Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 34

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

→

Archive 40

Alphabetting the 12, and noting the 7

But for the freeze, I would have added after the list of 12 at the end of the third paragraph : (in the order of becoming attaining independent statehood sovereign states), which corresponds with the infobox dropdown. Canada is listed before Australia in the list of 7 in that same paragraph, with the same ranking in the infobox. That unalphabetic order stems from August 2005: Rearrange countries of which she is Queen in chronological order of age of the crowns.[1] If that was the result of earlier discussion now archived, can it be identified? (revised) Qexigator (talk) 09:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

+Editorially (distinct from personal opinion or sentiment), it is unlikely that many would welcome a change in the order as it now stands in the third paragraph and infobox: the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Pakistan, but I see a way of resolving the point by adding a footnote to explain what otherwise appears to be anomalous, thus:

"Canada's formation as a federal state was in 1867, Australia's in 1901."

The (paper?) trail for this (as regular editors will be aware) is that the infobox links to Commonwealth realm, which states: "The Statute of Westminster 1931 provided for the then Dominions—named therein as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Irish Free State, and Newfoundland—to have full or nearly full legislative independence as equal members of the British Commonwealth of Nations", and the Date column in the Table (year each country became a member of the Commonwealth, as from the year of enactment of the Statute of Westminster or the year of the country's independence) gives 1931 for Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and UK, while the infobox for Monarchy of Australia shows Formation 1901, for Monarchy of Canada shows Formation 1867, and Monarchy of New Zealand's History section states: "In 1907, New Zealand achieved the status of Dominion...". The "Application" section of the article Statute of Westminster 1931 states: "Since 1931, over a dozen new Commonwealth realms have been created, all of which now hold the same powers as the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand over matters of change to the monarchy..The Parliament of Australia passed the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act in 1942.". Finally, the primary source: the Statute's preamble mentioned the delegates of HMG as "in the United Kingdom, the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand..."[2] Qexigator (talk) 11:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

This potential problem of order of listing, can easily be avoided with "Queen of the United Kingdom and the 15 other...". GoodDay (talk) 13:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, but whether or not that would be so, it is a different point, and applies not to the text we now have. Qexigator (talk) 14:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Qex. I thought you were suggesting this for the opening sentence. This Rfc is difficult to follow, sometimes :) GoodDay (talk) 14:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's a problem for all of us, including those who may believe they have the solution, or at least one that is better than others on offer. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 14:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

On further consideration, perhaps the footnote should give the formation dates for all seven, thus:

The United Kingdom was formed in 1801, Canada's formation as a federal state was in 1867 and Australia's in 1901, New Zealand (as a Dominion) was formed in 1907, the Union of South Africa in 1910, Pakistan in 1947, and Ceylon in 1948.

Qexigator (talk) 14:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Not exactly -- the "British North America Act of 1867" established the "Dominion of Canada" which did not include Newfoundland until 1949, etc. We could have an entire article on what was, and was not,part of the "British Empire" over the years - but is it of value in a biography of Elizabeth II? Collect (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your friendly comment. The act was instrumental in the formation of Canada as a federal state, whatever happened later. It is not proposed to have an entire article, but a small footnote to explain an anomaly which is not otherwise self-evident to a reader who lacks the detailed knowledge that some specialists or hobbyists may have been taught or otherwise acquired. You may be aware that Wikipedia aims to cater for a wide range, from fact-checkers to newbies of school age. Know-alls need not apply. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Dating the crowns is a problem. The crown of Barbados was established in 1627, while the crown of the Great Britain was merged with the crown of Ireland to create the crown of the UK in 1801, then altered when Southern Ireland beccame independent in the 1920s.

Similarly, the independence of the dominions was recognized (not created) by the Balfour Declaration of 1926, and the Statute of Westminster 1931 was enacted at different times in each dominion. Furthermore, under the declarative principle of statehood, they were independent when they joined the League of Nations in 1919, but then India joined the UN before formal independence. Using the Montevideo convention, none of the countries achieved statehood until citizenship laws were proclaimed in 1947 and in the case of the UK in 1948. If we date independence to when the UK parliament ceased to have any power to legislate, Canada, Australia and NZ were the last to achieve independence - in the 1980s. If we use the end of appeals to the Privy Council, we have a different set of dates and NZ and Mauritius and Trinidad (which are not Commonwealth Realms) have not ended appeals. Similarly if we use substantial independence, then Canada was independent before 1867, and Bermuda and Gibraltar at least are independent now. And of course if we use creation of dominion status, we get another set of dates.

Collect's example provides another problem - PEI, BC, the Northwest Territories and Newfoundland were not part of the original Dominion of Canada. TFD (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you TFD, that information is interesting. But I do not see that it falsifies the proposed wording for either of the annotations. For one thing, so far as international law is concerned, a change of boundaries does not of itself result in discontinuity, and the Dominion of Canada's existence, once established pursuant to the act, was not abolished before 1931. Qexigator (talk) 17:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I think we are getting way ahead of ourselves here, but: There's no consistent way out there of listing these countries. Even the British monarchy's website has no apparent order. Looking at some reliable sources: Here (UK parliament) and here (p.45) (Canadian government) they're listed in alphabetical order. However, here (book), here (Canadian media), here (Canadian media), and here (British media), they're ordered by age.

It might be of help to find a reference in a gazette or court circular listing high commissioners in attendance at an event or something. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Quexigator, could you re-phrase that? When you mention international law, are you talking about the constitutive or declarative theory? What is your point about state continuity?

Why do we use a date of 1867 for Canada, when Bermuda and Gibraltar have more autonomy today than Canada did then?

