > 1/2 British, & will be the 1st such monarch since Queen Anne. Peter jackson (talk) 10:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I think it's a hopeless task to define someone's nationality in that way, and could be a matter of definition. How far back do you go? To a completely arbitrary point a while back? To the first ancestor in a given line to emerge into history? PatGallacher (talk) 10:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree. If people want to go into the genealogy of E2, they could create a new article. Or perhaps it already exists? It suffices here to describe her ancestry briefly.--Gazzster (talk) 10:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Germanic heritage, eh? She was born in England, both of her parents and all of her grandparents were born in England. Six of her great-grandparents were born in England, one in Slavnonia and one in Hanover. I make that a maximum of 1/8 Germanic... DBD11:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Her mother may have been born in England, but she was mainly brought up in Scotland. Her parents were throughly Scottish. All three of them were British, though. On the main topic, this sort of analysis can go anywhere one wants it to go. Is the criterion the place of birth of the ancestor; or their citizenship at birth; or where they lived most of their life; or their genetics? As Prince says, you can't draw the line anywhere, because just because her 5-greats-grandfather happened to be Hungarian, say, what does that mean? Were his parents 100% Hungarian, whatever that means? Hardly likely. You've got to investigate every single ancestor going back to the beginning of recorded history, which would involve literally millions of people, and the further back we go, the murkier and less meaningful become terms such as "German" or anything else. It's fun to come with a result that says "I'm 2% Eskimo, 17% Australian, 4.8% Canadian, and the rest British", but that doesn't actually mean anything. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
And does it matter, remembering that this arose because Prince suggests that Germany doesn't need to be linked? 'Nuff said.--Gazzster (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
It's a lot to do with self-identification. Since the start of the Hanoverian dynasty monarchs have tended to marry fellow Germans - so much so that Queen Victoria's first language was German (though she was virtually bilingual and wrote at least some of her diaries in English). Even later still we get Edward VIII who was forced out of office for being just a little bit too pro-German/Nazi. Only since then really, have the monarchs tried to distance themselves from the Germans, and Prince Charles must be the first to marry an Englishwoman in centuries. ðarkuncoll23:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Charles has married two Englishwomen; George VI's consort, the late Queen Elizabeth was a British woman; George V's consort, Queen Mary, was British born and raised, so, no, it's not the case that "Prince Charles must be the first to marry an Englishwoman in centuries" DBD00:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, I'd say that ancestry, genetics etc have little to do with one's nationality. One's legal citizenship at birth is determined by one's parents' citizenship at the time. Personally, my nationality is British, because that's how I identify (because I'm one of those weirdoes whose allegiance is with the Crown, which is of a United Kingdom). My citizenship is British because both of my parents were born in, and resident in at my birth, the UK. That's also true of the Queen. I daresay that she either personally identifies as British, having lived here all her life, and bearing its crown, or thinks of the issue as more complicated, seeing as she bears the crowns of sixteen realms. Actually, comes to think of it, is the Monarch, in her person, a citizen of any of her realms? Intriguing idea! DBD00:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it is. I think it's been raised b4 somewhere. Also raises the question, recently touched at Talk:United Kingdom of citizen vs subject. If a citizen is a subject, and the Queen is a citizen, she would be her own subject! But you're right, one's nationality is mostly defined by how one self-identifies.However, I don't think anyone was questioning Liz's nationality and the question of a link to Germany has, I think, quietly disappeared in the discussion.--Gazzster (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
A while back in Canada, an English man and a Scotsman (no this, isn't one of those jokes) were arguing as to the "nationality" of the Queen Mother. The Scotsman argued, she was born to Scottish parents in Scotland. The Englishman argued, she moved to England, and married an Englishman, and that she must therefore be English. Whilst the Queen Mother was visiting the hospital the pair of them were at, they decided to ask her to settle their dispute. The Queen Mother answered, "since I landed in Quebec, I'm a Canadian"! I think we can certainly say, they are all supranational institutions! ;) --Cameron*09:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Have any of you guy's ever heard of agnatic bias? Well, you're all suffering from it. Everyone's biological heritage includes the hundreds of mothers and their parents (etc) between the present the mythical founder of any dynasty. The "senior" agnactic line alone is just one of thousands of branches. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
There appears to be two issues. One is that this article have to be about Queen E II as a British/non-Continental-European. Another is that mention of her German lineage is unnecessary because it is mentioned elsewhere.
Wikipedia guideline specifically warn about writing an article from national perspective, done mostly to warn Americans wikipedian not to make wikipedia an U.S. centric site. This is separate from systemic bias of prominence of Anglo American media in wikipedia reference. There is even a specific Wikipedia project to combat this type of bias. Assertion that this article should be about British aspect of Queen E II, in exclusion of her European lineage is not kosher IMO.
There exist a guideline for writing an introduction in Wikipedia. It specifically state that introduction ought to be a summary of the whole article. The fact that the article mention her German lineage prominently does not work in favour of exclusion of mentioning German lineage in the intro. Rather, it work in support for inclusion.
I'm rather annoyed with implication that I'm advocating an edit which state "QEII is a German" (non a fact) or that her main lineage is a German (an Agnatic bias, hence require POV attribution). Rather I'm merely saying that her German lineage should be mentioned together with other lineage. Surely, exclusion of her Agnatic lineage would be a bias in itself. Vapour (talk) 09:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
P.S. If anyone personally have an issue with what constitute lineage, that is no one's business but themselves. However, I don't think it is a good idea to base this article's editorial policy on one's personal disagreement with dynastic tradition. House of Winsor is a branch of House of Wettin and House of Oldenburg, both of which are German. Vapour (talk) 10:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
P.P.S Moreover, the sentence refers to her "lineage". Her passport or place-of-birth seems irrelevant in this context.
And again, I will refer you to the second of my original points:
The section discusses her links to the British Isles specifically; Germanic heritage is irrelevant in that context
There is no 'exclusion' of her German heritage. It is dealt with exhaustively on the page that deals with her lineage in depth. I don't see how this is difficult to understand. In any case, the consensus appears to be: leave the lead as is. Prince of Canada t | c12:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
This page is so vast there isn't enough space to mention every little detail (the monarchists would have a field day!). The lineage isnt being ignored, it is merely on other articles. --Cameron*15:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Deacon seems to have missed my remarks, which were specifically directed against agnatic bias.
