Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Issue

I'm referring to the table in this section with a column labeled Divorce, complete with cells waiting to be filled. I suggest that column be retitled as Notes, which could be filled "Divorced (DD/MM/YYYY)", "Died (DD/MM/YYYY", "Created [Title] of [Territory] (DD/MM/YYYY) etc. Makes the table field a bit more flexible and probably a bit 'safer' as a BLP. I've seen the article is under review for GA status so I'll refrain from being bold and leave my suggestion to ferment. Nice work btw. Paul ( Paul Roberton (talk)) 02:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's a bad idea, but I'm sure I see the BLP problem. -Rrius (talk) 02:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Image war

There is an edit war brewing over the placement of some images. I don't understand the sides involved because neither side seems to be doing much more than claiming policy favours their position. From the edits, I am almost certain Ohms law is wrong in his belief that policy supports putting an image immediately before section headings. From WP:MOSIMAGES: "Images should be inside the section they belong to (after the heading and after any links to other articles), and not above the heading." That seems clear to me. The other major dispute seems to be whether an image should be on the right or left when it starts a section. I prefer the right because it is more aesthetically pleasing and allows the reader to scan along the right side of the page when looking for specific section titles, but I don't see where policy dictates using either side. The closest thing I know of is the rule that the article should have an image or infobox at the top of the page to the right of the text. I realise that may not encapsulate the full area of contention, but, as I said, the details have been sparse to this point. Therefore I invite those involved in the dispute to explain their positions and everyone else to comment. -Rrius (talk) 21:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a modest preference for the right for images at the beginning of sections; apparently screen readers have been known to boggle at the gap between the section header and text. On the other hand, there is a modest preference for alternation between left and right. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 10:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Public sentiment "transformed"

I am more than a little sceptical to the last sentence of the Princess Diana section which currently reads "The public mood was transformed by the broadcast from hostility to respect." I attempted to moderate[1] this panegyric since it was sourced by only a royal biography. This was reverted[2] adding a second royal biographer as reference. My contention is that royal biographers unless explicitly critical tend to be rather apologetic and despite having two sources and not just one, such an extraordinary claim would require extraordinary proof, and two presumably apologetic sources should be deemed insufficient. I suggest therefore that my previous qualifier should be reinstated by including attribution for this assessment, and probably also, the word "transformed" should be replaced with something less religiously ecstatic. __meco (talk) 07:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Bond isn't an apologist. If you have a source saying that the public mood was not transformed then add it with a qualifier, but if you don't then I don't think a qualifier is necessary. DrKiernan (talk) 08:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested move (April 2010)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Speedy close - RfC has not yet finished (30 days, started 18th March), let that process take it's course first - add comments to that page. I will copy this data there in a new section.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom → Elizabeth II — As supported by a clear majority at the RFC page, Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title. (In other words, this move request is actually a request for closure of that RFC.) Kotniski (talk) 11:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes the article should be moved now, the supporting side has far more editors, arguments, and reliable sources. The RFC can be closed now, there is no longer any activity on it. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 13:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Speedy close on the grounds of clear abuse of procedure. A previous identical move request was closed as recently on 17 March with no consensus. There is currently an RFC on the article title, this should normally be allowed 30 days to run. Discussion has recently moved to the talk page for WP:NCROY, various views have been expressed, but there appears to be agreement that this has considerably wider implications for the naming of monarchs generally, I suggest that this should be allowed to run significantly longer before any controversial moves are made. PatGallacher (talk) 13:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Speedy close per above --Snowded ^TALK 13:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. First off, it should be Queen Elizabeth II, and second, I've never seen anything so bizarre as someone closing their own RFC!. If it's been closed and summarised by an uninvolved person, then I can't see it. Standard procedure for closure is to make a request at ANI for someone to review and close it. Maybe then you might or might not have just cause to make another move request. MickMacNee (talk) 13:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Well effectively this move request is a request for someone to close the RfC. No point in doing it in two stages. No, no-one's closed and summarized it yet - hence this request. Sorry if it's confusing; maybe I should have just made a request at ANI first (if someone wants to do it that way, feel free to close this and make the AN request.)--Kotniski (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course there is a point in doing it in two stages. For one, it is the standard procedure for any Rfc, and second, doing it in two stages would avoid the perception that the supporters of a move have pre-emptively decided what the Rfc says and think it justifies a move, and this request is just a matter of filling out the paperwork. I haven't read the Rfc in full, but I'm not going to support or oppose a move based on what someone who was heavily involved in it says what it means. MickMacNee (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, looking at the RFC, there hasn't been much activity over the past day and a half, but I see several comments dated 30 and 31 April, so it really is premature to say that this discussion has come to a close. The way some people are pursuing this issue is simply adding more heat than light to a complex issue, and as a result some Wikipedians are being forced to spend a significant amount of time and effort to procedural points, instead of thrashing out the serious issues associate with e.g. pre-emptive disambiguation, alleged "invented titles". PatGallacher (talk) 14:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The recent comments at the RFC (30 and 31 March, I presume) have themselves been off-topic or procedural points. I'm all for continuing discussion at NCROY, which is all the more reason to close and act on the concluded EII discussion so that it ceases to be a distraction.--Kotniski (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Speedy close, as there's been more then enough RMs held concerning this article's title. GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Speedy close as the previous RM was far too recent. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you all mean by "speedy close" - if it means that the RfC should be closed now, then yes, that's the point - let's have an admin come and see what's been decided.--Kotniski (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yesterday Kotniski put forward some proposed changes at the talk page for WP:NCROY, which would justify this move. It was pointed out that this was a far-reaching proposal which would probably mean moving the majority of monarch articles, and would need quite a bit of discussion, his response was: "Yes, I realise that, I'm not suggesting we just do this change today." I agree, so surely all controversial moves of monarch articles should be put on hold until this is thrashed out at WP:NCROY. PatGallacher (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Very strongly oppose. A "clear majority" is not consensus, and we do not act by majority rule. Least of all do we do so when the majority consists largely of (1) a handful of Utopians who oppose the policy on which this rule is based and (2) some Canadian monarchists who would like to score obscure political points about Elizabeth being also Queen of Canada. One of the advantages of having a naming convention is that it scores nobody's political points. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose and Close Not a-blooming-gain! We've been through this 3 times at least already and no consensus for a move was reached in any of them so I say leave sleeping dogs lie. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support 34 in favour of the move to 13 against seems decisive. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
• Speedy close Are you serious !?! Another one. This is what, the 6th move discussion(early July 09, late July 09, late July 09 again,Dec 09) with the last one concluding less than 2 weeks ago! This is excessive and entirely inappropriate.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Yes there was consensus to move! But this is not how to close an RfC!!! Get an administrator first! Outback the Koala (talk) 04:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• SPEEDY MOVE This has been debated ad nauseam at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title. This has produced a clear consensus for a move (currently 35 votes for move to 13 against). Any one who disagrees should contribnute at that page NOT HERE. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Might I point to the discussion at Talk:Louis-Philippe I, King of the French for an example of how to have a sensible discussion about whether to move an article on a monarch? PatGallacher (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Procedural speedy close clearly excessive renomination speed. Articles should not be renominated every fortnight. I also see nothing like consensus at the RFC. 65.94.253.16 (talk) 05:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest we merge this discussion with the RfC. Requested moves for this page often last for 14 days, so this requested move is likely to fall due for closure at around the same time as the RfC, if that lasts for 30 days. I don't think asking for an administrator at WP:AN or WP:ANI will work: we did that before, e.g. 1, 2, and the requests were ignored.