TFD (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

For the present purpose of discussing the improvement of the article by the two annotations above, I will let the infobox and the paper trail in my above comment suffice as provenence for the dates in my draft. On the internationl law point, please take my comment as based on well-informed opinion or not, but I do not propose to debate it here. Qexigator (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Your commentary was, "so far as international law is concerned, a change of boundaries does not of itself result in discontinuity." Indeed the resolution of the Alaska boundary dispute did not result in discontinuity of the United States. But no one has mentioned a change in boundaries. State continuity may come into question though when states are merged or divided The division of the Czech Republic and Slovakia for example meant that where two states once existed two did and international law had to recognize one, both or neither as continuator states. TFD (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Please identify the abolition of Canada as established pursuant to the 1867 act. Qexigator (talk) 19:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Whoever said Canada was abolished in 1867? TFD (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that statement needs further elaboration. We need a source before blanking the Canada article and being needlessly accused of vandalism. --Pete (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

You've got the point: federal Canada, once established, has continued in existence from that day to this, and the date given in the infobox etc is correctly treated as the provenance of my draft annotation. Qexigator (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The transcript of the Remembrance Day ceremony in London in 2011 records the order in which High Commissioners placed their wreaths at the cenotaph. The realms are mixed in with the other Commonwealth nations and Tuvalu, Solomon Islands, and (for obvious reason) the UK are missing, but, the realms are in order of age: [United Kingdom,] Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Nigeria, Cyprus, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, Kenya, Malawi, Zambia, Singapore, Guyana, Botswana, Lesotho, Barbados, Mauritius, Swaziland, Tonga, Fiji, Bangladesh, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, [Solomon Islands, Tuvalu,] Seychelles, Dominica, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, Maldives, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Brunei Darussalem, Nvidia, Cameron, Mozambique, any member of the Commonwealth, and Rwanda. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I had been hoping that something of the sort would be found online, confirming Canada before Australia. attributable to the sequence of the countries becoming independent. Qexigator (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

"Federal Canada" was a continuation of the "Province of Canada", NB and NS, and the province was a continuation of the two provinces, which was a continuation of Quebec. Modern Canada is a continuation of the original dominion, PEI, Nfld, BC and the NW territories. None of these units were ever extinguished, but continued. The question is which starting date to choose and how to treat the fact that modern Canada derives from territories that joined at different times. TFD (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

This debate is way, way off topic. Can you please take it somewhere else? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The topic is how to order the various independent states over which the sovereign rules. My point is that listing the date at which each became independent is problematic. However I do not mind using your order, which is the order of protocol, but it would be OR to claim the order was based on order of independence. It could be for example based on when high commissioners were first received by the UK government. TFD (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Using the order of precedence solves several problems. Australia is a clear-cut case, but places like Canada and Ireland not so much. How is this assembled, do we know? It is based on the nations, I trust, rather than the dates of appointment of the various High Commissioners? --Pete (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how it's assembled. But, it's not a coincidence it's in the order of oldest realm followed by order of becoming a Dominion followed by order of independence: United Kingdom (1707? 1801? time immemorial?), Canada (1867), Australia (1901), New Zealand (1907), Jamaica (1962), Barbados (1966), the Bahamas (1973), Grenada (1974), Papua New Guinea (1975), Solomon Islands (July 1978), Tuvalu (October 1978), St Lucia (February 1979), St Vincent and the Grenadines (October 1979), Belize (September 1981), Antigua and Barbuda (November 1981), Saint Kitts and Nevis (1983). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

In diplomatic circles, when an ambassador presents their credentials to the head of state is important, and determines their position on protocol lists. New Zealand order of precedence is an example. In the Australian equivalent, the State Governors are listed by seniority dating from personal appointment. If the British order of precedence ranks High Commissioners by order of personal appointment rather than the order of their realms/dominions gaining independence, then this would change as various appointments are made. The Canadian High Commissioner gets run over by a bus, then the replacement gets to lay his wreath last instead of first. You see what I mean? I'm pretty sure you are correct that it's in order of realm rather than appointment, but it would be nice to know for sure. --Pete (talk) 23:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

If you'd like a source containing the exact words "the realms are arranged by oldest realm followed by order of becoming a Dominion followed by order of independence", fine, I can't fault you for that. But, I think you're going to have a very, very hard time convincing anyone it was mere coincidence the order of precedence at the 2011 Remembrance Day service was also the order in which the countries became a Dominions followed by the order in which the countries became independent. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not doubting that it is so. For the dates of appointment to be in the same order as the dates of independence would be a massive coïncidence. I don't know the exact probability, but it would be vanishingly small. I'm quite sure that listing the realms in the order you give above is fine. --Pete (talk) 23:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

According to the UK Flag Institute the "Order for Commonwealth Events Held in the UK (but not the Commonwealth Games)", the national flags are displayed in order of "original accession to the Commonwealth." The original dominions, which became members of the Commonwealth at the same time, are listed according to when they obtained dominion status.[3] So I think we can use something like that, since it is not clear when any of the dominions achieved independence. While I imagine that date of accession and independence are the same for the other former colonies, I have not checked it out. Certainly it is possible that it is not the same, because a state could conceivably become independent but join the Commonwealth at a later date. Also, ambassadors and high commissioners receive precedence in order of when they were accepted, but that should not concern us. TFD (talk) 00:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all the above comments. The RfC below is proposing a new footnote that lists all realms and explains their ordering by date. So I am looking forward to see what that will be. Meantime, this section remains open for further comment toward that end. Qexigator (talk) 11:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Gone ahead There's no great urgency, but emboldened by the above discussion, I have composed and added a footnote, placing it at the end of the current first sentence. It looks good to me and would be no less so if the sentence is changed (as RfC responses show is to be expected). Of course, this is open to tweak and at risk of revert. If allowed to stay there, perhaps there will be no need to add a footnote for the two lists, of 7 and 12, now in the second paragraph. Qexigator (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it's unnecessary to present essentially the same information in the lead, the infobox and a footnote. I was under the impression that the footnote would either (1) explain the order without repeating it, or (2) would list the realms if the lead did not. DrKiernan (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it gives the same information, but it overlaps the infobox, and presents in one place the names, with dates of "seniority" in a way which combines the lists intelligibly. Admittedly, it does not say explicitly "This list is here to explain why the lists in the text are analphabetic". Should it? Qexigator (talk) 16:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree the footnote duplicates information already in the lede; it was my first thought upon seeing your edit. What it really adds is the reason for the order of the realms. So, I think the note should be stripped of the list and moved to another spot in the lede, likely the second paragraph. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I note that Papua New Guinea was administered by Australia and the date given for precedence is when it became independent of Australia. Singapore, which is a republic, had become independent as part of Malaya and became an independent state upon expulsion, but its date is given for when it later joined the Commonwealth. So I think saying the order is based on date of admission to the Commonwealth is better. TFD (talk) 22:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