Latest comment: 16 years ago13 comments2 people in discussion
To UpDown: I only use Canada's arms as this article already leans over the NPOV line in terms of its global focus; thus, I felt it just to insert a different CoA to those of the UK. However, I only have reliable references to support the fact that the CAD CoA are also arms of the Queen. If someone can produce sources that affirm the AUS, NZ, JAM, or whatever else, arms are those of the Queen, then replace the CAD ones with any of those; I've no objection to that. --G2bambino (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, the article is already fairly image-heavy, many of the images are non-free (including coats of arms), and (minus the differencing) the COA of the UK is the coat she first bore and is best associated with. The other arms she bears are linked directly in the paragraph. Shorter version: I think we should go back to just the UK COA and leave the other arms linked as-is. Or, frankly, ditch all those images altogether. Prince of Canada t | c16:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I won't weigh in on whether or not the article is "image heavy," but the UK arms are most certainly not the arms she "first bore"; she did not somehow become Queen of the UK before she became Queen of Canada, or any of her other countries. Personally, I'm a fan of images, and I think the ones of EIIR's arms serve a good purpose, but, if this pro-British pov issue can't be settled, then, I'd have to say "ditch" them all as well. --G2bambino (talk) 16:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Er, actually.. yes, the arms of the UK (minus differencing, as I said above) are indeed the first arms she bore. I'm as Canadian as you and I don't see a pro-British POV here. And yes, I like images too, but enough is enough, especially when the article is well over size guidelines anyway. As an aside, your 'myopic' comment in your edit summary was incredibly rude; you know better. Prince of Canada t | c16:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, you'll have to prove, then, that she was somehow entitled to the arms of the British sovereign before she was to those of the Canadian one. Not that it's particularly relevant, though; the point here is giving this already UK-weighted article a little more of the scope it deserves, whether that means Papua New Guinean arms or not. We should, then, get your other aside out of the way: UpDown's petulant mimicking set the tone of the discourse, and, if you think making a widely spread comment about narrow viewpoints is "incredibly rude," you must have had the fortune of never experiencing what "incredibly rude" actually is. --G2bambino (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
It really would help, G2bambino, if you would read what I am now writing for the third time: she was entitled to the Royal Arms of the UK first, with differencing. Only the Sovereign bears the arms of the other realms, not the Heiress Presumptive. Further, UpDown's mimicking is neither here nor there, but engaging in a debate with you about [{WP:Civil]] is pointless. Prince of Canada t | c16:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, it is pointless; good that you noticed. Now, I certainly did read what you wrote; that doesn't mean, however, that I agree with, or see any sense in, it. Elizabeth's arms as Princess and her arms as Queen are (obviously) not the same, despite the lozenge of the former and the escutcheon of the latter having the same charges. --G2bambino (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
The arms of Princess Elizabeth of York before her marriage
From 21 April 1944[] until her marriage to the Duke of Edinburgh, Princess Elizabeth's arms were the Royal Arms, differenced by a label of three points argent (white), the centre bearing a Tudor Rose and the first and third points bearing a red cross. After her marriage, her arms were impaled with those of the Duke of Edinburgh, until her accession as Queen in 1952.[]
As the Head of State of each of the Commonwealth Realms, the arms of each country are simultaneously the personal Arms of the Queen, in most cases formally known as The Arms of Her Majesty in Right Of the country. The governments of the Commonwealth Realms use the arms as symbols of the authority of the Crown.
The Royal Standard is the Queen's flag, and is a banner of the Royal Arms. In some of the Commonwealth Realms, the Queen has an official standard for use when acting as Queen of that Realm; many of the Realms have their own Royal Standard, each one a defaced banner of the relevant coat of arms, including the Queen's personal badge: a crowned letter E inside a circle of roses on a blue disc. This badge was also used as the Queen's personal flag which is used in her role as Head of the Commonwealth and for visiting Commonwealth countries where she is not the head of state.
I think we're straying into other issues now, not, however, that they're necessarily unimportant. For the time being, the images are what has our attention, and, frankly, I think what's there now is a neat and decent result. EIIR's arms from before she became monarch is a possibility, but doesn't illustrate the current situation. --G2bambino (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
And the only way to accurately illustrate the current situation is with a gallery of seventeen images. Else, presentism. It is impossible to argue that she is not most associated with the UK, so showing only the UK arms is not unreasonable. It is, however, impossible to argue that if we're going to show more than one we should not show them all. Her arms before marriage are a useful compromise, illustrating as they do the uses of royal cadency and the interesting distinction that as Princess she bore a lozenge while bearing an escutcheon as Sovereign. Further, the arms are interesting to those who are interested in heraldry as they are rarely seen, while the arms of the UK and other Realms are easily found in the handy links located right in the paragraph. And even further, the differenced Royal Arms are those she was given in her own right, and not inherited as a matter of State. Prince of Canada t | c16:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, fair enough. Though a gallery of all 17 of her coats of arms would be interesting, as I said, her arms as princess are a possibility. If this really is going to become a contentious issue, then, put them in; the lack of current illustrations was just a related concern, but one which can easily be lived with. --G2bambino (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Compromise: use the Princess arms as above, and create a new article summarizing all the coats of arms which she uses. See User:PrinceOfCanada/Sandbox/EIIRArmsAndFlags. I'll throw in a table to start and we can populate it. Let's start with Princess, Marriage, As Sovereign (current) and then throw in the historical later. Prince of Canada t | c17:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Sounds fine. My only worry is any copyright problems; CoAs seem to be pretty loosely used in Wikipedia, but a whole gallery of them might attract attention from those who know more about copyvios than I. But, we should give it a go anyway; what's to lose? --G2bambino (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Televising of the Coronation
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Apparently she asked for the procession to be televised throughout the Commonwealth. But this list tells me that the only Commonwealth countries that had publicly available TV in 1953 were the UK and Canada. Surely the Palace knew this. So, what was Her request actually about? -- JackofOz (talk) 11:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I think we require more information. Did she really say "televise" or would radio coverage have counted? What does "publicly announced" television mean? Does the lack referred to in the article preclude local coverage in parts of the countries? -Rrius (talk) 04:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Spelling error
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago34 comments4 people in discussion
PoC, per your own "guideline" that you pointed to at House of Windsor, "Left-aligned images should not be placed at the start of subsections." That is all well and good, and none of the images here are placed at the start of subsections, only part way through or at the end. Thus, your objections are incomprehensible. --G2bambino (talk) 23:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Really?
So I'm imagining:
==Life as queen==
[[Image:Queencrown.jpg|left|thumb|The [[coronation]] of Queen Elizabeth II, 2 June 1953. Prince Philip swears his allegiance to his wife and newly crowned sovereign.]]
[[Image:QEII-1.jpg|thumb|left|Queen Elizabeth II reads a speech in [[Sydney]], upon her visit to Australia in 1954.]]