Comments on the proposed move should be made at the sub-page and the move template in this section can remain as a marker for that discussion. DrKiernan (talk) 08:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• Close. A requested move is not properly a vote, and an RFC is even less of one. The discussion on the RfC page swiftly moved away from the poll and moved on to more productive areas of how to resolve the dispute, and it follows that requesting a move on the basis of the poll on the RfC is procedurally flawed. Therefore the requested move should be closed. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Queen Elizabeth II

I can think of nothing, not one single good reason why, if we have had to endure the epic campaign to move this article away from the naming convention over the last few months, that we have somehow ended up with the second best option for the COMMON NAME, which is of course Queen Elizabeth II, and not the rather idiotic looking 'plain Liz 2'. Madness. MickMacNee (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree, I didn't support the move either by voting against it, but it's been done now so theres little we can do about it eexcept maybe starting ANOTHER move request and hope it is accepted or appeal to uninvolved admins and beureucrats for the move to be reverted. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I did not want it at 'of the United Kingdom' either, I just cannot see the logic behind not calling the article Queen Elizabeth II given the various arguments advanced to move it. Now we have the utterly idiotic situation that we have Queen Victoria at Victoria of the United Kingdom, and this article at Elizabeth II. Two of the most famous and longest reigning Queens in the World, and Wikipedia cannot get its act together to either give them their common name, or keep their titles consistent. Farcical, illogical, unprofessional. MickMacNee (talk) 19:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, actually. It's definitely an improvement over "of the United Kingdom", but as I said earlier, if we're going to move it and break with convention, we should at least do it properly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

We don't have Queen Victoria & Queen Elizabeth II (for example) because we've got articles called Queen Latifah & King Clancy. Elizabeth II's first name isn't Queen. GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, neither is Queen Latifah's, really. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

So, we should move it to Elizabeth Windsor then, yes? Or is Queen Latifah called Queen Latifah because...IT'S HER COMMON NAME! MickMacNee (talk) 23:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Then it becomes an issue of can any nicknames/Stage name be used on Wikipedia for public figures or do they all have to be filed under first name-last name. CaribDigita (talk) 01:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I won't oppose the article title being 'Queen Elizabeth II', in fact I'm quite supportive of it, as it is truly the common name of the subject. But of course now that we've been through that long drawn out debate on moving the article to 'Elizabeth II', we should give it break before a new move request. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 04:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

MIckMacNee, Windsor is NOT her last name, she doesn't have one. Windsor is the name of her Royal house so if you want to go down that rout the page would be "Elizabeth of the house of Windsor". The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 06:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I did not say I wanted to go down that route, I was questioning GoodDay's logic. MickMacNee (talk) 13:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

People, you've got me to switch my stance on the current title (from opposition to support), let's be content. GoodDay (talk) 14:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we should all take a break from discussions about this article's title now, we've been through a long debate about it, and should give that subject a rest for some time. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 15:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why. Editor fatigue has no role to play in deciding article titles. If people support Queen Elizabeth II and others don't offer any credbile reasons to oppose, then it should be changed right now. MickMacNee (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

If this has suddenly become an inpromtu RFC, then I will say I support the title being Queen Elizabeth II although I much prefered Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Mick, I agree with you on the title, but you could be a bit less confrontational about this. Consider the move to the current title as progress, rather than an obstruction. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I oppose Queen Elizabeth II as a title, just like I oppose President Barack Obama, Prime Minister Stephen Harper etc, etc, as titles. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm with you GoodDay. Bjmullan (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's test that then....

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth II → Queen Elizabeth II — In the recently concluded battle to move this page from Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, to just plain Elizabeth II, the option of moving it to Queen Elizabeth II was not given a decent airing in all the repeptitive noise and !voting. Frankly, Queen Elizabeth II is by far the best option for the common name, which as the Rfc concluded, in this exceptional case can take precedence over the naming convention, of which not including 'Queen' was just a remnant of, the dropping of which was not even commented on by the Rfc intitiator or closer, even though several people expressed support for it, and as in the section above, still apparently do, even after this move to Elizabeth II.

To the closer: please ignore any opposition based on this request simply being too soon after the last move, this option was not properly considered in the Rfc, and this request is the first time the current title of plain Elizabeth II has been challenged in light of the new view of the naming conventions.

MickMacNee (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Support Well if we're going down this route, I have to support the Queen title added as the job is for life unlike presidents. Although as I said, I preferred the old article title this is a step back in the right direction. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Is any evidence being offered that "Queen Elizabeth II" is a more common name than "Elizabeth II"?--Kotniski (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Such as? I think this can be decided emprically easily enough using people's judgement, plus, I can think of no technical method to prove it, except for example examining incoming links. MickMacNee (talk) 17:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

(Incidentally, another current discussion where the inclusion of the word "Queen" has come up is at Talk:Marie of Edinburgh#Requested move - there most people seem to be against it even though it would help disambiguate, which it would not do here.)--Kotniski (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's not start discussing what's happening elsewhere - it was judged irrelevant in the Rfc, so it shouldn't be relevant here. MickMacNee (talk) 17:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support, adding "queen" acts as a qualifier- a reader who has no knowledge of the subject (OK, unlikely, but...) would be left wondering from the name "Elizabeth II of what?". I also agree that it didn't get it's fair share of discussion in the RfC, though RfCs with multiple options can get easily confused, so that is probably for the best. So, let's see what the consensus is on this proposed name. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not really the job of the title to answer "of what", or indeed to convey any information about the subject – is it? The reader can simply read the first paragraph of the article to learn who she is and where she's from. Alkari (?), 18 April 2010, 22:36 UTC

Can you think of any place where this article is blue linked, and is not accompanied by text, piped or just general, that already explains who she is, i.e. Queen, Princess, sovereign etc? Because if there aren't, that only leaves the question of whether people are typing in Elizabeth II directly into the search box to get here, without knowing who she is. I somehow doubt there are many people doing that, and most who are looking, will be typing in Queen Elizabeth..., in which case, having the title match the most likely search term is just plain common sense, which is why titles are selected from the most common name, and not just the one that doesn't require disambiguation. If anything, its more confusing to type in Queen Elizabeth II and getting plain Elizabeth II if you are shady on your knowledge, as you then have to read the opening line, or look at the picture, to figure out where you ended up. MickMacNee (talk) 23:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, queen is not her name. Bjmullan (talk) 17:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

And 'II' isn't her surname. What's your point? MickMacNee (talk) 19:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

And she isn't II of Scotland either so how about just plain old Liz then. Does for me. Bjmullan (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a non-sequiter. The only Western European place she's queen of is the United Kingdom. There are no separate monarchies of England, Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, as we don't have articles called President Barack Obama, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Governor General Michelle Jean etc, etc. GoodDay (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

And how is that relevant to the common name issue? If you can't even say why you think the form 'Elizabeth II' is equivalent to 'Barack Obama' (which is obviously his common name, just like Queen Elizabeth II is, not plain Elizabeth II), let alone why that means anything to this particular article, then it's hardly relevant. If you are going to cite consistency, and it is dubious at best to claim 'Elizabeth II' is just a name like Barack Obama, or that Queen is just an office like President, the Rfc has already pretty blatantly kicked that idea into touch as wholly insignificant and totally subserviant to using the common name for this specific article. I challenge anyone to admit here and now that, if searching for both articles, that if they type in Barack...instead of President..., they would also type Elizabeth... instead of Queen... It's totally and utterly counter-intuitive to me, although so was 'of the United Kingdom'. MickMacNee (talk) 19:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to get so worked up about this common name thing, why aren't you pushing for EIIR's actual common name: the Queen of England? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you're offering, "The Queen" works for me, but back to being sensible, "Queen of England" currently serves as a redirect to Monarchy of the United Kingdom, which is probably the best target for a vague title (many people may be looking for a general article or previous monarchs, not just the current) so that's not really a plausible option. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

As I am sure you already know Miesianiacal, per the Rfc, even if 'Queen of England' were the most common name (doubtful imho), it is not permissable because it is a) not accurate, and b) most definitely not neutral. I am arguing for adopting the most common name that does not break any of the other rules which govern article titles, which were summarised at length in the Rfc. MickMacNee (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