DrK, Mies., TFD:: Thanks for those comments. I will be coming up with something which moves or removes the footnote. Qexigator (talk) 11:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

In the knowledge that it is sometimes near impossible to cover every conceivable aspect outside a properly drawn legal document (party of the first part etc.[4]), I am going ahead with adding something in line after the 7, and then after the 12. If retained, then the long list in the note for the first paragraph can go. May a few words be sufficient to the actual context.Qexigator (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

When the lead was re-written prior to the period of full-protection, South Africa, Pakistan and Ceylon were removed from the lead. No-one complained. We may wish to consider some way of doing that again once the RfC has finished. DrKiernan (talk) 16:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree with these footnotes. As I've said below, in the RfC section, a lead paragraph that requires parenthetical explanations or footnotes is poorly written. It is possible to eliminate the repetition of "She is Head of the Commonwealth ... became Head of the Commonwealth" in immediately succeeding sentences and remove the 3 republics and incorporate an explanation by writing something like:

Since her accession on 6 February 1952, she has been Head of the Commonwealth and queen regnant of four independent Commonwealth countries: the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. From their dates of independence, she is also Queen of Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis. DrKiernan (talk) 18:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, much better: will you go ahead with that? Qexigator (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but I'll wait for a while in case someone raises an objection. DrKiernan (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Nicely done, I think it's a significant improvement. trackratte (talk) 02:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Of these two, DrKiernan's (18:40, 4 October) and W. P. Uzer's (06:45, 5 October))[5], either would be acceptable, unsure what tips the balance for one or other. Qexigator (talk) 07:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Let 08:56, 5 October

[6], settle the question. Qexigator (talk) 09:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC) I object to the massive changes made to the second paragraph. This wasn't what this Rfc was about & furthermore, where's the consensus for such a change? GoodDay (talk) 05:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Noted. Qexigator (talk) 07:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The proposal for alphabetting raised at the top of this section has been overtaken by the current revision, 08:56, 5 October [7], and the section may be treated as 'closed, with thanks to all who have helped in bringing this to pass. Qexigator (talk) 09:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Queen of..."from their dates of independence"

It may be said of the revised version here[8] and of the one before it, that the wording could be taken as implying that she was not Queen of those places previously when they had the status of colonies and before they attained independence. My surmise is that, in the context, few if any ordinary readers would think twice about it, and nor would a knowledgeable person seriously take that as the meaning of those words. Qexigator (talk) 17:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

We can avoid that by leaving out the dates. That of course means creating no distinction between old and new CRs. TFD (talk) 19:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the main problem was insufficient informational detail in the body, which my link to the Table of current realms is meant to remedy.[9] The dates are all there, and other information, by country alphabetically. Qexigator (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

It's in the infobox, navboxes and linked articles already, and all the current realms are listed in the lead. Adding a link to a largely unrelated section isn't going to help if all the other links and lists are missed. DrKiernan (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Simultaneity! But I do not understand why you are objecting to linking to the Table. As I read the main text of the article, the information is insufficiently apparent, and in my view it is unreasonable to expect ordinary readers to pick up information of that sort form infoboxes, and hidden dropdowns, much less from the navboxes at the end of the page. Qexigator (talk) 20:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

It does not help to explain "over 20 countries gained their independence from Britain" by linking to a list which does not list those countries. Somaliland, Cyprus, Kuwait, Cameroon, Singapore, Malaysia, Zambia, Maldives, Botswana, Lesotho, South Yemen, Swaziland, Tonga, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, the UAE, the Seychelles, Dominica and Kiribati are wholly excluded, without any mention whatever. Nor are Nigeria, Tanzania, Sierra Leone, Uganda, Trinidad and Tobago, Kenya, Malawi, Malta, Gambia, Guyana, Mauritius, or Fiji listed in that list. So, out of "over 20 countries", you are linking to a list which totally excludes over 30 of them. That is not useful. In fact, it is misleading. DrKiernan (talk) 20:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I really don't think a short opening paragraph of a biography article is the place to get into how Elizabeth was queen of a place as sovereign of the United Kingdom and then, when that gained independence, she became queen of that place as sovereign of it directly. If anyone feels there's any potential problem of readers not knowing she remained queen but "switched hats" when a colony became a realm, it might be remedied by simply adding "from the United Kingdom" after "dates of independence". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Then would you agree we omit saying the sovereign became Queen of 4 countries in 1952 and others at later dates? TFD (talk) 00:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Not at all. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Why? TFD (talk) 06:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Now you mention it, Mies., maybe adding "from the United Kingdom" after "dates of independence" would be an improvement. I suspect that the proposal will grow on me to the point of doing it if noone else does (subject to further comment). Qexigator (talk) 06:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Papua New Guinea did not gain independence from the United Kingdom. These suggestions are going down another long road to unnecessary complication. DrKiernan (talk) 06:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

So far as I am concerned, DrK.'s last comment (06:59, 9 October) settles the point raised at the top of this section. Qexigator (talk) 08:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

See also section

The guideline for See also sections recommends against including links there that are already linked either in the body or the navboxes. Commonwealth realm is already linked in the infobox and the article body and the list of things named for her and the list of states she's headed are linked in the navboxes. DrKiernan (talk) 09:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

There is a two-word phrase in the lead "her realms" (third paragraph) that could be piped to the list of states? DrKiernan (talk) 09:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The snag with that "guideline" is that, from the point of view of the ordinary reader expecting and deserving to find the information in the text or via easy see and use links there (such as the one you mention), it is quite unreasonable to put too much reliance instead on the bottom navboxes, and especially unreasonable when of any length, and more so when hidden behind single or multiple dropdowns. But I agree that, if there is a suitable place in the text for a link, that will often be the better way. Qexigator (talk) 10:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, even if the navboxes were taken out of the dropdown and revealed, there are so many of them that they are rendered almost useless. Any useful links there are lost in a sea of largely irrelevant, or at least tangential, links. DrKiernan (talk) 08:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's it. Qexigator (talk) 09:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Surplus navbox lists