===Succession===
for one? I'm really not sure what your problem is, or why you are deliberately ignoring what you yourself have said about making cosmetic changes that appear perfect on only your computer. One more personal attack, by the way.. go on. Make one more. Prince of Canada t | c00:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, must you be so dramatic? (Ooh, you'll probably take that as a "personal attack"!) This has nothing to do with what appears how to whom, it's about whether or not a left-aligned image comes at the top of a subsection or not. You pointed to a (weak) example, but I'll fix that for you. Okay? --G2bambino (talk) 00:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, yes, I do take that as an attack, so once I've had dinner, welcome to ANI. And you still don't understand how layout works, as moving the images to the end of the previous section makes no sense whatsoever. I suspect you know this. Prince of Canada t | c00:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, good luck to you in whatever you feel is a valuable use of your time. But, if you don't feel that placing left-aligned images anywhere but at the top of a section "makes no sense," then I would suggest that you take it up at the GA review cheatsheet you directed me to. Perhaps you could work to have all left-aligned images banned. --G2bambino (talk) 00:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
PoC, you wrote the following edit summary "I suggest you re-read WP:Civil. It applies to edit summaries." what were you referring too? Gavin (talk) 01:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Seems like a pedantic thing to argue over, to then go on and request someone to insult you is certainly a breach of WP:CIVIL. Also, does noone else think there are maybe, too many images in this article? Gavin (talk) 02:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh no, I knew he was going to make another one. It was more predictive than provocative. Use of 'myopic' in another edit summary by him bolsters my point. And yes, I said above (in the section about EIIR's coat of arms) that the article is far too image-heavy. Shockingly, the man who doesn't comprehend how layout works disagreed. Prince of Canada t | c02:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I absolutely agree. I would keep the coronation photo, the photo in the infobox, the coat of arms as The Princess Elizabeth, the photo with the Brazilian Parure (if only to provide a link to Parure; if I am able to find enough free images I think there should be an article about EIIR's jewellery, as she owns many of the most significant pieces in the western world. Otherwise kill it), the signing of the Canadian Constitution (EIIR at work in one of the more significant acts of her reign), the wedding picture, the war service picture, and maybe her handwriting. Prince of Canada t | c03:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Hardly. He just can't argue when presented with incontrovertible fact. Would have been much simpler if he'd simply agreed in the first place, seeing as I was right anyway. Prince of Canada t | c22:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
No, indeed I can't, and wouldn't ever try to. There is, however, a big difference between "incontrovertible fact" and "fantastical imaginary fact," the latter being all you've ever put forward to support yourself. But, whatever, we should let the dreamers believe what they want; as long as things move forward.
Now, 1) why has the EIIR in Canberra image been removed under the disingenious guise of "Img move per Wikipedia:Accessibility and 1 2, etc."? And 2) the image of EIIR in Ottawa actually appears smaller at a fixed 200px than it does when left to be the size stipulated by set preferences; perhaps PoC should adjust his personal settings. --G2bambino (talk) 22:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Assume good faith, for God's sake. There is a limited amount of text available in the summary box. And as for 'fantastical imaginary fact', your inability to comprehend incredibly simple concepts related to formatting doesn't make them unreal. It makes them beyond your comprehension. Deal with it. Prince of Canada t | c22:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Simple concepts are not incontrovertible fact, either. Maybe one day you'll come to accept that you had none. Zilch, nada, zero; not one single shred of evidence to support what you were ranting about. Unless, that is, that you're User:Jao, which I doubt you are; and even then, what he provided had nothing to do with your assertions. Ah, but what's the use in trying to get you to admit the complete lack of solidity behind your claims? You never, ever will. So, with that ordeal behind us, whatever you think happened, what's is it now with the summary? There wasn't enough room to put re in front of move? I mean, you did the latter and not the former. What was your intent? --G2bambino (talk) 23:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
This is the point at which adults would usually issue an apology for throwing accusations around, and perhaps even eat a little crow. I won't be holding my breath. Prince of Canada t | c23:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, Prince. I'm sorry I made a mistake and thought you deleted the image. Okay? I'm fine with it, really. Now, if only we could hear something about you not having anything to support your arguments; an admission, at least! Could it ever happen? --G2bambino (talk) 23:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Given that I don't lie just to make other people feel better, no. Given that your screenshots proved my point, no. Given that I did have support--you know, silly things like 'fact' and 'knowing how formatting works', no. Also, what you wrote should have been "I'm sorry I accused you of something you didn't do, and insulted you, solely because I didn't bother looking first. It won't happen again." Prince of Canada t | c23:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
The screenshot proved my point, actually. No support for your "facts," ever, actually. But, no matter, your response was exactly as expected. At least you get marks for consistency. --G2bambino (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Look. Just because you don't understand how formatting code works doesn't mean that's not how it works. I don't understand how quantum physics works, but it doesn't make the scientists wrong. I mean seriously.. how many times did I have to explain how fixbunching works before you finally understood that it had nothing to do with whitespace? Your lack of comprehension isn't the same as lack of facts in the real world. Sorry, but that's how it is. Prince of Canada t | c23:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
If I was to try and explain quantam physics to you, I'd use examples and proof to back up what I was saying. The latter there is a pretty simple and basic tenet of science, actually. You said something was happening, then you said it could happen, and then said... well, just that you'd said so already. Guess you won't be seeking a career in law, science, or the teaching profession. Perhaps a religious path is your calling... --G2bambino (talk) 23:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
What is wrong with you? I ask that as a serious question. I have said all along that left-aligned images can push down into the following section and mess up its formatting. The screenshot proves that. I have also said that not all computers will render pages the same way, and your screenshot proves that. What, honestly, is wrong with you? What joy are you deriving from doing nothing but heaping abuse and scorn on me? Prince of Canada t | c00:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
You said left-aligned images can mess up formatting and disconnect the header from the text. The screen shot did not support that claim at all; despite the image bridging two sections, the header is clearly nestled right between the text above and that which follows, exactly where it should be. The only problem with what I'd done (putting the image at the end of the preceeding section in html) came out of accessability issues; something you never once brought up. I suspect you know all this already, you just can't bring yourself to admit it. --G2bambino (talk) 00:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
This article states "Elizabeth was born at 17 Burton Street, in Mayfair, London" This is probably a typo; she was actually born at 17 Bruton Street in Mayfair, London on April 21, 1926. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.89.205 (talk) 02:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I do. Higham & Moseley's Elizabeth and Philip: The Untold Story mentions Bruton Street a number of times. I've read this in many other places as well. It's always been Bruton, and not Burton. I can understand someone assuming this is a typo, but it ain't. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:EIIR-Aus-1.jpg
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The image Image:EIIR-Aus-1.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The section on bravery should be removed. It is all conjecture. It is basically wishful thinking on the part of pro-royalists. There is no mention of advice from the personal guards, police or forces. No mention of the real risk. Let alone how we measure a strong constitution!!
Latest comment: 16 years ago17 comments8 people in discussion
Dear readers, is she Elisabeth II of the United Kingdom? Isn`t she at the same time, Elisabeth II of Canada, Elisabeth II of Australia, etc, etc? I think that the name should be edited in a more NPOV and realistic one. My proposal is: Queen Elisabeth II.