We've got 'Queen' mentioned in the introduction, content & within the infobox & succession boxes. Let's be content with that. GoodDay (talk) 14:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The fact that its "mentioned in the introduction, content & within the infobox & succession boxes" should tell you something about what is the common name of this article. Per TITLE, we do not choose article titles based on being happy with being nearly right. MickMacNee (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The current title is best. Now, we've got to get the other monarchial titles changed to George VI, Edward VIII, Albert II (Belgium), Albert II (Monaco), William II (England), Leopold II (Belgium), Leopold II (Holy Roman Empire), etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

So, you want to ignore why an exception was made for this article, and make the naming convention for the rest worse as well. MickMacNee (talk) 14:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

More accurately: I'm ignoring the idea that Elizabeth II should be treated differently & only supported the RM to Elizabeth II in hopes of adopting this move to all monarchial articles. I'm not one of those editors, who've got a problem with showing 'United Kingdom'. GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment I'm cautious about diving into this one again. However now that it appears to have been decided that she is sui generis and outside the normal naming conventions for monarchs, how do we decide what we do call her? Her common name, at least in Britain, is just "the Queen", and "Queen Elizabeth" is used in some contexts. Do we go for the most common unambiguous or tenable name? Possibly, but I am genuinely unsure what that is. People need to produce some evidence to back their claims. I'm not sure that "Barack Obama" is his common name, "President Obama" could be more common. I think "Presient Kennedy" is more common than "John F. Kennedy" in Britain. What we do have is a convention that people are normally described as "first name + last name", and US presidents are not outside this. PatGallacher (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

"To the closer: please ignore any opposition based on this request simply being too soon after the last move, this option was not properly considered in the Rfc, and this request is the first time the current title of plain Elizabeth II has been challenged in light of the new view of the naming conventions." I think that's a bit presumptious, the closer is entitled to their opinion. What is this "new view of the naming conventions" anyway. PatGallacher (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

"Do we go for the most common unambiguous or tenable name". Per WP:TITLE, and considering the new view of the naming convention for this article (see linked Rfc), that is indeed exactly what we do. We can argue about what is and isn't evidence to show Queen Elizabeth II is her 'unambiguous' common name compared to plain Elizabeth II (that is after all the only request on the table here), but I am not convinced at all that people think of monarchs in 'first + last' name terms in the way described. As has been pointed out, she has no last name in the conventional sense, and clearly 'Elizabeth' on it own isn't going to fly. The Rfc already rejected using a convention that didn't fit this particular article once, well comparing Queens to Presidents is just a looser version of trying to enforce an unsuitable convention again. MickMacNee (talk) 22:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• Weak oppose: I'm not categorically against using titles ("Queen", "President" etc.) in article names, but in this case it's not necessary – there's no other Elizabeth II from which she needs to be disambiguated. (Queen Victoria, for example, would be different, because Victoria alone is ambiguous – but that's another discussion which doesn't belong here.) With that said, I find Queen Elizabeth II far less objectionable than the former title. Alkari (?), 18 April 2010, 22:36 UTC
• Weak oppose: What Alkari said. And if no concrete reasons are being given and we're being asked to go on our intuition, then my intuition is that "Queen" is not needed here to make a "complete" name (like "Adolf" is needed to complete "Hitler", even though "Hitler" alone is more common etc. etc.) I feel that the title ("Queen" or equivalent) is needed (a) when without it the name would stand alone, unqualified (as with Queen Victoria); (b) when the only qualification is an "of (place)" phrase which qualifies the title rather than the person (as with, let's say, Queen Anne of Great Britain). I don't feel a need for "Queen" or "King" when the forename already has a qualifier like "the Second" or "the Great". And anyway, Elizabeth the Second (with no "Queen" before it) seems to be the "name" part of her official title(s).--Kotniski (talk) 06:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

  The concrete reason is it is the common name of this person. Hitler is the common name, Queen Elizabeth II is her common name. One is a regular albeit infamous person, the other is a monarch, there is no reason to treat them the same, infact, it is presumptuous to assume everybody simply knows why she has a II after her name. MickMacNee (talk) 14:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone know why she does? Putting "Queen" before the name certainly doesn't explain it.--Kotniski (talk) 12:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support: I prefer Queen Elizabeth II and Queen Victoria as that is what they are almost universally known as (except here at the moment of course). Just to throw the spanner in the works slightly, she is of course Queen Elizabeth I of Scotland (as mentioned above), and several other places she is queen of. Stephen B Streater (talk) 07:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Including the United Kingdom (but this is all rather irrelevant, since "Elizabeth II" is what she's officially called, and that name then has various titles in the form "Queen of ..." appended to it).--Kotniski (talk) 08:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I am pretty sure the I in Scotland claim is debunked sour grapes. As far as she is concerned, she is Queen Elizabeth II of Scotland in the Monarchy of Scotland IIRC, although this is hardly even relevant anyway. Infact, I've not heard that Alex Salmond plans to even ask her to change her title if his independence plan comes to fruitiion. MickMacNee (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose (firstly; Yay! Another new Title Move discussion!!!! :-D <3) Secondly; I disagree. I find the '"President" is a title like the "Queen" is a title' argument to be most correct. We wouldn't have a 'President Barack Obama' page, why a 'Queen EII' page, respectively. Look, she wasn't always the Queen, and she may not be the queen for the rest of her life (although yes, it is very unlikely) - It's an office she holds. Also: She has no last name, so it's already an oddity of a name. But really I think the present title is a keeper, for now. The rest per GoodDay. Outback the koala (talk) 07:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The II is also part of her title. So the logical conclusion of your argument is to call the article Elizabeth. Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

'Queen' is not an office or a title, she was not elected. It is bizarre to simply compare the two things as if they were equal. We have a Presidency of Barack Obama article, but no equivelnt for the Queen, because they are not the same in the slightest. Being Queen is indivisible from being Elizabeth, however long she reigns, being President is something totally different, and lasts at most for eight years at the vagaries of Joe The Plumber. MickMacNee (talk) 14:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

An equivalent page might be "Reign of Elizabeth II" or something like that. I find it hard to draw a distinction between the two in this case. Regardless, I was under the impression this article was about the person Elizabeth, not the office she holds. The idea that she is indivisible from the office is crazy; how would abdication be possible if she is bound to the office? I find that argument holds no water. Outback the koala (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

That article doesn't exist, that's the point, there would be no point in separating the two, they are indivisible. It is simply not an 'office' in the way a Presidency is, the line of succession is the same whether she dies or abdicates, that is not the characteristic of an office in the way you compare it. MickMacNee (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Surely you jest. I would dispute that in the strongest terms; simply because it is a hereditary line that dictates who occupies said position, changes nothing in how we should treat it. Elizabeth II is a person who happens have become the Queen - But we should still treat her as if she is a person, as real as you or I. Treat her as we would any other notable individual who has a WP page and holds a significant, codified, governmental office. The title should remain the same Q.E.D. Outback the koala (talk) 21:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

She is a person who is known by an overwhelmingly common name, and holds a position that is indivisible from her personage, it is nothing like a Presidency or a governemnt office or anything else you want to compare it to. As others have already said, the 'treat her like any regular Joe' option would be 'Elizabeth' (Queen of...)'. MickMacNee (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Well that's your position and I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. I don't mind the 'Elizabeth' (Queen of...)' option, the problem with that is 'Elizabeth' (Queen of blank)' what the blank, we'd have many choices for which realms to include. And that's problematic. Outback the koala (talk) 04:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

There is not going to be any 'of....' in the title. That is what the Rfc only just condluded. Seriously, the only people opposing this move don't seem to have the first clue what just happend in the last week. MickMacNee (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Please. You try to scuwe the comments of others to make it sound like they don't know whats going on. I was simply voicing a possible alternative and the issues associated with it. I was btw involved in the RfC, just check. Outback the koala (talk) 23:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