Should the 16 heads of state navboxes relating to the former realms be removed? Is the information in the "Titles and succession" dropdown of succession boxes sufficient? DrKiernan (talk) 12:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

"Titles and succession" helpfully displays relevant information of intricate facts, the sort of thing that Wikipedia can offer as a service to readers. Of all the rest, I see none deserving retention here except the Canadian monarchy dropdown: that one would not be unacceptable, given Canada's mixed heritage, which is a lesser known story worth looking at if a reader gets so far and has the desire to follow it up; and it deserves more attention than it may get for those interested in the modern history of north America and the evolution of the Empire and Commonwealth in the reigns of monarchs succeeding to the heritage of Queen Anne. Qexigator (talk) 13:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

+ The "Queen Elizabeth II" dropdown is also likely to be helpful to readers who find it, and that with "Titles and succession" and "Canadian monarchy" should be three visible headers for their dropdowns, and the others removed. Qexigator (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The number of navbox dropdown lists other than the three named above has fluctuated and the lists varied, as shown by these specimens from year endings:

• 2007[10] Order of Precedence in England and Wales (Ladies)*, Personal flags and royal standards of Queen Elizabeth II
• 2008[11] Heads of state of the European Union member states, Order of Precedence in England and Wales (Ladies)*, Personal flags and royal standards of Queen Elizabeth II, Dukes of Normandy, British princesses
• 2011[12]English, Scottish and British monarchs, Heads of state of the European Union member states, Current heads of state in Central American countries, British princesses, Charles, Prince of Wales, Time Persons of the Year
• 2013[13] in addition, included 13 more Heads of State lists.

Those are proposed for removal, while retaining "Titles and succession", "Queen Elizabeth II" and "Canadian monarchy". Qexigator (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Now gone ahead: acceptable? Qexigator (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Noting navbox information

The article is long and the ordinary reader may not be aware of the information and links conveniently displayed in the four navboxes: "Titles and succession", "Queen Elizabeth II", "English, Scottish and British monarchs", and "Canadian monarchy". These are not included in the Contents list, nor immediately apparent like the infobox. Is there any reason against putting at the top, or in a note to the lead or infobox, "For further information see navigation boxes at the end of this article"? How would it be done? Qexigator (talk) 17:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

That is not done in any article and I would argue that the links throughout the entire article are there for the purpose of connecting to related articles. The navboxes are not special in that regard. DrKiernan (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

What is the supposed purpose of the navboxes, if not to let them be an aid to presenting the information available for the reader, in a way which the reader can see more or less at a glance and make use of? In the case of those now in this article, they gather the links, with some more, and present them in a way that is a useful service to readers, in a way that the links scattered through the article fail to do. They can be more useful than the infobox. Qexigator (talk) 20:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to test again for a short time. Qexigator (talk) 20:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

My surmise is that it is "not done" because the pdf or book would print the text

• 12 Navboxes For further information see navigation boxes at the end of this article: “Titles and succession”, “Queen Elizabeth II”, “English, Scottish and British monarchs”, and “Canadian monarchy”.

but not the navboxes, while the links to "External links" are there in the pdf .Or is there some other technical reason? Qexigator (talk) 20:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it's because they don't show in certain css skins. For example, the mobile version, which is used by 30% of readers, doesn't include them. DrKiernan (talk) 06:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

For various reasons, including possible skin problem, I now see that leaving the infoboxes navboxes to be found at the end of an article's page suffices, and introducing an attention giving device could be an editing distraction. Point settled. Qexigator (talk) 07:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Supreme Governor of the Church of England

I think the queen's position as Supreme Governor of the Church of England should be included along with her role as Queen and Head of the Commonwealth as it is a significant role within England and Wales. TFD (talk) 01:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree in that it should be noted somewhere within the lead as it is significant to Elizabeth II as a person, and is a notable aspect of her life and role. Perhaps, "She is also Head of the Commonwealth and Supreme Governor of the Church of England", as the last sentence within the lead paragraph. trackratte (talk) 02:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Both offices are more important than that and belong in the first or second sentence. TFD (talk) 04:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

To my mind, there was no good reason given to remove it from the lead, but whether it need be there is another question. Its significance in her biography is touched on in the section "Public perception and character", but does that warrant mention in the lead? Maybe not unless the importance of it to her as queen is mentioned, which is that she dedicated herself to service as monarch at the coronation performed according to the rites of the Chuch of England. I do not see that mentioned in the article. Instead there is a lot about Princess Margaret's marital affairs, and some relatively trivial deatails, such as Elizabeth's coronation gown was commissioned from Norman Hartnell and embroidered on her instructions with the floral emblems of Commonwealth countries:[69] English Tudor rose; Scots thistle; Welsh leek; Irish shamrock; Australian wattle; Canadian maple leaf; New Zealand silver fern; South African protea; lotus flowers for India and Ceylon; and Pakistan's wheat, cotton, and jute. Qexigator (talk) 06:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Opening paragraph, the lead shouldn't be over-loaded with sundry roles that are incidental to the main role. It is unnecessary to say she is commander-in-chief of the British armed forces or head of the Church of England because these roles are part of her position as monarch of the United Kingdom, and it is already stated that she is Queen of the United Kingdom. DrKiernan (talk) 07:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Encyclopedically speaking, in what sense is Supreme Governor "part of her position as monarch of the United Kingdom"? Popular sentiment, political practice (conventions of the constitution), acts of Parliament making succession and/or coronation conditional upon making declaration? Does not that deserve some mention at least as much as Hartnell's obedience to her on an ephemeral point of dressmaking? It is usual for a head of state to be commander-in-chief, even in an elective monarchy or republic such as the USA, and therefore no special mention is needed, but her position as Supreme Governor is of special, possibly unique, signficance in the UK constitution, with a set of problems occurring in her reign attributable to the past history to which she was heir, first presumptive and then as proclaimed and crowned successor, and to the way in which the Church of England has been affected since then as a national institution by internal and external changes. One obvious example, the Cof E episcopate, with some assistance from the RC hereditary Earl Marshal, conducted the coronation within a collegiate church of the institution of which she is Supreme Governor, and administered her coronation oath. and the "Lords Spiritual" referred to in the words enacting statutes of the realm are none other than the senior bishops of the Church of England. One way or another that is something of concern or indifference to the Church of England's episcopate and clergy and churchgoers, to other denominations, and to others of no denomination who may be of another religion or none at all: as churchpeople, or by political conviction, or in some other way. Qexigator (talk) 08:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

But none of that is about her. This is a biography not an explanation of the British constitution. I think I'm right in saying that Harald, Margrethe and Willem-Alexander are all heads of their respective national churches. The Swedish monarchs used to be until it was disestablished.