She is, yes. And for what it's worth, I agree. Apparently it has been decided, however, that she is most widely known for being Queen of the UK, so that's where her article is. My preferred solution would be an article at Elizabeth II with redirects from the appropriate alternate names, as opposed to the current, which redirects Elizabeth II to the page we're at now. That being said, having read some of the bloodthirsty fights about the matter, it is really not worth bothering. Some people have specific pet issues that they are incredibly passionate and vicious about; this is one of them. So while it is not factually accurate to have the main article where it is, it is what I call Wikipedia accurate; 'close enough for government work,' in other words. Prince of Canada t | c17:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Though I agree that the name is not reflective of reality, I'd say it doesn't even merit the designation of "Wikipedia accurate"; the title grossly violates Wikipedia's own NPOV policies. Regardless, arguing to move the page will prove to be a futile exercise, Arditbido. --G2bambino (talk) 18:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd say it does reflect reality. If you show people (around the world) a picture of her they'd most probably recognise her as Queen of the United Kingdom. After all the title is older than any of her other titles....--Cameron*18:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, and to avoid cluttering this page with this discussion again, the present title is a direct consequence of the third and fourth points at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles): Pre-emptively disambiguate the names of kings, queens regnant, [...] in the format "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}" and Where a monarch has reigned over a number of states, use the most commonly associated ones. So any discussion of this belongs at the NC(NT) talk page, not here. -- Jao (talk) 18:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
For common-usage & international recognition reasons? the article's name is correct Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Not even. Common usage and international recognition would require this article be named The Queen, or The Queen of England. --G2bambino (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
As per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) the article should be refered as Elisabeth II of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and other Releams. This because this countries are associated with the Queen. Secondly, if we use her official name and tittle, it would be Elisabeth II, Queen of ...(every state that she is a Queen. So I propose that the name should be: Queen Elisabeth IIbalkanian (talk) 12:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Nope; she should have the same article title George III, George IV, William IV, Victoria, Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII & George VI. GoodDay (talk) 13:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Just one point Arditbido its ELIZABETH not Elisabeth though I believe her name is spelt with an S in the French version of her Canadian style/title Penrithguy (talk) 17:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Let's not keep having this discussion, eh. There are references above to "apparently it has been decided", and "pet issues" and "the title grossly violates Wikipedia's own NPOV policies" etc. These all may be true in isolation, but at the end of the day, (a) WP works by consensus, (b) consensus sometimes overrides general policies because no policy can accommodate all the possible variations and exceptions that we have to deal with, and (c) the consensus is to have it the way it is now. We all have to learn to lose some fights, accept the consensus, and move on. If you've presented your arguments as strongly as you can, but the majority have gone the other way, there's really no point in continuing to rail against it. That may indeed be indicative that one is unwilling or unable to let go of one's own pet issues. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
'Course, consensus does change. I don't particularly want to reopen the discussion, for the reasons I posted above. The article is, by any measure, at the wrong space. Alas, and this is one of wikipedia's most egregious failings, a few (and, digging, it really is only a few) editors enforced their own POV through sheer force of will, and not through anything silly like 'fact' or 'adherence to policy'. As such, the uphill battle involved in actually putting this article at the right place is simply far too horrifying to contemplate. Prince of Canada t | c21:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
You see, that's pretty much an example of what I'm talking about. Who gets to decide what the "right" space for an article is? Is it any one user, or any small sub-group of users amongst a larger group? No, it's not. When you say "the article is, by any measure, at the wrong space" (my itals), you're effectively saying that a consensus can be wrong. But wrong from whose perspective? Consensus is the ultimate "measure" we use around here. Yes, consensuses can change over time, and maybe this one will be revisited and a different outcome might eventuate at some point. Right now, though, we have what we have. Grumbling about it isn't effective, positive or productive. There are many WP issues I've been involved in where, when it came time to call a consensus, my view did not prevail and I just had to cop it sweet and accept that's the way it is. Nobody gets their own way all the time around here. Nobody. If you take the martyr position ("a few editors enforced their own POV through sheer force of will"), you're effectively giving away your power to other users. You may as well say "I chose to let them win, and I blame them for that". We've all seen the users who go on and on, using threats of admin intervention, ALL CAPS to shout other users down, and so on and so forth. But those techniques are not arguments, and if you're convinced your case has the greatest merits, it's up to you to not allow yourself to be shouted down or intimidated, but to prosecute your case regardless. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Errr.. well thanks for that pile of judgement there. Who gets to decide what the 'right' space is? Well, facts. Which are, for good or ill, subordinate to consensus on WP. Moving on... The article name fails on at least two points: it is POV (she is equally Queen of 16 separate countries, with separate titles; 'most common name' would be (as pointed out above) Queen of England (also factually incorrect), or simply 'The Queen'. Further, I don't believe I was involved in any such discussions; I am fairly certain they were all done and dusted long before I was here. So uh.. thanks for that, too. Prince of Canada t | c23:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
There was no personal judgment in what I wrote, of you or anyone else, and maybe if you re-read it you'll see what I'm saying. I'm talking about principles, not personalities. If you believe that facts outweigh consensus on Wikipedia, you'd better have a long chat to Jimmy Wales and the custodians of our policies on verifiability vs. truth and our other policies, rules and guidelines. You, and all of us, are members of the committee; we are not separate from them. It's not a "me vs. them" situation. If you believe that an earlier consensus - in which you took no part - is ready for revisiting in the light of what you consider to be better arguments, then I'm sure you know how and where to initiate such a discussion. Here's not the place for it, though. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Facts are quite demonstrably outweighed by consensus, and we all know it. Facts and verifiability are not the same thing. As for reopening the discussion, please see my first comment in this thread. But we're ranging rather far afield here in any case. Adieu. Prince of Canada t | c00:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Photo of the Queen at NASA??
Latest comment: 16 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion
For Christ's sake, where on earth has that fantastic picture of the Queen visiting NASA gone?!? Why was it removed?? It wasn't even freakin' copyrighted!! 92.12.167.97 (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I have restored the image, as well as undoing some of Britan's seemingly pro-religious edits. In order to be NPOV, I've put the subs in that section in alphabetical order. --G2bambino (talk) 23:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Aw, that's so harsh! Personally, I love both the jewels and the facial expression. The low-res is a problem though...I really want to use the coronation portrait! ;)--Cameron*13:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty certain you are the first person I have ever heard say that they like that aquamarine... thing. It gives me the creeping horrors; it's hideous! Especially when you consider the truly stunning pieces she has in the vault. Prince of Canada t | c20:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Her Majesty likes it! The tiara she is wearing, she actually had made to match the jewels, which were a present from the Brazilian government. The version you dislike is actually the improved version (she had some diamonds added since receiving it). Because HM liked it so much, she recieved a bracelet and a hair piece during her second state visit to Brazil! --Cameron*19:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, on reflection, I should note that the horror of that parure (which is a pity, really, as the stones themselves are spectacular) is rather overshadowed by some of the monstrosities worn by Beatrix and Margarethe. Prince of Canada t | c03:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I know she likes it.. I guess even those with excellent taste are thrown once in a while. I wish she'd wear the Vladimir more often (with pearls, or with emeralds, or without); that is gorgeous. The Kokoshnik 'Wall-O-Diamonds' is also spectacular.. I noticed that it looks like you're planning an article on her jewellery ;) I'll have to get a copy of the Tiara Bible and help out! Prince of Canada t | c19:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Title between marriage and accession
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
There seems to be debate on this.