And a separate page with that title could be made easily. There's enough here for a stand alone article easily. Outback the koala (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Nobody has ever done it, for the pretty obvious reasons outlined (infact I've seen it actively opposed in GARs etc) and if you created it right now, it would be a pretty obvious violation of WP:POINT. And if you were to do so in future out of pure good faith, the logical starting place would be the article on the longest reinging British monarch (until 2012), which is longer than this article. It would be a needless exercise in duplication, whichever article you picked, because Presidents and Monarchs are incomparable. MickMacNee (talk) 22:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Well hopefully I'll remember to create that article, it would certainly help the project. Outback the koala (talk) 04:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Feel free. You will only be wasting your own time. MickMacNee (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The move discussions relating to this article are a needleless distraction. Seriously, enough already! The RfC concerned a move to Elizabeth II, not Queen Elizabeth II. Secondly, we do not generally use titular qualifiers with names, and I see no reason to start doing so here.--Labattblueboy (talk) 12:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the "II" at the end of the title a qualifier? Stephen B Streater (talk) 13:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

'Queen' is the titular qualifier of concern for me. --Labattblueboy (talk) 03:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, the closer should ignore anybody just opposing by complaining this is another move request. It's utterly irrelevant, this is a perfectly valid new request, and as you correctly pointed out, it wasn't proposed in the Rfc. If we 'do not generally use qualifiers', then try and explain why, beyond 'I see no reason to change'. If your opposition is merely to follow convention, the Rfc already ruled that out as grounds to oppose. MickMacNee (talk) 14:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this. We want the best solution, not the first or the second one. Stephen B Streater (talk) 15:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry MickMacNee, but you don't get to decide what content does or does not get considered at closing. My opinion, which has been consistent through the last 3 or 4 name change requests and at RfC, is that continuing this process over and over and over again is distracting from the content work this article requires. Secondly, I do oppose on the basis of convention which, contrary to MickMacNee's comments, is an entirely valid reason for opposition. No indication has been made in the nomination as to why the 'Queen' qualifier is even necessary. A number of editors have already noted that titular qualifiers are principally avoided and that nomination runs contrary to WP:NCROY.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Simply continuing to oppose by insisting this article must meet NCROY, which the Rfc just rejected, meaning the article does not even conform to NCROY right now, is patently just belligerant obstructionism, which any closer worth his salt will rightly dismiss as classic tendentious behaviour. The issue on the table is TITLE and COMMONNAME. You can complain all you want about distracting from other work, and had this particluar option been considered in the Rfc, you might have a case, as it wasn't, you don't. MickMacNee (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed the name does not exactly follow the guidelines of NCROY but that's ok. My opposition is not with regards to NCROY but with the the fact that titles are strongly discouraged across the whole of wikipedia (Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(people)#Titles_and_styles). You must not be entirely familiar with the content of the RfC because placing a hold of future naming discussions was in fact proposed (Talk:Elizabeth_II/Article_title#Statement_by_GoodDay). I find your comment a bit like the pot calling the kettle black. The option of including the titular qualifier was not widely considered or supported at RfC either, the talk of it being largely a minor side topic (Talk:Elizabeth_II/Article_title#Comments) and, from what I remember - and could be wrong - only Knowzilla widely supporting the idea in the main discussion.--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I've no idea what your points are re. Good Day etc, but to answer the first point, here is what Titles and Styles actually says - unless they are used to form the unambiguous name by which the subject is clearly best known. So, per the opening statement of this move request, the only thing that matters here is whether you can show this God awfully crap title is more common and well known than the proposed alternative, which is a requirement of a policy, which trumps the subordinate guideline you mention. MickMacNee (talk) 02:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I am quite literally the last person who will defend NCROY, but Wikipedia:Article titles#Explicit conventions specifically provides the authority within the policy you mentioned for NCROY. The section I linked to mentions a box at the beginning of the page that contains links to explicit conventions, and NCROY and NC (people) are among the links in that box. There is no question of "the policy" trumping "the guideline". The specific naming convention articles are part of the policy. -Rrius (talk) 04:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose on the grounds that we already have several articles on monarchs consisting of name + number without a realm e.g. Cambyses I, II, Cyrus I, Napoleon I, II, III, several Cleopatras and Ptolemys. It is very unusual to have "king" or "queen" in an article title, the only cases I am aware of are Mary, Queen of Scots, where it seemed odd to call her anything else, and Alexander of Greece (king), an odd case where I personally supported removing "king". This move could make a complicated issue more complicated. PatGallacher (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: She is not the only Elizabeth II but she is the only Queen Elizabeth II. Perhaps that fact should be considered as well (though you would be amazed to see how many books refer to Isabella II of Spain as Elizabeth II of Spain, which can't be said to be incorrect). Surtsicna (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

This last message opens a can of worms. Surely, if "Elizabeth II of Spain" is a legitimate alternative name for Isabella II of Spain, then "Queen Elizabeth II of Spain" must be as well. Regardless of what we call this article, do we have a hatnote with a redirect to the Spanish queen? Does Isabella II of Jerusalem get a look-in? Does this have impliations for Elizabeth I? PatGallacher (talk) 20:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth II of Spain is indeed a legitimate alternative name for Isabella II of Spain, as those are two variants of the same name and both are used in literature. Isabella II of Jerusalem does not pose a problem, as I'm sure she's never referred to as Elizabeth II. Surprisingly (or not?), Isabella I of Castile is not called Elizabeth I either. It's like the authors really wanted to make "(Queen) Elizabeth II" at least slightly ambigious. It would've been easy if all those books had been published before the accession of this Elizabeth II. Can we solve the problem by adding a hatnote with a link to a disambiguation page where we can mention other women known as Elizabeth II? Surtsicna (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Napolean I is also an example of forcing a ridiculous naming convention meaning the overwhelming common name is totally ignored, to the detriment of the article. These 'what if' opposes are simply ignoring the Rfc outcome, for no good reason. It would be trivial in the extreme to prove that not even a hat note would be required to disambiguate the Spanish Queen if this were moved, it is a wholly manufactured point which stems from the discredited idea that naming conventions are everything. The Rfc concluded naming convnetions have no role to play in deciding the name of this article, where there is a clear common name. There is no point re-running that debate here, it's been had, and concluded. MickMacNee (talk) 22:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose You really are stirring up a hornet's nest with this one. Change one monarch to the style Queen Elizabeth II, and we will have hundreds of similar proposals to change monarchs around the world, and back through history, to give them parity. Skinsmoke (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• The exact same thing was said to prevent the recent move away from the naming convention here, to move to just plain Elizabeth II. The 'what if' opposition did not prevail then, so why should it prevail now? The only issue is what is the best name for this article. MickMacNee (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not sure how I feel about the proposal, but I wonder whether perhaps it is time to have a frank and open debate about NCROY—whether it should exist at all (rather than simply using Common name); if not, whether it should be rebuilt from scratch; and, if not, whether various items should be reviewed (e.g., automatic disambiguation, not using prenominal title such as "Queen Elizabeth II", and having a difference between kings and nobles (that is, "George I of Great Britain", not "George I, King of Great Britain", but "Henri, Grand Duke of Luxembourg" and "Prince Andrew, Duke of York")). -Rrius (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

If this course of action means 'consistancy' (where possible) across the board? that's cool. I supported the move to Elizabeth II in hopes of eventually having George VI, Edward VIII, Frederick III (Germany), Victoria, Henry IV (Holy Roman Empire) etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

If I had my way, we would go "Victoria (disambiguator)" or "Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom" or even "Queen Victoria" or some other brilliant thing someone comes up with. I mean, we're already inconsistent, even ignoring this article. Grand Duke Henri is a monarch, yet his article is "Henri, Grand Duke of Luxembourg". The current queen's father is "George VI of the United Kingdom", her eldest son is "Charles, Prince of Wales", and her next-eldest son is "Prince Andrew, Duke of York". -Rrius (talk) 22:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Victoria will do, until Victoria of Sweden ascends her country's throne. Then we'd have Victoria (United Kingdom) & Victoria (Sweden). As for the Grand Duke of Luxembourg? it should be Henri I (Luxembourg) & there'd be Albert II (Monaco). As for the non-monarchs? not sure. GoodDay (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

