Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Commonwealth Realms

I have arranged the order of the Commonwealth nations of which Elizabeth is Queen in order of precedence as at her coronation oath: "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, Pakistan and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?" [1]--pidd 12:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course the commonwealth realms should be mentioned in the introduction as she is EQUALLY the Queen of these countries. By the statute of westminster, all the dominions are equal in status. Symbolically, at her coronation her gown was embroidered with the floral emblems of her realms, and her bracelets were a gift representing Australia. If editors of this site think the 'UK is more important' then I suggest they edit out the Queen's dress and bracelets from the coronation portrait!

It is also nonsense to say that the Queen would not automatically continue to be Queen of other countries if the UK abolished the monarchy. That would be up to the countries involved. Enough with the revisionist UK-nationalism already! AP 21/05/06

As soon as the Commonwealth Realms start paying for the Queen and her family, we might take their arguments a bit more seriously. Whatever legal fiction might say, she has no power whatever in any of those countries, as all such powers are exercised by somebody else in her name. The fact that she holds the position of head of state in those places is a hangover from imperial days, and is part of the gradual process of winding down the British Empire. TharkunColl 07:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the Queen is represented by a Governor General in the other Commonwealth Realms, but that doesn't mean she has doesn't have any power. These are all Canadian examples, as that's where I'm from :). The Queen often personally provides royal assent to bills when she is visiting the country. The Governor General may choose to reserve legislation for the Queen's personal approval. The Queen has the power to overturn legislation that the Governor General has approved (within one year of royal assent, if memory serves). The Queen appoints, and may dismiss, the Governor General. Finally, there is the ability to temporarily appoint 4 or 8 temporary addtional members to the Canadian Senate. When this is done (as it was in 1990 to pass the GST), the Queen's direct approval is required. --Q Canuck 14:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Template for those who love Her Majesty

I have previously deleted this template once because it appeared to be vanadlism - not least because it has been inserted in line with (and displaced) the following section heading. It has subsequently been reinstated by User:Fishhead64 with the comment "Deleting stuff from the talk page isn't kosher." I agree that it is not normally correct to delete from talk pages, except in special circumstances, and I did consider that before making this deletion. I maintain that this item is not appropriate on this talk page for the following reasons:

• Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines:
  • "keep discussions on talk pages on the topic of how to improve the associated article" - this item was not a discussion, nor commnet on the associated article.
  • "Sign your posts" - this item was not signed leading to the assumption that it was vandalism.
  • "Avoid HTML markup" - this item was full of HTML markup.
  • "Avoid deleting comments on talk pages" - this item was not a comment.
• Wikipedia:Etiquette:
  • "Sign and date your posts to talk pages" - see comments above
• I note that the user who reinstated this template describes himself as a "deletionist" (see User's page), a term I had not come across before, but I note the definition:

"Deletionism is a philosophy held by some Wikipedians that favors clear and relatively rigorous standards ... . Wikipedians who broadly subscribe to this philosophy are more likely to request that an article that they believe does not meet such standards be removed, or deleted."

I maintain that the template did not meet the "clear .. standards" for talk pages and therefore deleted it.

TrevorD 09:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd simply point out that there are many, many comments strewn throughout the talk pages of wikipedia that do not meet one or all of these standards. I think it is dangerous to pick and choose which comments one is going to delete. "Deletionism," which Trevor references, typically refers to a disposition concerning the proliferation of articles on non-notable subjects, not to the deletion of comments that do not meet the recommended guidelines. That sort of judgement borders on the capricious. This, however, is not my ditch in which to die. If you want to roam Wikipedia talk pages deleting comments you don't think are comments, or use HTML, or are unsigned, or are off-topic - go wild. There are plenty out there. Fishhead64 15:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, there is a process for deleting articles - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion - but blanking comments on a talk page is a matter of the discretion of an individual editor. Fishhead64 16:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Fishhead64, thanks for your response. I don't doubt there are many comments out there as you say, and it is certainly not my intention to make a habit of deleting comments from talk pages. In recent days (with the Queen's 80th birthday) there has been much vandalism on this article, with similar templates being inserted into the article itself. When I saw this template it appeared to be similar vandalism - and it disrupted the flow of the headings. That's why I took the exceptional decision to delete it. I do appreciate that items should not be deleted from talk pages except in exceptional circumstances - we may disagree on what is exceptional in this instance, but I don't think we disagree on the principle. TrevorD 16:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Messy