My opinion is that she bore the titles from her husband (as per usual practice), but probably never used them. I would love to see a source that definitively says she possessed and/or used the titles, however. Prince of Canada t | c03:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Ugly mess at the opening now
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Bit of an insult to the lady that the text is squashed into one- or two-word lines at the very opening. Can someone please move that box down? Tony(talk)14:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I have moved it for now. I don't know of a way to ensure one infobox stacks under another. Someone else please feel free to move to a more appropriate area of the article; the only two areas I can see would cause ugly sandwiching issues. Prince of Canada t | c14:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Recent edits
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I've just spent a couple hours going over the article.
Dead references have been removed;
References have been split into citations and footnotes;
NB: Some of the footnotes need to be cited
All citations have been converted to {{cite foo}} templates wherever remotely possible.
Some links have been removed from the External Links section due to poor quality, questionable accuracy, or both. The YouTube link has been changed to link to The Royal Channel, rather than a specific (and potentially deletable) video.
Vast swathes of this article are completely unreferenced. We need to do something about this.
Latest comment: 16 years ago15 comments3 people in discussion
The commonwealth flag image did not need to be moved to the left. Given the large amount of text above and below, image stacking is a minimal concern except on extremely large screen resolutions. As it stands now, the image spans into the section below, and WP:LAYOUT says that "Generally, if there are so many images in a section that they strip down into the next section at 1024x768 screen resolution, that probably means either that the section is too short, or that there are too many images," implying that stripping into the next section should be avoided. I can provide screenshots if you like. Please put it back. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 15:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
There aren't; there is one, which is blanketed by large amounts of text above and below, making image stacking unlikely except on all but a very small percentage of screens. The relevant portion of LAYOUT clearly implies that stripping is to be avoided. Please put it back. As for the other images, please note that LAYOUT specifies 'at 1024 x 768'-- which leaves the Commonwealth flag image the only one stripping. I can provide screenshots if you would like. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 15:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Whether there is one image or not, you implied that there were too many. If the cypher is the only image stripping, and stripping is, as you say, to be avoided, then the cypher image is the only one that needs to be removed. --G2bambino (talk) 15:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
No, I didn't. I quoted what WP:LAYOUT says, and said that implies that stripping should be avoided at 1024x768. The cypher image doesn't need to be removed, it needs to be moved back where it was, to avoid stripping into the next section. Please move it back. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 15:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Again, at 1024x768 it caused no stripping where it was originally placed. Please put it back. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 15:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
It's only parallel because you have decided to do fundamentally the same thing in two places, without a good reason for doing so. The article looked perfectly fine as it was, there are no issues at the dominant standard screen resolution, and there was no need to move the image. Please put it back. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 15:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
In any case, as you so often say, the status quo should remain until dispute is settled. Please put the image back where it originally was, on the right-hand side of the section. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 16:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I already had, but have just now removed what looked like a bad tag saying the ELs violated policy. [ roux ] [x]05:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Canadian?
Latest comment: 15 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion
She is currently in the categories Canadian philanthropists and Canadian military personnel. Whilst she is Queen of Canada, I do not believe she possesses Canadian citizenship. Therefore, I do not see how she can fit the criteria for either of those categories. Werdnawerdna (talk) 11:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't know about citizenship, but if she is a Canadian philanthropist, where is the treatment of her philanthropy? She is the patron of certain Canadian (and UK, Australian, New Zealand, etc) societies. But a philanthropist is generally understood as a person donating their own wealth to a particular cause. As for Canadian military personnel, she has a better claim to that category. Yet she is a purely honorary commander.--Gazzster (talk) 11:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Even donating time to a cause, classes one as a philanthropist. Canadian philanthropist should definitely stay, though I would not necessarily keep military...--Cameron*13:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
She is definetly entitled to be on the list of Canadian military personnel, but i agree with Gazzster that she should not be on the Canadian philanthropist list. She isnt on the Australian one and im sure she has done similiar things there. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
As the Queen does not appear on the list of British philanthropists either perhaps the reason she appears on only the Canadian list is something to do with the "QEII Foundation" which mentions philanthropy alot. http://www.qe2foundation.com Either way i still agree it should be removed from the list. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Regardless of what some people think Her Majesty The Queen ≠ Personification of Monarchy. While adding a monarchism template is relevant (HM is but one small part of the monarchy), adding a republicanism template just seems plain silly. --Cameron*18:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how it is silly, plus it is relevant. For the simple fact that the Monarch in power (Q.E.II) is the current Head of State for several nations. And as such, the republican movements are fundamentally about trunicating her through a move towards a republican form of government(in her realms). Such a move would be the establishment of a new Head of State.
The republican movements are basically the opposition movement for Q.E.II as their Head of State. The republican template allows a reader to see once they've read about Q.E. II exactly who are her opposing forces so they have both sides of the story. CaribDigita (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I see the point, but the article isn't about her opponents. There are relevant links to republican movements in the body of the text, as appropriate. And besides, the article already has an infobox and a fine-looking template. Another, and especially that one, which is not as athestically pleasing, would clutter the page.--Gazzster (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Sniff sniff, I thought it was the best part of the article. But, Gazz & Camer are correct; such republican nav-boxes would have to be added to every Monarch biography article. Best to remove. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I thought about it another way... I believe I see your point. Having the republican template on Q.E.II's article would be tantamount to placing a template regarding 'independence for the Southern United states' on the article about G.W. Bush (Vs. placing it on the article about the President of the United States... -- If the south were talking about leaving the union in this day and age.) Okay so I see your point of view too. I'm going to say we go with your suggestion and remove it.) CaribDigita (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Grenada without a Governor-General plans to seek advice of the Monarch.
Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
There is showdown going-down in Grenada. The situation is the Governor-General has chosen to step down.... The current government in power does not yet have a new Governor-General to represent the Queen. Now the Opposition and the Government have started to argue over whether Grenada can operate without a GG and they will plan to seek the advice of Q.E.
I don't really understand why it's an issue. Don't they have arrangements in place for when a GG dies in office, or travels overseas? Is there not an Administrator, such as we have in Australia, who can step into the role on a temporary basis? -- JackofOz (talk) 04:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Interesting, but I don't know that it's of great importance. I would have thought however, that if the government is operating without a GG, as seems to be, then it can.--Gazzster (talk) 04:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
That source is one of the first written sources of the fray in Grenada. The underlying issue that has come up is in the wording of the Constitution. The Opposition and others in Grenada ceasing on the wording of the Constitution which states in part "there shall be a Governor-General" because according to them without one now, it means that Queen Elizabeth will now have to carry out the day-to-day duties of the Office of the Governor-General in Grenada (in the true sense of the meaning) until a new GG is sworn in.