And of course there is the question of whether we treat dead people and living people the same. It seems to me, there is a difference between "Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester" and "Prince Charles", "Prince William", "Prince Harry", "Prince Andrew", "Princess Eugenie", and Princess Beatrix". That difference of course being that they latter group are all alive and most commonly called by those names, while the Duke of Gloucester is no longer commonly referred to as anything, and is, well, dead. Anyway, I guess we've gotten rather far afield, and I have to go play euchre. -Rrius (talk) 23:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - it is no worse than the present title, but another move would just confuse readers even more. Deb (talk) 11:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be quite easy to prove that people will be looking for this article by searching for 'Queen Elizabeth II' than the current title, by an order of magnitude at least. That isn't 'no worse' to me, so if you had another measure in mind, feel free to expand. The issue is choosing the best title per TITLE, which by definition is written with not confusing readers in mind, so if you don't have an argument for opposing that is based on anything written in TITLE, then by definition you are not ensuring readers don't get confused. MickMacNee (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Strong support. The name by which she is commonly known. And per Giano II. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose - No other British monarchs have this on their page. Flosssock1 (talk) 14:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Granted, but how many have only their name and Roman numeral designation in the article title? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, and another point to keep things more consistent is the the debate of adding 'of the United Kingdom' which all her predecessors have, I will be raising this issue again shortly. Flosssock1 (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It's only just been moved away from the stupid "of the United Kingdom". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I know, and I am in full confidence that it will be returned in due course, now that I am aware of the situation (having been absent for a short while). Flosssock1 (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm keeping an eye on the other monarchial articles & NCROY. If the Name #/Name # (country) idea isn't adopted. I will switch back to supporting Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom (as I don't believe it should have special status). GoodDay (talk) 21:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that as a British monarch she should have same article title as all other British monarchs(apart from her name). Granted she is monarch of other nations, but there are pages with further details on this, for example Monarchy of Canada. Another point is that her 'full-time job', as we could call it, is devoted to the United Kingdom - other powers in other Commonwealth Realms are usually exercised by a Governor. Flosssock1 (talk) 22:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Does Monarchy of the United Kingdom therefore negate the need for this page all-together? The rest of your assertions were already put forward at the RfC and put down by superior counter-argument; hence, the move took place. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No, because we then go back to the first point of my previous edit. We will try again in time, and see if there is anymore support. Flosssock1 (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Which was shot down because of the glaringly obvious point that she isn't simply a British monarch. Effort shouldn't be wasted returning this page to under a POV title; it should be vested in using the last move as a catalyst for changes to WP:NCROY that will allow for neutral titles for monarchs of more than one state. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Other monarchs located a "[Name] [Numeral]", or simply "[Name]", don't have their titles, such as Constantius III, Akihito, Edmund Ironside, Sweyn Forkbeard, Mehmed II. is a big difference between a regnal name, which can often include a numeral, and a title such as king, queen, emperor, etc. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

  The difference isn't obvious to me, certainly not if the goal is to place this article at the COMMONNAME. MickMacNee (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Currently 27% support this move.....Bjmullan (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. That's about 26% more than I was expecting! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Not if you remove all the people who either just haven't read or aren't aware of the Rfc even though I linked to it, or haven't addressed the reason to move given even though I stated it as clearly as possible and linked to the relevant policy, or just complained about 'too many requests' even though this particular move has never been requested before. MickMacNee (talk) 22:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

And as concise as your own opposition is, I don't see what the closer is supposed to divine from it except that you think Elizabeth II is her name. MickMacNee (talk) 23:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I was just pointing out the current support for the change. I think her name is Liz I but that would get no votes! Also I didn't know we could remove people for the voting process, that seems like a great idea. Lets change it to only allow only those people born in England, who are white and fly a union flag on 23 April. (didn't even have to look that up) Bjmullan (talk) 23:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

St George's Cross*, you mean. And you don't have to be white, or born in England, it is celebrated in various countries around the world. Flosssock1 (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment The Queen has a long list of titles. First how to avoid any future naming proposals to include the long laundry-list of titles? Secondly, according to the article the Queen's signature is Elizabeth II. Does she ever sign any official government documents as "HRM Queen Elizabeth II" or anything like that? CaribDigita (talk) 02:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

||CommentShe certainly would not sign HRM Queen Elizabeth II her style is HM HRM (His/Her Royal Majesty) is used by some African tribal monarchs/chiefs Penrithguy (talk) 20:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why not just call the article Elizabeth Windsor to match the title of other articles about people? 142.104.139.242 (talk) 03:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

She isn't called Elizabeth Windsor.--Ibagli (Talk) 04:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Using anything other than "Firstname Lastname" seems very POV to me. Same with biography pages that are named after stage name or pen name rather than real name, like Mark Twain. I think you should have a universal standard for all people regardless of job. 142.104.139.242 (talk) 05:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

She doesn't have a last name. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 06:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

WTF? Before she became queen did she have a birth certificate or a passport or a drivers licence? What did those say on them? 24.68.50.170 (talk) 08:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

She doesn't have a Passport or Driving Licence. She's the only person in the world who doesn't need to have one. Royalty never has a last name only a Royal house. So you could say her name would be Elizabeth of the House of Windsor. Another example can also be that Prince William's Army title is Lt Wales, not Lt Windsor which it would be if Windsor was the family's last name. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

A fictitious, unused name would be even more POV.--Ibagli (Talk) 19:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

As a comment in response to an idea floated above: how does the Queen sign her name? The answer, though clearly unhelpful for the present discussion, is that Queen signs documents "Elizabeth R" as these various signed documents indicate: http://statusquo.org/aru_html/images/FlagAct/QueensAssent.jpg , http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/07/01/article-1196791-058E5E97000005DC-307_468x609.jpg , http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/resources/documents/cth14ii_detail.jpg . Interesting, though not helpful in resolving the naming impasse here. Personally, I think this whole episode suggests that Wikipedia's style policy on the naming of monarchs and members of royal houses really should be addressed. In many of the respects discussed above, the Queen is not alone among the crowned heads of state across the world (for example on the questions of surnames etc) and the geographical reference (e.g. 'of the United Kingdom') is a problem for all monarchs who are monarchs of multiple states equally, so perhaps some work needs to be done into reassessing the policy rather than contorting articles to align with the policy. Last point: the Queen is Elizabeth II in Scotland - it doesn't matter that there was no 'Elizabeth I' of Scotland, reginal numbering lies within the royal prerogative and does not actually align with what is necessarily 'logical'. That's my two cents, though judging by the sheer volume of commentary on these pages and the entrenched positions of the various combattants, I don't assume anyone will read or care about what I've written; enjoy the bickering, folks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.92.18.2 (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Age Update

Today, Wednesday 21st April 2010, is Her Royal Highness's 84th Birthday. This needs updating as it says she is 83 on the article. Victory Guy8 (talk) 23:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC) >> It says I posted this at 23:13. I did not. I posted it at 00:12.

Diff is GMT and BST :) Bjmullan (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The timestamp is in Coordinated Universal Time, not British Summer Time, which is why there's a discrepancy between the time on your computer and the timestamp. Also, I think you mean Her Majesty's, not HRH's. The time discrepancy also expalains the age- the article uses a template that will change automatically, I assume a 00:00 UTC. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was HM, just wasn't sure! Also, I had a feeling it would update automatically. Thanks for your help :) Victory Guy8 (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Its now 02.19 in UTC and it still has the wrong age, can someone check its set upright as I wouldn't know how.(94.8.134.135 (talk) 02:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC))

It had changed when I went back.(94.8.134.135 (talk) 02:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC))

Grammer

The sentence: 'During her reign, which at 58 years is one of the longest for a British monarch, she became queen of 25 other countries within the Commonwealth as they gained independence." needs to be reviewed. Consider adding a comma after the word "years," or re-wording the beginning of the sentence entirely.