I know this has been discussed before, but putting all the succession boxes of she the Queen of Canada etc. is very messy. It really makes a reader tired, I believe there is a better way of putting the boxes. --Terence Ong 07:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't think of a better way of doing it. I've looked it over and it seems very clear to me, anyway. Fishhead64 08:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they really need to be there. The precise wording/dating of several is disputable, and it's just too many boxes. Having the UK one is enough. JPD (talk) 09:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, "too many boxes" is a subjective term. Secondl, they accurately reflect reality. We've been around this mulberry bush before. She is Queen of Canada, Jamaica, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, etc. in her own right, and the date that she succeeded to the crowns of those countries is known (e.g., in the case of St. Vincent, the date of independence in 1979). To suggest otherwise in the succession boxes implies that these independent countries are British dependencies, or that their constitutional monarchies don't count. Fishhead64 16:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I acknowledge that it's subjective, but that doesn't mean it doesn't matter. Yes, we have been over all of this before, although not in the context of the succession boxes. You might notice that I opposed giving too much precendence to the UK in the intro or the article as a whole, but that doesn't mean we need a whole stack of succession boxes. Succession boxes are not essential to an article, they are extras that are meant to be helpful - when they get too unwieldy, there is no point having them. Also, the process by which the crown was regarded as in some sense separate in each realm was a gradual one, and what is there currently has been disputed, althoguh people are sick of fussing about it. JPD (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

She must have hundreds of titles for which we could have succession boxes, and obviously we can’t include all of them. At minimum, though, I think that a person has to have a succession box for being queen of a country; that’s a pretty darn important piece of information. I suppose you could make one box that said “Queen of several countries”, but then you wouldn’t be able to give accurate dates in it. I say keep it as it is. -arctic gnome 19:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

These succession boxes are ludicrous and pointless Because she's the only person in them. Whatever the legal fiction about her being monarch of all these ex-colonies might state, it is clearly a stop-gap situation. The whole point of a "succession" box is to have a succession in it. There is none. TharkunColl 23:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Until they choose otherwise, then there legally will be a succession, which means the boxes are perfectly correct. Just because there was not a prior office holder does not mean that one doesn't list a box. If so, we couldn't have a box for George Washington as President of the United States, Otto as King of Greece, W.T. Cosgrave as President of the Executive Council of the Irish Free State, etc. Your argument is without logic. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think the boxes actually clarify quite well the thrones of countries of which the Queen's father was previously king, those in which she once reigned as Queen of the UK, as well as one in which she previously reigned as Queen of Australia. --gbambino 02:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Each succession box has a previous incumbent, even if the name of the title has changed. More importantly, each box provides useful information about both what she is queen of, and when she became queen (and in some cases, stopped being queen). -arctic gnome 04:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Second longest serving?

According to the article, Elizabeth II is the 'second-longest-serving head of state in the world'. Isn't that wrong. I mean, Victoria alone reigned for 63 years. Ixistant

It means currently, not historically. Elizabeth is the second longest reigning living monarch at present. The only longer one, AFAIK, is the King of Thailand. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Fourth longest serving British monarch?

Shouldn't she be the fifth? Henry III ruled for 56 years. Of course, Henry III was only the King of England, but then again, James VI / I never formally united his realms into anything more than a personal union. Furthermore, he was only King of Scotland, England and Ireland for 22 years. It was only in Scotland that he ruled for a total of 58. I think that if James is included as the third longest serving British monarch, Henry III should be the fourth. Or, otherwise, Elizabeth should be listed third, not counting both James and Henry. Druworos 15:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Views and perceptions

"Elizabeth is a conservative in matters of religion, moral standards and family matters. She has a strong sense of religious duty and takes her Coronation Oath seriously. This is one reason (as well as the example set by her abdicated uncle) why it is considered highly unlikely that she will ever abdicate. For years, she refused to acknowledge Prince Charles's relationship with Camilla Parker-Bowles, but since their marriage, an appearance of acceptance has been established."

This is perceptive and biased - not in encyclopedia format.

I disagree- I think this is all probably true, although the statements ought to be verified for Wikipedia, and I've marked it as such.--Slackbuie 00:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

That old "liberal v left wing" semantic debate...

"However there is some evidence to suggest that in economic terms she leans toward the liberal point of view. During the Thatcher era it was rumoured that she criticised Prime Minster Margaret Thatcher for being "uncaring" toward the poor"

- It would surely follow from the second sentence above that the alleged views tend towards *anti-liberalism* "in economic terms". Or rather, her alleged economic views might be somewhat "left of centre"? I'm fully aware that in the US the word 'liberal' has become synonymous with 'left-wing' - but that kind of usage simply hasn't been adopted in the UK, the country with which she is most associated and indeed the place which the rumour in question relates to. I would have just edited it to "... a left of centre point of view" - but unless the example is sourced, or other cited examples are given in its place, I not sure I want to clarify what looks like a quite surprising claim. --Danward 22:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

She is a one-nation conservative. Basically, according to this theory, aristocrats make the best rulers, and even have the interests of the poor at heart in a paternailtstic sort of fashion. This, at any rate, was made clear in her biog on telly last night. TharkunColl 23:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think "anti-liberal" is appropriate - neoliberalism/classical liberalism is not the be all and end all of liberalism. Left of centre is probably better, though. john k 00:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Either way, surely the claim should be attributed to someone ... --Q Canuck 00:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

House of Windsor Infobox

I realise the article is rather cluttered already, but should it not include the House of Windsor infobox somewhere (as every other British monarch's page contains their respective House box?) FiggyBee 00:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• We only include the Royal family template for living royals, and then revert to the House template on their death. Astrotrain 19:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Malta

Why was the detail that she spent a number of years living in Gwardamangia, Malta removed. It is there that she probably conceived Charles, therefore the comment was of particular importance.