The Opposition further challenges that if Queen Elizabeth carries out the day-to-day duties in Grenada then this calls into question the entire legally of the Independence Order of Grenada Constitution that says the day to day duties are to be carried out by a GG. Talk about conundrum. It is left to be seen if the Opposition is going try something at this time to frustrate the situation. However until Thursday the Queen will for all practical purposes be assuming the day-to-day duties of the Office of the Governor General in Grenada until a new GG is appointed by Queen Elizabeth. Hence why they are all now awaiting her response to this situation on whether the Opposition is just barking up the wrong tree. She may have to institute a temporary fix. CaribDigita (talk) 10:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Interesting stuff. Sounds there could be implications for other realms. Has Grenada never had a vice-regal vacancy before?--Gazzster (talk) 10:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
The source of retirement info
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Is there any credible source of some news media reports of her having announced at Prince Charles' birhday party a fortnight ago her plans to retire in 5 years' time?Muscovite99 (talk) 19:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I haven't heard this story, but I would be very surprised if it proved to be anything other than apocryphal. She once made a solemn pledge that she would serve as Queen for her whole life, and nothing that's ever come from the Palace has given any reason to think she's changed her mind. But if she ever did change her mind, I very much doubt she'd be giving 5 years' notice, and I very much doubt she'd be announcing it at a birthday party, no matter whose it is. And if she had said something about it at Charles' recent party, it would have made BIG headlines by now.-- JackofOz (talk) 20:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Canadian crisis
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
There might be a need to expand Canada some, as her role in gov't has been looked at due to the current crisis and issues with parliamentary procedure. Some pundits have suggested that the PM might have had the GG fired in order to have a more amenable figure appointed to the position, before the prorogation went through. 76.66.195.159 (talk) 06:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I think it is less to do with the Parliamentary system than it is due to the fact that there are multiple parties in the Parliament. The United States went through the same thing when Joe Lieberman "crossed the floor" (although the Americans don't call it that) when he turned his backs on the Democrats and became an independent. He then started working with the Republican party. That too could have been a Coalition government of sorts too. If the United States had more people in a third party the same problem could develop here as well. CaribDigita (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Lieberman didn't do that. He has continued to caucus with the Democrats throughout. The nearest equivalent is when Jim Jeffords became an independent and caucused with the Democrats, changing party control of the Senate. The similarity is not that strong, though, because a change of party control in the House or Senate does not change control of the government in the US. In any event, the IP user was not saying it has to do with the the parliamentary, as opposed to presidential, system. He or she was saying it has to do with parliamentary procedure, i.e., the workings of a legislative body. -Rrius (talk) 00:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
In Canada, the Governor General rejecting the Prime Minister's advice has (as far as I know) occured only once (in 1926). Jean will likely continue to go by Harper's advice. GoodDay (talk) 01:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Margaret marriage error
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
On the subject of below (taken from "Succession"):
In the midst of the coronation preparations, Princess Margaret informed her sister, the Queen, that she wished to marry Peter Townsend. Townsend was a divorced commoner sixteen years older than Margaret with two sons from his previous marriage...... Churchill advised against the marriage, and the other Commonwealth prime ministers were also concerned that the union would be seen as unsuitable by the public. The Church of England did not permit re-marriage after divorce, and Lord Salisbury, a senior government minister, threatened to resign if the government approved the match. If Margaret contracted a civil marriage against the government's advice, she would be removed from the line of succession.[37] Eventually, Margaret decided to abandon her plans with Townsend, "mindful of the Church's teaching that Christian marriage is indissoluble, and conscious of my duty to the Commonwealth".[38] Margaret later married Antony Armstrong-Jones, 1st Earl of Snowdon.
I can see the key use of "did" but that was never really true. Did Henry VIII not create the Church of England for the specific reason that he could divorce (since he wasn't able to dissolve the marriage - but really, the different eludes me) and marry another woman? Therefore the Church of England DOES permit it. Unless the Monarchy have some sort of super higher amazing Church of England, but i don't think so.
Technically on that point her comment is also misguided.
If i'm wrong please do correct me - i do not know the ins and the outs of Anglican Doctrine.
The attitude of the Church of England toward divorce is ambivalent. While reaffirming its indissolubility, it recognizes that the civil law must make provision for it. [2] In 1857, when civil law divorce in England was first possible on the grounds of adultery, the C of E approved it, but only on those grounds. [3] In 2002 the General Synod of the Church of England recognized divorce other than on the grounds of adultery in ‘exceptional circumstances’ (ibid.) The Church blessed the marriage of the Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall after a civil ceremony.
None of this, of course, would have helped Margaret. I don’t know if she claimed adultery on the part of her husband. I suspect that even if she could, the Court and Whitehall would not have wanted the spectacle of a trial.
As for Henry VIII, he did not technically divorce Catharine of Aragon, as we understand the term. Even though the word ‘divorce’ was used in the 16th century, it was actually what we call an annulment, a declaration that no marriage was validly and legally contracted in the first place. Thus, Henry was declared free to remarry.