I'd always assumed that Hartnell's embroidery is being used as a means of emphasizing (or introducing in a more interesting way than a simple listing) the Commonwealth aspects of the Coronation (by mentioning each of the countries then in it) rather than about the dress per se. DrKiernan (talk) 08:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I understand what you say, and agree that it is part of the editorial judgment, but I am not proposing that the article be overloaded with constitutional matter, only that something more need be said, and the Hartnell passage trimmed if not removed, leaving it to Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II. Certainly, Hartnell needs no mention here by name, and details of Princess Margaret's marital affairs could be trimmed. As the article stands those bits are out of proportion to the Queen's personal commitment at the CoE ceremony of coronation, which pertains to all realms, not England and Wales alone, and she has (cannot source at the moment) told us that this has been a mainstay of her life's work, including her commitment to the older and newer Commonealth realms, which influences the warmth and content of her Chistmas message year by year. She is notable as a public person, and her biography does not need padding out with marginalia, just because it may get quantitatively more coverage than the part of her life that affects her and the peoples of all her realms as the reigning monarch. How is a list of Commonwelth flowers (duplicated in the Coronation article) more "about her" in this article? Perhaps we mention her brand of toothpaste which helps to keep her smiling, or bath soap which keeps her fragrant. I don't see that information in List of Royal Warrant holders of the British Royal Family, but surmise a lot of people would like to know. Qexigator (talk) 10:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

+ The Hartnell bit came in at 21:07, 12 June 2007 from G2bambino edit summary: add,[14] before Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II started in August 2009. Hartnell was there from 06:01, 18 December 2009 (Miesianiacal).[15] Qexigator (talk) 11:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not fussed one way or the other over the placement of "Supreme Governor of the Church of England" in the lede. It is, however, a position associated only with the office of monarch of the United Kingdom; the monarch is supreme governor by way of the Act of Supremacy 1558—a British law—and it is the British prime minister only who advises the Queen on matters relating to the CoE.

What I'm not familiar with is the structure of the church itself. Is the Anglican Church part of the CoE, so the CoE is actually an international religous organisation, like the Catholic church? Or, does the reach of the CoE end at England's borders? If the former is true, then I'd say include mention of the supreme governorship, as it's an international role akin to Head of the Commonwealth. If the latter is factual, I'd leave it out, as it is specific only to a locality. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

"The Anglican Communion is an international association of churches consisting of the Church of England and of national and regional Anglican churches in full communion with it." She is only Supreme Governor of the Church of England - so, my understanding is that, no, her role in Anglicanism is not international. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Her position as Supreme Governor does not extend beyond England, where it is particularly noticeable in connection with the appointment of bishops in that part of the UK. This does not apply to appointments in the established Presbyterian Church of Scotland which has no bishops and a different form of church government. The customary coronation of the monarch at Westminster is more ancient than the Act of Supremacy. Edward the Confessor was crowned at Winchester, William I and his successors at Westminster. The territorial extent no longer includes Wales, and has never extended overseas. It is a position which in every significant respect except the person of the Queen is unlike that of Head of the Commonwealth. Qexigator (talk) 17:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The 1558 act says the Queen is "the only supreme governor of this realm, and of all other her highness's dominions and countries, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes...." Clearly it applied throughout the Empire, although in practice the church governed by the monarch only exists largely in England and Europe. Incidentally, this type of statute would continue to apply to Commonwealth countries unless repealed. TFD (talk) 17:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

What does the Empire include today? Do you have proof of the Act of Supremacy being law in countries other than the UK? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that almost the entire Act apart from one short clause [16] was repealed over several centuries' worth of subsequent legislation. DrKiernan (talk) 18:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the last vestige of the act is the title and one small portion: [17] "An Acte restoring to the Crowne thauncyent Jurisdiction over the State Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall, and abolyshing all Forreine Power repugnaunt to the same.... VIII All Spiritual Jurisdiction united to the Crown.And That suche Jurisdictions Privileges Superiorities and Preheminences Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall, as by any Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall Power or Aucthorite hathe heretofore bene or may lawfully be exercised or used for the Visitacion of the Ecclesiasticall State and Persons, and for Reformacion Order and Correccion of the same and of all maner of Errours Heresies Scismes Abuses Offences Contemptes and Enormities, shall for ever by aucthorite of this present Parliament be united and annexed to the Imperiall Crowne of this Realme." It is worth being reminded by those words what it was and is actually about. Qexigator (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. So, the role is confined to England. However, does the Anglican Church being in communion with the CoE make the Supreme Governor of the CoE a head of an international organisation, albeit a loose one? Do Anglicans view the CoE's supreme governor as being important to them in any way? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Short answer: No. There is no such entity as "Anglican Church" as an institution: "the Anglican Communion is an international association of churches consisting of the Church of England and of national and regional Anglican churches in full communion with it". "The Anglican Episcopal family consists of an estimated 85 million Christians who are members of 44 different Churches." (Published by the Anglican Communion Office) [18] "The Anglican Communion has no central authority figure or body..."[19] The position of "Supreme Governor" is defined exhaustively in the act above quoted. Qexigator (talk) 20:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that's actually pretty interesting. I always thought it was an international organization. Nonetheless, I'm not concerned either way if it's mentioned in the lead or not, I can see arguments for both sides (only relevant to England itself, but probably quite a priminent feature of Elizabeth II's lift). trackratte (talk) 23:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I see. But, does the CoE, as the "mother church", sit above the other churches in this loose organisation; the sort of "anchor" church? I only ask to find out if the position of Supreme Governor of the Church of England is in any way, even unofficially, international. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The position of Supreme Governor of the Church of England is not in any way, even unofficially, international. Qexigator (talk) 01:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

In Canada, in Britain and elsewhere

The Quebec Act implies that the 1558 Act extends to all British territories: Catholics in Quebec "may have, hold, and enjoy, the free Exercise of the Religion of the Church of Rome, subject to the King's Supremacy, declared and established by an Act, made in the first Year of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, over all the Dominions and Countries which then did, or thereafter should belong, to the Imperial Crown of this Realm...."[20] This act amends the 1558 Act to the extent the oath of allegiance in Quebec no longer refers to the "Supreme Governor." There is also Blackstone's view that the Queen is governor of the church under common law, so whether or not there was statute saying that is irrelevant.