 Done I added a comma either side of the subordinate clause. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That would be grammar, btw. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Popularity

I think the introduction focuses too much on 'discontent for the monarchy' Since her coronation, and exepct for 1997, The Queen has been Incredibly popular, and I think this should be stressed --86.149.190.204 (talk) 11:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The intro is fine. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. We are not here to advertise for her. 'Discontent for the monarchy' has been recent, notable and under her reign. Outback the koala (talk) 02:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Anglicanism?

The Queen's religion is listed as "Church of England and Church of Scotland", both of which are but two churches in the Anglican communion, of which there are many, such as the Church of the Province of South Africa, which the Queen is also Head of. This should really be listed as "Anglicanism" or the "Anglican Communion". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.74.157 (talk) 11:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The Church of Scotland isn't in the Anglican communion; it's a Presbyterian church as opposed to an Episcopalian church. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 12:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Scottish Episcopal Church is the Scottish province of the Anglican Communion. I've always understood also that HM has no offical role in any province outside teh Church of Enlgand, I don't beleive she is in any way head of the Anglican Church of Southern Africa (the current name for the former CPSA) do you have any reference for it - no country which the province spans is a Commonwealth Realm, and it is not an Established Church. David Underdown (talk) 12:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Oath of Alegience to the Queen, Sinn Féin example

No person may take a significant public office such as M.P without swearing an Oath of Alegience to the Queen, Sinn Féin are a current example. As all M.P's must make this oath and if not taken cannot vote how would this effect a party who's manifesto was abolition of the monarchy? To say the monarchy has been removed before - of course they can is off topic as that was a revolution, I am talking about the will of the people as determined by their votes, Sinn Féin are a current example but there are also others. On a personal note I favour monarchy and have argued in public on TV for its retention, however the people should surely have the ability to remove if they so voted.

The people do have the ability to do so. Indeed, they have done in 16-17 of her realms. It is Parliament that determines the Monarch, not the other way about. DrKiernan (talk) 12:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Why not just say "no person may accept significant public office without swearing an oath of allegiance to the Queen"? That way we acknowledge the Oath, and any reader wanting to learn more can simply follow the link. I don't think there's any need to give examples (e.g Sinn Féin) here, and in particular in the WP:LEAD.

I think that drawing too much of an inference from the Oath would take us into WP:SYNTH territory, and, again, by linking to the "Oath of Allegiance" article we can let the reader draw their own conclusions.

Cheers, TFOWR^propaganda 13:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean and I agree on this point, the wording does look much better, it does need to be in the article.(Rovington (talk) 13:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC))

It's covered in Monarchy of the United Kingdom#Constitutional role. This article is about the person Elizabeth Windsor not the constitutional arrangements of one of her realms. DrKiernan (talk) 13:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The article is clearly not about Elizabeth Windsor, it is about Queen Elizabeth II. The very point here is that all current M.P's have to take the oath to her as Queen Elizabeth II or not have rights in parliament. This is a very relevant line for the article. (Rovington (talk) 13:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC))

No, trivial points of custom are obviously not very relevant. We don't add that she owns all the swans and sturgeons in Britain, for the same reason. These events are not peculiar to her, they are peculiar to the monarchy. They are better placed in the article about the monarchy not the article about an individual monarch. DrKiernan (talk) 14:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that the Oath is a worthless, that the elected members treat that with as much regard as who owns swans. Are you saying that members of the house need not take any regard to the oath, so why are the Irish M.P's not taking it - if you point was valid then the Irish M.P's would have their seats and others who are anti royalist would be able to sit in the house without restriction. I invite you to read the document that was cited in the sentence you have again reverted.

File:Http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp2001/rp01-116.pdf

The document makes it pretty clear what happens when someone does not take the oath. Does not not strike you as a undemocratic, that a person who say was elected on the manifesto of removing the monarchy cannot actually take a seat or vote in the British house of commons. clearly the oath is intended to retain the monarchy but it smacks in the face of democracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rovington (talk • contribs) 14:26 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe DrKiernan will be commenting on the article, not their views on British democracy. The issue is: whether the oath is relevant to this article, not whether it's relevant to British democracy etc. TFOWR^propaganda 14:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I take your point, to clarify my last statement members who object are offered only one option - the oath reads: I …………… do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. Without taking this oath the seat cannot be taken and the member cannot vote.

I'm answering for another editor, and my position is slightly different to theirs, so be forewarned ;-)

DrKiernan's point (I believe) is that this issue is better addressed at the relevant articles; it's not particularly notable for an individual monarch, rather, it's more relevant to the monarchy itself (or to the "Oath of Allegiance" article).

For my part, I have no strong objection to a fleeting mention here, of the form I proposed above.

Incidentally, there is one option we've not discussed ;-) Mentioned in jest: I don't believe oor Rosie's republican salute is relevant here...!

Cheers, TFOWR^propaganda 14:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

If that is what DrKiernan is saying (and I too think it is), then I agree with him. This page is not where we should be getting into the oath of allegiance; all the monarchs preceding Elizabeth had the oath sworn to them; must we then have mention of the oath in all the realms on all those articles? This is a biography, not an article on the machinery of constitutional monarchy. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

My rationale for including it - and I take your point about t'other, earlier monarchs - is that this article is about the current monarch, so there's possibly more room for stuff-wot-really-belongs-elsewhere. I have no objection to the status quo, however. TFOWR^propaganda 15:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The point I hope that I am getting across is that the oath is to the person, it does not say head of state.

The oath is clear and for someone to take that oath a vote against Queen Elizabeth would be against the oath even where the oath says "and successors according to law", the oath makes it impossible for a member to vote for the removal of the monarch whilst alive, the only way a member could keep to the oath and still act according to the part that states "and successors according to law" would be to change the line of succession to President whilst the present monarch is alive and then have to wait until her death before a President could be elected.

The oaths wording of AND also means that if the Queen be removed while alive their oath would still stand as allegiance to her even if she was no longer head of state so in such a case members would be allied still to Queen Elizabeth whether or not head of state or Queen. As for members who take the oath they have on doing so committed themselves to allegiance to Queen Elizabeth whether they like the idea of monarchy or not. Clearly the Irish have an issue with that and hence they have not taken their seats.

My intention is not to discuss the oath itself here but the fact that the oath is to Elizabeth.

(Rovington (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC))

The oath is to the person as the sovereign of the state in which the oath is taken; it is a legal matter that relates more to the workings of constitutional monarchy in each of the states over which Elizabeth II is queen than to the life of Elizabeth II (the sections on her role in government were removed from this page for the same reason). And, that leads me to add that the text that was added to the lead mentioned only the oath of allegiance in the United Kingdom; what of the oath of allegiance in Canada, the oath of allegiance in Australia, the oath of allegiance in New Zealand, the oath of allegiance in Jamaica, and so on, and so on, all of which are to Elizabeth II? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be hard to find sources showing that the oath is done in each realm. What if parliamentarians in Papua New Guinea don't do it? Or judges in Tuvalu? Do we put a list of countries in which officials of some stripe are required to swear the oath? What if it varies within the country? Do we say something like "Parliamentarians, judges, and police officers in Papua New Guinea are required to swear an oath of allegiance, but police officers in Tuvalu and Grenada swear only a generic oath to keep the peace, while parliamentarians in the Solomon Islands swear an oath to the people of the country"? In any case, I think mentioning it in this personal article is a bit like mentioning a notable court case just because it's titled "The Queen vs. Whoever." It suggests a level of personal involvement that doesn't exist, and is better left on pages about the monarchy itself.--Ibagli (Talk) 20:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