That marriage was dissolved by the C of E on the grounds that it was not consummated. It took advantage of a belief, still held by the Roman Catholic Church, that an unconsummated marriage is an imperfect one, and so easier to dissolve[4]. Rough on poor Anne, but, hey, if you're a king who can can start your own church, you can do anything!--Gazzster (talk) 04:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Attitude towards Communism
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
EIIR's political views are not widely known due to her political neutrality. The reference desk is more suitable for non content related questions and you will also get more answers there. ;) --Cameron*17:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Queen Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth realms
Latest comment: 15 years ago29 comments8 people in discussion
Did the title shock you? Don't worry, I'm not starting yet another discussion on moving the article/changing its title. However I propose to highlight the fact that Her Majesty is not only Queen of the United Kingdom, and for a compromise to show that, I suggest that in the very first paragraph of the article we bold the countries of which she is Head of State of, so when a person reads this article that will be seen well and will give it a better effect. I already did this, but someone reverted it for some unknown reason, so I thought I might ask others about their opinions on this first. So what does everyone say about the compromise idea? --KushanI.A.K.J11:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I can understand the reasons why you make the suggestions and to be honest i would prefer the actual title not to include "of the United Kingdom" which would be far more inclusive and accurate as the Queen holds equal status throughout the commonwealth realms including the UK. However i do not really see the need to bold the realms in the opening paragraph, right now they are all blue links to the correct country pages which makes them stand out from the rest of the text anyway. I saw the bold when you did it before, and in my opinion it looked odd having several lines of bold text in the middle of a paragraph, but i am not strongly against the idea. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with the suggestion. Indeed, I would go further and say that we need to make it clear in the first sentence that she is Queen, first and foremost, of the UK. I'm not talking about legal theory here, but the simple fact that she lives in the UK and only in the UK is she in any way involved in government. In the overseas realms she is an absentee figurehead with no influence at all. ðarkuncoll12:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Is she Queen first and foremost of the UK? I don't think that's true at all...she may be more active in the UK but does that mean we should then rank her "Queenship" of a country based on how involved she is with it? Perhaps Queen foremost of the UK, then Canada but only a little bit Queenie of Saint Lucia? Nah, I don't think that it should be upon us to decide where she is Queen foremost of...as for the bold suggestion, I don't think so- the article states she is queen of 16 countries and then goes on to give a fair bit weight to the UK before listing the rest. Gavin (talk) 13:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
She is just as much Queen of Canada as she is Queen of the United Kingdom which is why the "of the united Kingdom" in the title of this article is very offensive and inaccurate. Personally i would prefer just Queen Elizabeth II or Elizabeth II and then offer see other suggestions at the top but i would presume this matter has been gone into on many occasions. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with BritishWatcher, although the title of article doesn't seem too offensive to me, it could be very offensive to patriotic person in a realm such as, say, New Zealand. It is also quite inaccurate as it gives the effect, at a glance, that the United Kingdom is the most important of the realms. Some people who read this article might even think that the UK has power over the other countries. I know this has been discussed many times before, but I urge people to think about showing the equality of the realms more and perhaps, if necessary, think about moving the article to Queen Elizabeth II, etc. --KushanI.A.K.J13:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I was careful to make the point above that I wasn't talking about legal theory, but practical fact. And in this sense, she isn't as much Queen of Canada etc. as Queen of the UK. Any removal of "of the United Kingdom" from the title of this article would be very offensive to the people who actually pay for the Queen, namely the population of the UK. ðarkuncoll13:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I disagree whilst she may spend most of her time in the United Kingdom and the UK be her largest realm (by population) she is still just as much Queen of Canada as she is Queen of the United Kingdom. I think calling her Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is more offensive to the 10s of millions in her other commonwealth realms than calling her Elizabeth II would be to British tax payers who aint the only people who pay for the monarchy. Considering both "Queen Elizabeth II" and "Elizabeth II" redirect to this page anyway i don't understand why the article is "of the United Kingdom" Its simply crazy and offensive. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
As I said, I wasn't talking about legal theory. She is represented in Canada by a substitute and hardly ever goes there. And if you want to drop her title from this article, how about that of her predecessors? George VI, for example? ðarkuncoll13:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
The Queen does go there when she can, the Governor General does most of her day-to-day duties in Canada. As for the titles: We can change it or we can leave alone all monarchs of the realms starting with Queen Victoria, or other monarchs who did have other very important titles, who had separate important titles other than of the UK. ----But I strongly suggest we do something about this article as it is under Queen Elizabeth II most of those realms gained full independence, etc and it is inappropriate to have "of the United Kingdom" as part of the title... --KushanI.A.K.J13:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Theres a big difference now between the United Kingdoms relationship with the other countries of the commonwealth who all share the same monarch and back when Britain still had an empire and those realms were dominions where Britain still had limited power. Today Australia is a fully independent country and that country has a monarch, The Queen of Australia. I have no problem with this article focusing mostly on her activities in the United Kingdom (which is where she usually is) but i dont see the need to label her "of the United Kingdom" in the title. Its like the UK is trying to claim ownership of her which is wrong. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I must agree once again, Australia federated in 1901 and in practice had full independence, yet they were also given full independence in theory as well about 30 years later. Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of Australia just as much as she is of the United Kingdom. --KushanI.A.K.J13:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
As this is a big issue we should probably wait and see how others respond to this section over the next day or two before doing a poll but i think theres probably quite a few people who have a problem with the current title. (ive yet to look over the previous debates on this issue though). Statute of Westminster 1931 is when the major change took place yes, although it wasnt until the Australia Act 1986 when the United Kingdom surrendered complete control over anything to do with Australia, there had still been a few loop holes till that point. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to change. The very title of the article concedes that E2 is primarily identified as Queen of the UK. It also accords equal dignity to her other realms--Gazzster (talk) 14:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC).
Not really, primarily Queen Elizabeth II is identified by her name or usually as "Queen of England", or simply The Queen. --KushanI.A.K.J14:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I dont see any reason why the title is the way it is currently. There are separate articles on Monarchy of Canada and Monarchy of United Kingdom. This is about Queen Elizabeth II who happens to be Queen of the United Kingdom, Queen of Australia, Queen of Canada etc. Why does it have to say she is "Of the United Kingdom" how is leaving that part out of the title going to cause any confusion, where as at the moment it causes offense. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Many people don't like it, why not give compromise a chance? (Also, this idea of the title of the article being offensive or what not shouldn't really matter- lets talk facts and maintain a NPOV) Gavin (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
This is one of those cases where every possible solution (and many have been proposed) will be acceptable to some but not to others. The current version seems to have been acceptable to the most people over the longest time, so let's leave it at that. There have been so many previous debates about this that maybe we should have a separate Wikipedia article "Controversy about the name of the Wikipedia article referring to Queen Elizabeth II". Those wanting to revive the debate have a duty to familiarise themselves with at least some of the more recent previous discussions. Maybe what we need is a stand-alone template that shows all the variations that have been proposed over the years, with a quick summary of why they were rejected, so that we don't have to keep on reinventing the wheel. Life is too short for this. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
The actual name of the article you propose would have to be "Controversy about the name of the Wikipedia article referring to Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom". ðarkuncoll21:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
The problem is, of course, even if we substitute the article name, what on earth are we going to substitute it with? 'Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth realms' sounds like a title, which it is not. 'Elizabeth II'? E2 is the name of several historical persons. 'Elizabeth II of Windsor'? She is rarely known by her house name.No, what we have is fine. We colonials should not be over-sensitive about these things.--Gazzster (talk) 22:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
C-60 Canada
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Noticed that in the section regarding Canada in 1980, it is mentioned that Bill C-60 might change the Constitutional role of the Queen, but I believe Bill C-60 was not introduced until 2005, and was meant to enact changes to the Canadian Copyright Act. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.36.133.229 (talk) 04:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago11 comments8 people in discussion
Qote from the article: ...and their total land area makes Elizabeth one of only a few monarchs to reign over parts of every continent on earth.
Does this refer to monarchs who have in the past reigned over parts of every continent on earth (in which case it is IMO gramatically ambiguous, maybe ...monarchs to have reigned... would fit better?), which would clearly only include her and a few of her predecessors, or does it indeed mean CURRENT monarchs reigning over parts of... etc?