The Church of England has no precedence over other Anglican/Episcopal Churches, although the Archbishop of Canterbury takes precedence. Outside the CE, no bishops are appointed by the Crown since 1863 so they are effectively separate.

I think though it is a diversion to determine where the Queen remains Supreme Governor. It is a significant office, particularly for historical reasons.

TFD (talk) 00:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the Quebec act is part of the story, and what one would expect. That act was repealed in 1791, but for the short time it was in force is comparable with (but not the same as) the acts for the Presbyterian Church in Scotland, and the disestablishment of the Church of England in Wales. In my view, at the present time, her sovereignty of the Order of the Garter is more significant, and of the Order of the Bath and the Order of St Michael and St George. Qexigator (talk) 01:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

No it was not repealed, despite what the Wikipedia article says. The Constitutional Act 1791 was an "An Act to repeal certain Parts of [the Quebec Act]." Those certain parts are mentioned in the 1792 act and do not include repeal of the 1588 act. Among other things the two new provinces retained French civil law, which had been restored by the 1774 act, although Upper Canada quickly received "the laws of England as they stood on the 15th day of October, 1792." (See Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990.[21]

Not sure what your comparison with Scotland and Wales is. The bishops of Quebec accepted Gallicanism - and the King was seen as the head of the Catholic church in Quebec.

TFD (talk) 02:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

No contest, but please allow me to adjourn sine die my part in further consideration and discussion of this alluring topic. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 06:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

You can read more about it in "What is a Church by Law Established?" Establishment of the CE was recognized by legislation in NS, NB and PEI and never repealed, and the Supreme Court upheld the right of the Lt. Gov. of NB to appoint priests. It is clear that the CE extended into the colonies, so it at least makes the Supreme Governor relevant, at least historically, beyond England. TFD (talk) 19:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Useful information on historical position, but not for this article, and would need to be used carefully if used for another. Qexigator (talk) 23:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

No one has suggested it be added to the article. My suggestion above was " the queen's position as Supreme Governor of the Church of England should be included along with her role as Queen and Head of the Commonwealth as it is a significant role within England and Wales." In fact the significance at least historically extends beyond. TFD (talk) 00:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

... would need to be used carefully ... By which I mean that persons not familiar with legal reasoning in general or this branch of law in particular, or with the state of church government in England, Wales, Ireland and Scotland on the demise of the Crown of England at the death of Henry VII and the state of church government in those places at the accession of William III and Mary, could fail to recognise that, if the content of that paper were received in a court of law in England as if it were uncontested expert evidence of the local laws in any part of the federal state of Canada, in proceedings brought by a person having locus standi concerning a matter justiciable by that court, then it could be safely claimed that such evidence would not support a contention that the position of Supreme Governor of the Church of England conferred upon the monarch of England and her successors extended beyond the realm of England and Principality of Wales, but could support a contention that the act, essentially concerning church government in England and Wales, did not extend to other jurisdictions. Qexigator (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not the law applied beyond England, it would still be law outside England. In particular, a law saying the sovereign is supreme governor of the Church of England is part of the law in every jurisdiction that received English law. In the same sense, the Prince of Wales is recognized as Prince of Wales outside Wales. Every CR recognizes the sovereign as Queen of all her realms in the official royal title. Furthermore, there is evidence that the law does extend beyond England even if it has not been enforced since the 19th century, when the Lt Gov of NB appointed a priest. But even if the law only extended to England, it would still be important. Half the citizens of CRs live in England. TFD (talk) 14:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Given that, first, there is no reason to doubt that the author of the paper What is a Church by Law Established?, M.H. Ogilvie, Professor of Law, Carleton University, Ottawa, was sufficiently familiar with the state of church government in England, Wales, Ireland and Scotland on the demise of the Crown of England at the death of Henry VII, and secondly, that the Act of Supremacy, quoted above, essentially concerned church government in England and Wales, and did not extend to other jurisdictions in any part of Canada before or after federation, or elsewhere, the paper alone is enough to show that the point is practically unarguable to the contrary. Qexigator (talk) 16:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

+ Editors will be aware that "Supreme Governor" is mentioned in Supreme Head of the Church of England and in "Religious role" section of Monarchy of the United Kingdom, but it does not appear in the lead of either article. I see no previous discussion of Supreme Governor in this page's archives. Qexigator (talk) 00:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Editors will be aware that "Supreme Governor" is mentioned in Supreme Head of the Church of England and in "Religious role" section of Monarchy of the United Kingdom, but it does not appear in the lead of either article. I see no previous discussion of Supreme Governor in this page's archives. Qexigator (talk) 10:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Editors concerned with discussion elsewhere about regal "divisibility" may wish to consider the divisibility implicit in the distinction between the monarch's position in relation to church government in the two kingdoms of Great Britain, perpetuated by the Treaty/ Acts of Union (1707) described in Professor Ogilvies's above-linked article, particularly in part VI Establishment and the Church of Scotland. But, given that the intent was to form a single Parliament and Privy Council, the Crown is usually treated as united not divided betweeen those two parts of the kingdom. Qexigator (talk) 10:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

+ With reference to the comment above mentioning Harald, Margrethe and Willem-Alexander, and the Swedish monarchs, perhaps it could be argued (but not here!) that each monarch's position is unique in its own way, but the Supreme Governorship of successive monarch's of England/UK is, in some way not consistent with uniqueness quantification, the most unique of all: uniquely unique. Qexigator (talk) 12:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