In Australia, at least, ministers may affirm allegiance to the nation without reference to the person of the sovereign. Of course, that does not deny the sovereignty. As has been remarked, this is a nice matter of convention that isn't relevant to a biography of Elizabeth II. One might just as well mention that some stamps and coins bear her image, some public buildings display her coat of arms, and a numbedr of charitable societies claim her patronage.Gazzster (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Coronation oath

I read that H.M. tales her coronation oath seriously. What is her coronation oath? It would be informative to put that in. Paul Magnussen (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Oath of office#Coronation Oath. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

This the Queen's Coronation Oath:

The Coronation Oath (from the Order of Service for the Coronation of Elizabeth II in 1953) is administered in the form of questions: Archbishop of Canterbury: Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand,the Union of South Africa and of your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs? Queen: I solemnly promise so to do. Archbishop: Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements? Queen: I will. Archbishop: Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them Queen: All this I promise to do. Then the Queen, arising out of her chair, supported by peers and with the Sword of State being carried before her, goes to the altar to make her solemn oath in the sight of all the people to observe the premises by laying her right hand upon the Holy Gospel in the great Bible (which was before carried in the procession and is now brought from the altar by the archbishop, and tendered to her as she kneels upon the steps), saying: Queen: The things which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep. So help me God. Then the Queen kisses the Bible and signs the Oath. LucilleBall (talk) 0:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Paul Magnussen asked the question, then Mies answered it. Why do we need the whole thing quoted here? The question was already answered. -Rrius (talk) 04:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Why do you need to comment? 86.181.140.34 (talk) 12:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Peer review

I've ask the people over at peer review to give the article a good going over so we can get it featured. --Thanks, Hadseys 20:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Wrong age in the text

In the section marriage it says "They married when Elizabeth was 18 years old on 20 November 1947." If she was born in 1926 she was 21 in 1947, but I don´t want to change anything since I do not know when they were married. So anyone who has som knowledge about this could maybe change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.252.153.55 (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, corrected. DrKiernan (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

As a constitutional monarch, she is politically neutral and by convention her role is largely ceremonial.

A lot of constitutional monarch are not politically neutral. Think of Morocco, UAE, etc. Also, there are probably a few examples where she didn't remain neutral. Should the sentence be modified? --zorxd (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

There was a time when she, on her coronation tour in New Zealand that she ordered her car to stop so she could meet the Maori King which wasn't on the pre-arranged itinerary. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

This idea of being 'politically neutral' is problematic. The Queen personally is not politically neutral. She may be Tory, Whig or Communist, but she does not reveal her opinions. Even in her constitutional role, she is not politically neutral. She is bound to enact and support the political acts of the Government of the day. That is not being neutral. I think what the concept 'poltically neutral' is trying to express is this: the Queen does not act on her personal convictions. We should explain it like that. Likewise the idea of being 'largely ceremonial' is misleading. The Queen has many ceremonies to perform. It is an important part of her office, but they do not form the bulk of Her Majesty's functions and they are certainly not the most important. Her powers and responsibilities are real. They are performed upon advise, but that doesn't make them any less real for that. It is a reality that no Act Parliament passes is law without the Queen's Assent. That is a real power. No person may form Government without being invited by the Sovereign. That is a real power. No war may be declared or Treaty ratified without the Queen's assent. That is a real power.I am talking of course of her role in the UK. In the realms her roles are undertaken by Governor-generals and Governors. But even here, the vice-regal powers are real, not ceremonial.--Gazzster (talk) 04:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Are there any defenders of this sentence, and if not, can I remove it? DrKiernan (talk) 12:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, no-one seems to object to its removal, but how about changing it to: When acting as head of state, Elizabeth follows the advice of her ministers; little is known of her own opinions.? DrKiernan (talk) 09:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about the Queen always not speaking politically. While she remains non partisan on many issues, she has given somewhat political speeches at times. The Queen is well known to oppose the separation of Quebec from Canada, and also prefers the countries (England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland) of the United Kingdom to remain together, those are two examples. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 11:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Tense?

Why is this article largely in the past tense? She's not dead, and she's still queen. Vashti (talk) 19:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

When you're 84, you've got alot of past events in your life. GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, but phrases such as "Elizabeth also demonstrated support for inter-faith relations" are extremely jarring to read. This is the way people are spoken of when they're dead or out of office. Would "Elizabeth has demonstrated ..." be better? Vashti (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes that phrasing does sound better. Most of the article should be present tense, as long as she is alive. Outback the koala (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to go through and make the edits if there's consensus to do so? Vashti (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I agree, but it takes more than the two of us to have consensus. Hopefully, others can cmmt about this. Outback the koala (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Things that continue to be true should be in present or present perfect, as appropriate; this isn't a newspaper, after all. -Rrius (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the requested edits have already been made, but please add me to the consensus in support of using the present perfect tense. "Has demonstrated" works better in the sentence in question because it refers to a living person. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Women's Auxiliary Territorial Service rank

Why were the then-Princess Elizabeth's ranks in the Women's Auxiliary Territorial Service honorary? I see that the cites do indeed refer to her as being granted the "hon. rank", but at least in the first case I see a dozen other people on the same page also being granted "hon. ranks" as well. I can't find any explanation in Wikipedia of what it means to have an honorary rank. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The other instances of "honorary" on that page seem to be the practice of allowing those who retire the service due to ill-health through wounds or sickness contracted on active service being entitled to continue using the highest rank in which they served in war time. Honorary also often carries the connotatino of unpaid, perhaps that is the implication in the case of HM's ATS rank? David Underdown (talk) 08:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Queen regnant 'or' queen regnant

Articles such as Harald V of Norway, Albert II of Belgium, Beatrix of the Netherlands & Margaret II of Denmark use King & Queen regnant in their intros. Why shouldn't this article? GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why those other articles capitalise "king" or "queen regnant"; is it a title in those countries? But in no Commonwealth realm is "queen regnant" a title; as it is not a proper noun, it remains uncapitalised. See WP:MOSCAPS#Titles of people. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Consistancy is required among the Heads of state. These offices are capitalized, Liz is not a special case. GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

But "queen regnant" is not an office, it's just a description. --Kotniski (talk) 15:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It's capitalized at Victoria of the United Kingdom, George VI of the United Kingdom etc. Look at her children - Charles, Prince of Wales; Andrew, Duke of York. GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Prince of Wales and Duke of York are titles and are thus capitalised. Queen of the United Kingdom (etc) is a title and is thus capitalised, queen regnant, or just queen should not be, per the manual of style that's already been linked. People smoetimes forget that the case of the initial letter of an article doesn't matter, and assume that you have to link as Queen regnant, whereas in fact queen regnant works just as well. Likewise Queen Elizabeth II is correct, but otherwise just use the queen (lower case), President of the United States, President Clinton, but the president. Other places have different styles, but that's what we're supposed to use here. David Underdown (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll make the corrections on the other monarchial BLPS in the coming days (lower casing them). As for the republican BLPS? I won't have a chance. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if you use "president" or "queen" to refer to a specific one, it is capitalised. Thus, The President vetoed the bill today and The Queen appointed Brown Prime Minister, but The president may veto a bill within ten days of receiving it and The prime minister serves at the king or queen's pleasure. -Rrius (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, the MOS seems to have changed on that in the last year. I guess that's one more piece of evidence that the MOS is irrelevant. -Rrius (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Huh??? Language, usage and style constantly evolve. You might just as well say this article is 'irrelevant' to our readers because it keeps on changing. You might just as well say the entirety of Wikipedia is 'irrelevant' because it keeps on changing. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