In the latter case i would be wondering how there could be anybody else but her, seeing that Australia is a continent in itself, and she reigns over it. Lbocgn (talk) 02:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Only monarchs of the United Kingdom have reigned over Australia and the six colonies that formed it. The failed Dutch colonies of the 17th century (the island continent now known as Australia was named Nova Hollandia in 1644) were during the republic. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 03:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
The Dutch Monarch would also have had a colony in every continent too. Off the top of my head... New York, Suriname, Aruba, South Africa, And here is the photo of their Asian/Oceanian colonies. [File:Dutch_and_Portuguese_in_Asia_c._1665.png] CaribDigita (talk) 02:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
At the time that New York (or New Amsterdam) as it was then was a Dutch colony The (northern) Netherlands were not a monarchy buit a republic although the head of state was usually a member of the House of Orange Penrithguy (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
The maternity ward of Ottawa Hospital was temporarily part of the Netherlands in 1943 so Princess Margriet would be a Dutch citizen. Back to the original topic, nobody has yet mentioned that Antarctica is a continent. The terms of the Antarctic Treaty about sovereignty make the claim of "reign over parts of every continent on earth" dubious. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 03:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I see now. My mistake. Well, I don't know what the IP means about the terms of the Antarctic Treaty. It would seem to me that if the UK and Australia both have an Antarctic territory, then the Queen's sovereignty extends to that continent. --Miesianiacal (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If the IP user is referring to main treaty of the Antarctic Treaty System, it does not recognize or dispute any claims to sovereignty. Portions of the continent are claimed and controlled by the UK, Australia, and New Zealand, so on what basis would Wikipedia refuse to recognize the claims? -Rrius (talk) 15:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
added***
(since i dont think i can create a separate archive, let me please post my concern here)
at the start of the article, it is written that the Queen had control over Pakistan in 1952. Pakistan was declared an independent country and isolated from the British Rule, which is why Queen Elizabeth could NOT have been the sovereign of Pakistan. Please correct this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.154.45.71 (talk) 19:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
QE II's decision to forbid resettlement of Diego Garcia by native Chagos Islanders
Latest comment: 15 years ago12 comments7 people in discussion
Clearly that should be here. The case was in the British courts and the court granted that they be allowed to return to their native island after being forcibly deported. The Queen then intervened and overruled the court by granted the British Government a "Royal Prerogative" or the power to forbid the Chagos Islanders from ever being able to move from the UK back to their native islands. Clearly that is a human rights issue involving the Queen. CaribDigita (talk) 03:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Sounds interesting. Go for it. Incidentally, I notice there's no 'Controversy' section. Perhaps there should in biography or so significant a person.--Gazzster (talk) 04:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
It was not a personal decision by the Queen. It would make no more sense to include it than controversial lines from openings of parliament. I have removed the section as it is violation of the policy on the policy on biographies of living persons to imply that she somehow personally chose to ban the return of Chagos Islanders to Diego Garcia, as the inclusion of such an issue on this page does. It should remain off of this page without clear citations showing her personal involvement (beyond exercising the royal prerogative on the advice of her government).--Ibagli rnbs mbs (Talk) 04:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
From the link: ""On June 10, 2004, the right they thought they had, and believed they had, was removed from them," he said. "Not by Parliament, but by Her Majesty the Queen acting through Orders in Councilon advice from the Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office." Until and unless other controversial actions by the British government in the name of the Queen are listed on here, this should not be. What's next? Putting every court case where the Queen is listed as the defendant?--Ibagli rnbs mbs (Talk) 05:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Ibalgi. There is no controversy section as she is politically neutral not to mention extremely well behaved. Many actions are carried out in the name of the Crown, but those actions belong on pages about the government, not on the page about our gracious sovereign. ;) Best, --Cameron*12:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not touching the "Wonderful neutral Queen" sentiment :-) however you're statement does hold water. It is often said to illustrate this, the Queen does not rule she reigns the later is the role of the Monarch or their Governors-General(in the realms) nowadays. CaribDigita (talk) 03:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
'Wonderful neutral Queen'? There's a fine example of NPOV for you.What, has she been neutered or something? She is not a goddess, but a human being (shock, horror!) Like every human being, she is subject to human frailty. Like all of us, she has a positive side and a darker side. Why should her august majesty be exempt from any treatment of controversy, when other world leaders aren't? In matters regarding the Royal Prerogative, she is not accountable to Parliaments or heads of Government; she has a certain amount of discretion. So her personality is involved. Now, treating of controversial issues is not forming a value judgement, as some seem to think. It is reporting than an issue is regarded as controversial. I would suggest trying to establish that this particular case is controversial or no.--Gazzster (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
If there's an actual controversy, fine. This is not something that has to do with her; it is an act of the Foreign Secretary. If it is notable enough for treatment there, then great, but Cameron is right. Unless every major criminal case in the UK, Canada, and the other Commonwealth countries is going to be listed, let's be consistent about how we deal with acts on advice of ministers or that are her acts in name only. -Rrius (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm perfectly fine with a controversy section, assuming well-cited controversies can be found, which I'm sure is hardly an insuperable barrier. This is not a controversy involving the Queen, though. This is a controversy involving the Ministry of Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and/or the Ministry of Defence. There is no evidence that she "had a certain amount of discretion" on this issue. If this is added, it will set a precedent for every action taken by the government to be added to this page. Her approval of the Order was no different than the Royal Assent given to bills passed by parliament. There are some on here (not naming names) who make sure that "approved by the Queen/Governor General on the advice of..." is added to every single thing it can be, and I think they've sowed some of the seeds for this, actually. It personalizes the impersonal. As it stands right now, however, approval is impersonal. Disapproval, unless also done on the advice of the government, is a different story altogether, but that doesn't happen because that would show a personal opinion instead of rightfully pawning consequences of actions off on the democratically-selected government.--Ibagli rnbs mbs (Talk) 02:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Yep this has nothing to do with Queen Elizabeth II, its not her choice what her elected national government does. If there is a controversy section, then it must be about her not her governments with perhaps a mention of things like what happened after Dianas death etc. But there has not been royal scandals with the Queen like there has been for Harry or Charles so im not sure one is needed at all. I fully agree with Ibagli, such text being included in the article was a clear violation of wikipedia policies when dealin with living people. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
elizabeth
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hello Doramefasolate, welcome to wikipedia. Are you trying to correct something that is currently written in the article? Or perhaps make an addition i.e. her ruling authority being based on an oath she made which promises loyalty to the people? What you have posted caused a little confusion because your message is unclear...perhaps you could try and spell it out for us a little better? Gavin (talk) 23:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
There have been reports of multiple assassination attempts/plots over the years but apart from the one mention of Front de libération du Québec this is not really covered in WP. There has been some discussion in the media about IRA plots over the years but this is presumably covered by a D-Notice. The al-Qaeda plot in Uganda last year has been reported[5][6][7][8] and most recently a failed assassination attempt in Australia in 1970[9][10][11][12][13] has been revealed. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
In addition, Christopher John Lewis actually fired a shot at the Queen in Dunedin, New Zealand on the 14th of October 1981. It is outlined in Tom Lewis's 1998 book Coverups and Copouts.121.73.33.101 (talk) 20:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks Doc. See "Public perception and character" for more info. Someday I will get round to creating a page about EIIR's assassination attempts... ;) --Cameron*21:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
or perhaps better worded as attempts to assasinate EIIR - as the other way round has a slightly different conotation, and I don't beleive she has ever actually bumped anyone off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.75.37.250 (talk) 16:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions about Elizabeth II. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