+ Forgot to mention (not visible in navbox, but linked to 'Titles and honours' and 'Title and style of the Canadian monarch' ) the long-lasting "Fidei defensor " (feminine: Fidei defensatrix) "Defender of the Faith" in English and "Défenseur de la Foi" in French, "one of the subsidiary titles of the English and later British monarchs since it was granted on 11 October, 1521 by Pope Leo X to King Henry VIII of England". Today, "the title 'Defender of the Faith' reflects the UK Sovereign's position as the Supreme Governor of the Church of England".[22] In this topic, that could be as unique as it gets for a living monarch. Qexigator (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The paper does say the law extended to any territory over which the Queen of England (and her successors) took possession. The only exception would be territories over which Westminster had no jurisdiction (e.g., Hanover). TFD (talk) 14:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I have searched in vain for something to that effect, but I may have missed something TFD, so if you can quote the passge in the article paper which says that, I shall be happy to correct my comment. Qexigator (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I was confusing sources. The Schools article says, "it may well still be the case that the Church of England is today the established church in New Brunswick - and in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island - by virtue of legislation which has never been repealed." Other sources say that the sovereign is "supreme governor" under common law. For example, Edward Coke said the Act of Supremacy 1558 was "not a statute introductory of a new law, but declaratory of the old."[23] TFD (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not we surmise that Ogilvie was sufficiently learned in the law to have knowledge of the text of Edward Coke cited in Sommerville's book "Royalists and Patriots: Politics and Ideology in England, 1603-1640" (per the link you have given), Ogilvie's paper can be seen as confirming the proposition that the act's extent was not beyond England (and Wales). Ogilvie's paper is sufficient without needing to go into an explanation about Coke's opinion in the context in which Coke was writing. Now, supposing it could be argued that the English Common Law, including Magna Carta as purportedly declaratory of the ancient laws and customs of the realm (from a date unknown: the time of Edward the Confessor? the time of Richard I's last going overseas?), was the law of the English settlers and their royally appointed governors, that still would not be sufficient to support a contention that the act extended beyond England and Wales, since it would have been known to have been an act passed to remedy the way in which the church had there been misgoverned, and to make provision for the future government of the church in that land. Somerville publishes works on political ideology, and not, like Ogilvie, on the law. Qexigator (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The common law says that the sovereign is supreme governor of the church just as it says the sovereign is sovereign in temporal matters. That applies anywhere there is common law. The act actually refers to "this your realm, and other your highness's dominions and countries." However the law did not extend the position of the sovereign as supreme governor of the church in the colonies but protected it. Note too that in 15 of 16 CRs the sovereign is Queen dei gratia and is F.D. in the UK, Canada and NZ. TFD (talk) 02:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The common law says that the sovereign is supreme governor of the church just as it says the sovereign is sovereign in temporal matters. I know of no RS confirming that. The usual proposition is that the Magna Carta event demonstrated that the king is under the law as it applies in things temporal and spiritual feudal and ecclesiastical, and after a series of later events before the union with the kingdom of Scotland, including the Interregnum, the Restoration and the operatiion of the parliamentary title conferred conditionally upon later monarchs, that has become the accepted fact; while in Scotland, royal pretension to govern the kirk was repulsed long before James VI became James I. In both kingdoms, parliamentary supremacy came to be vindicated. Taking all that into account, Ogilvie's paper confirms the proposition that the act's extent was not beyond England (and Wales). After the act, any claim to territory beyond the British Isles made in the name of the English or British monarch would be in the name of one who was deemed by the act to be Supreme Head of the Church of England, and that may have been implicit in any vestigial pretension to Calais or to the French crown, represented in the fleur de lis of the royal arms. None of that would support putting the title "Supreme Governor of the Church of England" back in the article's lead. Qexigator (talk) 08:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

+ Also to be considered are statutes from the Statute of Praemunire (Richard II) and De heretico comburendo (Henry IV) to the Toleration Act 1688, Toleration Act 1719, and Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829. Qexigator (talk) 12:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The link I provided says, "Magna Carta was, indeed, a statute, but a statute declaring old, not enacting new, law....The same reasoning applied to those rights which the king possessed by ancient common law, for example Supremacy over the church." Furthermore, even if statute overrules common law, it cannot change common law, it merely removes its protection. Scotland is irrelevant to the discussion, it has never received English law, nor was it ever a territory of the English monarch. TFD (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

To students and professors of history and of jurisprudence, the law and events happening in Scotland before and after the accession of James VI to the English kingdom and before and after the union of the kingdoms are necessarily relevant to the matter under discussion here. As mentioned above, persons not familiar with legal reasoning in general or this branch of law in particular, or with the state of church government in England, Wales, Ireland and Scotland on the demise of the Crown of England at the death of Henry VII and the state of church government in those places at the accession of William III and Mary would need to use carefully what is found in various sources. When the 1558 Act of Supremacy was passed, a poet-playwright, born the son of a shopkeeper in an English country town and dying there as an armigerous landowner, was in his youth, and a principal theme of his plays, popular in the environs of the City of London, can be seen to be the dramatic interaction between points of view when rigidly fixed in one place and when moving more fluently about. Shakespeare's plays include histories, from King John to Henry VIII, and of places from Milan to Bohemia, Bermuda to Athens, Syracuse to Ephesus, and the one in which a young Prince of Denmark speaks of there being more things in heaven and earth than his student friend's philosophy from Wittenberg has dreamt of. That saying eventually came to permeate, in varying depth, the culture of the country where the Act of Supremacy was passed into law, and the plays have been given a home also in Ontario. All the same, support is lacking for putting the title "Supreme Governor of the Church of England" back in the article's lead. Qexigator (talk) 16:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