As long the BLPs of these nature are consistant, I'm content. GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, at least we're consistently spelling consistent as consistant.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The change at MOS was not the result of evolution of language. In any event, I called it evidence of irrelevance because changes like that happen after a brief conversation among a small number of editors, and others are left without a clue that the change has occurred. Anyway, I did not say MOS is irrelevant, but pointed to this incident as further evidence supporting those who say it is. -Rrius (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Until Mies pointed it out, I had no idea of the existence of MOSCAP. GoodDay (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted my changes on the other English & British monarchial articles. It looked silly, lower-casing monarchial titles & leaving dukes, counts etc, in capital letters. GoodDay (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The use of "queen regnant" was considered unfavorable at the featured article nomination. Can we use a piped link reigning queen instead? DrKiernan (talk) 12:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope, use queen regnant, this article doesn't deserve special treatment. GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Head of the Commonwealth and former queen

Per [3], shouldn't the fact that she is the former head of state of 16 countries and the figurehead of an international organisation be mentioned in the first paragraph of the lead? After her current positions as head of state, aren't her former positions as head of state and her leadership, albeit honorary, of two billion people across six continents the next most important things about her? If the wording is unclear or disputed, then what is the particular concern, and how can this concern be addressed? DrKiernan (talk) 11:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we should defintely mention her position as Head of the Commonwealth, not so sure about being former queen of 16 countries, mainly because it may confuse some people as there are currently 16 realms, the exact same number. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 12:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, head of the commonwealth should be there but to include former head of state of 16 countries would add confusion and is less relevant. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur with BW and Knowzilla. Outback the koala (talk) 01:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Her Religion

I know this has been discussed before (in the Talk archives), but it still confuses me. She is a communicant member of both the Church of England and the Church of Scotland. Is that just her; what about her other family members? This article says she is both CoE and CoS, but Prince Charles' article only says CoE -- will he join the CoS upon ascending the throne, or is that article wrong and he's a member of both already?

I am also not sure how one can actually be a member of both an Epsicopalian and a Presbyterian church simultaneously. Surely their theological distinctives (especially on certain issues such as apostolic succession and church polity and so forth) are so different that one could not rationally believe both simultaneously. Does Her Majesty believe in an episcopal form of church government while she is in England, and in a presbyterian form while she is in Scotland, changing her beliefs every time she crosses the border? Is it even possible, for a person ordinarily to belong to both churches at once? Or is this dual membership something not normally possible, but especially allowed for the Royal Family?

It's all very confusing, and maybe someone who understands this can explain it in the article? --SJK (talk) 03:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe Elizabeth II is a believing member of the episcopal Church of England, though, strange as it may seem, the Sovereign does not have to believe in episcopal or presbyterial government. The Sovereign is only required to be a communicant of the Church of England. In private belief she or he can hold to anything, as any citizen of the UK can, as long as they acknowledge in public the privileged, somewhat outdated status of the English Church. Non-conformists (Lloyd-George), Jews,(Disraeli) and Catholics (Tony Blair) have recommended the appointment of bishops to the Sovereign. Even within the episcopal Church of England there are a broad range of different beliefs, ranging from creeds approximating Catholicism to evangelical.So one might wonder how the Queen might in her mind reconcile her headship over many 'religions' in the one Church. Odd as it may seem to outsiders, the Church of England seems quite comfortable with its internal paradoxes and indeed thrives on them.Gazzster (talk) 09:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

A correction: Disraeli was ethnically Jewish though a communicant in the C of E.Gazzster (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

And Blair was not received into the Catholic Church until after he had stepped down as PM (though he had from time-to-time attended RC services with his family before then, Cheire Blair having always been a Catholic). David Underdown (talk) 09:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think what the article says is that she is a member (and head) of The C of E but worships in the C of S when in Scotland which should clear this up a bit. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You are saying she is member and head of CoE, but merely a worshipper at CoS. But my understanding is that she is a member of both CoE and CoS, and she has a special role in both, but of a different nature in each -- in CoE she is Supreme Governor, in CoS her role is not as Governor but rather as Protector. In other words, she (at least nominally) has an important role in the internal governance of the CoE (e.g. appointing bishops, assenting to the Acts of Parliament and Church Measures which govern the CoE), whereas she has no such internal authority in the CoS, but is sworn to protect it. --SJK (talk) 08:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Reference to decline of British Empire

The sentence 'At Elizabeth's birth, the British Empire was a pre-eminent world power, but its influence declined, particularly after the Second World War, and the empire evolved into the Commonwealth.' in the opening is:

i) a gross simplification of history to the point of being worthless (and is POV - for example, I would argue that the British Empire was THE pre-eminent power in the 1920s, and that the British Empire did not evolve into the Commonwealth, but that they are two completely separate entities e.g. there are countries in the Commonwealth which were never in the British Empire, and vice versa); (ii) is uncited; and (iii) is not necessary or relevant to intoducing the subject of the article to readers.

I have therefore deleted it and kindly ask for justification before it is reinstated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rangoon11 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Whatever your opinions, it is not your position to delete text and then demand others beg your permission to return it. WP:BRD asks for the status quo to remain while the new edit is discussed before it is implemented. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I think there is justification for a mention of the change that took place in her lifetime before becoming Queen, It does not really make sense to me to start the second paragraph by saying "Her father, George VI, was the last Emperor of India and the first Head of the Commonwealth. Which is what happens if the sentence on the Empire is deleted. " But either way, best not edit war and see how others feel about the paragraph its been pretty stable like that for some time i think. It could be reworded perhaps. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Happy to agree on some type of rewording and apologies if I gave the impression of edit warring, really not my intention to do so that's not what I'm about, particularly with those who have contributed a lot to this very good article. However I do have real issues with the sentence in question, which I feel does not merely let down the (very good) article but gives information which is partial and untrue.Rangoon11 (talk) 17:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I drafted some alternatives back here: Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 18#'most of the empire evolved' (in a related but slightly different discussion), which might help if someone wants to suggest a reword. DrKiernan (talk) 17:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

To be fair the Empire isn't gone yet. It may be smaller and renamed but it still exists in the British Overseas Territories. As for the paragraph, I fail to see how the influence declined as the British Monarch still sits on the throne of 16 different countries and the UK is still a major player in world politics which would undermine the statement as the UK is the governing country of the Empire. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

As I said, there are possibilities like:

When Elizabeth was born, the British Empire covered a quarter of the Earth's land surface. Her father, George VI, became King-Emperor in 1936. After World War II and Indian independence, the title of Emperor was abandoned, and George became the first Head of the Commonwealth.

which might address these concerns. DrKiernan (talk) 17:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Works for me, although I would suggest the following slightly amended wording: When Elizabeth was born the British Empire covered a quarter of the Earth's land surface and her father, George VI, became King-Emperor in 1936. After Indian independence the title of Emperor of India was abandoned, and George became the first Head of the Commonwealth in 1949. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

my only concern about that is the focus on India. We say the BE covered a 1/4th of the earths surface then just mention Indian independence but nothing about the rest of the Empire which had shrunk before she became Queen. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

How about: Elizabeth's father, George VI, became King-Emperor in 1936. After Indian independence the title of Emperor of India was abandoned, and George became the first Head of the Commonwealth in 1949.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

If we are not going to mention the decline of Empire then there is little point in mentioning India either. I think it is relevant to mention it as it sets the stage for the fact after she became Queen some of her other realms became Republics continuing the transition. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I introduced India because there was some confusion caused about why she was Queen of Pakistan but not Queen of India, which seemed to be resolved once the mention of India was introduced. DrKiernan (talk) 09:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The title Emperor was inherently connected to India so there does seem to be a relevance to me, it is simply stating a fact.Rangoon11 (talk) 09:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, so my second draft then:

Her father, George VI, became King-Emperor of the British Empire in 1936. After the Second World War and Indian independence his title of Emperor of India was abandoned, and the evolution of the Empire into separate nation states accelerated. In 1949, George became the first Head of the Commonwealth, a symbol of the free association of the independent countries comprising the Commonwealth of Nations. DrKiernan (talk) 18:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I would be ok with that i think. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Works for me.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Good compromise! Jmlk17 22:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)