If the Scotland reference made no sense, the reference to Shakespeare makes even less. Scotland was not at that time part of England or subject to English law. The view so ably described by Coke was that God appointed kings (in every Christian country) as lords of matters both spiritual and temporal within their realms. Whether or not legislation was enacted to enforce their spiritual leadership was beside the point. It was enacted in some English/British realms beyond the four seas, and the colonial Anglican churches were mostly part of the Church of England. TFD (talk) 02:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, TFD, for your further comment. I have already explained the relevance of Scotland, and the limited use of the Coke citation in point of determining the law. That makes more sense than you may think at this time, particularly when read together with the content of Ogilvie's paper and my comments above. Given that, historically, there is a flux of interacting events and persons, of which the kings and places mentioned by names taken from Shakespeare's plays are no more than a selection, still it can be seen that the Act of Supremacy passed and executed in his lifetime applied to church government in the realm of England in successive reigns, from the form of church government inherited after Henry VIII to that inherited by the present Queen, never in Scotland, and not beyond the British Isles, save as the title and powers of Supreme Governor of the Church of England, originating in an act of Parliament, have been an attribute of the monarch, wherever the monarch might be in person or by representative, and save to such extent, if any, as has otherwise been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction and upheld or affirmed at the highest level of appeal. To go into the question more fully would require reference at least to the Synod of Whitby (664) and British participation in the Synod of Dort (1618-19), referred to in General Assembly of Free Church of Scotland v. Lord Overtoun (1904), [1904] A-C. cited in footnote 22 of Ogilvie's paper. But, as said above, support is lacking for putting the title "Supreme Governor of the Church of England" back in the article's lead. Qexigator (talk) 06:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, the legislation merely confirmed the common law. Scotland has never had common law. And you are confusing the use of the word church to refer to an organization with the church as the community of believers. The source refers to "rights which the king possessed by ancient common law, for example Supremacy over the church....Not even the statute of 1554, restoring papal supremacy, had been able to change the law. Statute, then, could not strictly speaking abrogate the fundamental precepts of the common law, any more than it could abolish the laws of God and nature...." As it says earlier, "People could decide not to enforce divine law, but they could never abolish it." TFD (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

If you read my comments carefully you will see that the main issue is about church gvernment which, of course, for participants in Wittenberg, Edinburgh, Denmark, Dort, Bohemia, Westminster or Rome, was connected with certain tenets claimed by proponents as in some way defining the doctrine for which a church, as a body or institution adhering to the 4th century creed, is organized for fulfilling a divine mission in the world, allowing for the major separation of the Byzantine from the Roman portion and the later separations (England, Scotland and others) from the Roman portion occurring at the time of the Protestant Reformation. I am not sure what you refer to as the source: the New Testament, an Ecumencal Council or what?. While noting your comments, it remains clear that Ogilvie's paper is scrupulously sourced, and the snippet taken from Coke by another author developing a different theme, tends to confirm the content of Ogilvie's paper, to the effect (as explained above) that the Act of Supremacy was about church government in the realm of England, and not beyond the British Isles. I know of no RS to the contrary. Perhaps the time has come to let the discussion rest. Qexigator (talk) 20:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

But the expression "Supreme Governor" is not about a bureaucratic function but expressed the common law view that the sovereign is the earthly head of the church in all her realms and territories. Incidentally, you criticize the source used - do you think the author is wrong and want another source? You seem also to have trouble distinguishing between statute and common law. I suggest you look up the difference so we do not have to discuss irrelevant issues. TFD (talk) 20:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing in my comments that an intelligent reading could suppose was alluding to a bureaucratic function or based on a failure to distinguish statute and common law. I note that your comment confirms that you have nothing further to contribute to counter what I have above explained: that the Act of Supremacy was about church government in the realm of England, and not beyond the British Isles. But if the point needs further emphasis, the Queen bears the parliamentary title "Supreme Governor of the Church of England" whether she is in Scotland, or in the presence of the Pope in the Vatican City, or anywhere else, just as she is Queen of Canada or any other of the realms, and Head of the Commonwealth, when waking or sleeping. Those titles are neither inconsistent with the common law of England nor could ordinarily be regarded as given by the common law, save to the extent that the power to make royal proclamation of any title is recognized at common law, albeit the content of a proclamation may itself be determined, regulated or governed by an act of Parliament. Qexigator (talk) 21:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, if you read the source competently, it does not claim the Act of Supremacy made the monarch Supreme Governor and in fact says it did not. So that is a straw man argument. Also, I find your reading of the 1558 act confusing and provide a link here. It repeatedly refers to "this your realm, and other your highness's dominions and countries." When it refers to other dominions and countries, it is referring to places outside England. Whether or not your conclusions that the description should not be included are correct, you would save a lot of time by not misrepresenting the sources. TFD (talk) 01:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

My previous remarks have not been made in ignorance of the mention made in the act to "other dominions and countries". The words of the oath, required of "every archbishop, bishop, and all and every other ecclesiastical person and other ecclesiastical officer and minister, of what estate, dignity, pre-eminence, or degree soever he or they be or shall be, and all and every temporal judge, justicer, mayor, and other lay or temporal officer and minister, and every other person having your highness's fee or wages within this realm or any your highness's dominions", had a considerable effect later: "I, A. B., do utterly testify and declare in my conscience that the queen's highness is the only supreme governor of this realm and of all other her highness's dominions and countries, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes as temporal, and that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm; and therefore I do utterly renounce and forsake all foreign jurisdictions, powers, superiorities, and authorities, and do promise that from henceforth I shall bear faith and true allegiance to the queen's highness, her heirs, and lawful successors, and to my power shall assist and defend all jurisdictions, pre-eminences, privileges, and authorities granted or belonging to the queen's highness, her heirs, and successors, or united or annexed to the imperial crown of this realm." The act further provided penalties in respect of "persons dwelling or inhabiting within this your realm or in any other your highness's realms or dominions". I see no mention in Ogilvie's paper of any case, decided by Coke, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, or otherwise, which ruled upon the effect of the act in any cause or matter arising within the English monarch's then colonies or "dominions", before or after the accession of William and Mary. If I have missed it, I shall be happy to be corrected. Qexigator (talk) 06:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

+But I also acknowledge that the content of the British North America (Quebec) Act 1774, referred to above (at the top of this subsection), and by Ogilvie, includes "subject to the King's Supremacy, declared and established by an Act, made in the first Year of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, over all the Dominions and Countries which then did, or thereafter should belong, to the Imperial Crown of this Realm", and was considered relevant to the operation of British colonisl policy at the time. That, however, does not warrant putting the Queen's title of Supreme Governor of the Church of England in the article's lead. Qexigator (talk) 06:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)