It sounds a little trashy to me, at least to speak of the place of conception for someone. Charles 14:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Well she lived between 1946-1953 that's quite a number of year's isn't it?. And the conception thing is written on a Government of Malta offical authority's website. Maltesedog 18:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Even so, it is of little relevance. Charles 18:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, the conception thing may be of little relevance in the view of some, even though interesting. What about that she resided in Malta between 1946-1953? Maltesedog 18:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

If she did and it can be cited, I think it's relevant to mention in the article. After all, someone just edited in some piece of apocryphal fluff about the Goon Show - so I think a seven-year foreign residency merits some mention. Fishhead64 18:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

She didn't have any permanent residence in Malta, and only stayed there when the Duke of Edinburgh was stationed on the Island during his naval service. The majority of the time she was in Clarence House, London performing Royal duties, or on overseas tours. Astrotrain 19:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

That's right but according to http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1029256294523 Malta is the only foreign country in which the Queen ever lived, therefore I think it is of notability. 19:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes of course it should be mentioned- although it was a British colony during these years, so not exactly foreign. She was also later Queen of Malta. Astrotrain 19:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Well we could word it Malta is the only British Colony in which she ever lived. Well Astrotrain the point it was there and today I've just realised it was removed. What about the year's in which the Queen stayed.. there seems to be a disagreement between various sources! Maltesedog 19:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the comment as Queen of Malta, I have created previously an article to this respect. Maltesedog 19:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok what can be done?

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page4739.asp states "The Queen, as Princess Elizabeth, lived in Malta from 1949 to 51, whilst The Duke of Edinburgh was stationed on the island as a serving Royal Navy officer." so I have added a sentence mentioning that she lived there for that period. I find it difficult to believe she lived there until 1953 as suggested above, because she became Queen in 1952. Anyway, the royal website ought to be correct. TrevorD 20:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree re 1952 but she is believe to have conceived Charles in the Gwardamangia House (Villa Gwardamangia]], Charles was born in 1948, therefore 1946 may be a more accurate date. Maltesedog 18:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

See http://www.lapasserelle.com/lm/pagespeciales/anglicistes/malta/charles.fiott/fiotbk1.part3.html and the link in Gwardamangia. Maltesedog 18:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't agree. The article you refer to suggests that she has stayed at Gwardamangia on various ocassions - but it does not indicate that she lived there at any time. IF she conceived Charles there - and there is no confirmation of that even in the article you mention - she could have been visiting there in early 1948, not living there. This would still be consistent with the www.royal.gov.uk website that says she lived in Malta from 1949. In the absence of any compelling evidence to the contrary, I think we have to assume:

• that the Royal website is correct as regards dates; and
• that there is no indication that she lived at Gwardamangia.

For that reason, I've removed the reference to Gwardamangia in the sentence I added, but I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise if there is better evidence.

(Sorry, forgot to sign my earlier entry, which I've now done!) TrevorD 20:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok TrevorD, I provide you with a list of websites regarding her stay in Gwardamangia.

See http://www.mepa.org.mt/npi/pieta/pieta_se/listed/101.htm -- and view description At around 1929, this property was purchased by Lord Louis Mountbatten of Burma. Between the period 1946 and 1953, Queen Elizabeth II, before and after she became Queen, stayed in this house during her sojourns to Malta. . Not Guardamangia, is spelled sometimes with a u and not with a w. The MEPA is an official site owned by the planning authority in Malta. Hope this helps. Maltesedog 16:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. That item certainly adds more info. It says "Queen Elizabeth II ... stayed in this house during her sojourns to Malta.", which to me still suggests visits rather than living there - altho', as the property was owned by Lord Mountbattern, I also agree that it is likely they actually lived there when they did live in Malta. See what you think of what I've now written. TrevorD 22:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Similar edits also made to Guardamangia article. TrevorD 22:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

"Queen" in the first line?

The MoS says that we can't have "Her Majesty" in the first line, but it looks like we should still have "Queen". Is there some reason why she is just listed as "Elizabeth II"? The other monarchs I've checked still use that part of their titles. Arctic Gnome 18:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I assume by "the first line" you mean the title of the article? I did wonder myself why that style was used. On checking, I see that all the articles on British monarchs omit the title "King" or "Queen" (I haven't checked for other countries), so any change would need to be made in numerous articles and links. Also, this might impact on articles for other people, e.g. the article on Lord Louis Mountbatten of Burma is actually titled "Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma" - but no "Lord" prefix.

TrevorD 21:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

MoS says they should just be referred to by their name. However, this seems OK as it is not the start of the first line. However, it is capitalised as if it is a title (despite the location indicating otherwise) so I have lowercased it to queen.

Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 00:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well it is a title, it is saying she is "Queen" of sixteen countries, you wouldn't put she was queen of The United Kingdom or queen of Canada, so equally you shouldn't put she is "queen of sixteen..." --Berks105 16:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference between a title and a position, though the former relies on the latter. She is a queen who is titled Queen of Canada. --gbambino 17:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand the differance, but the line is saying she is Queen of those countries, its not saying she's a Queen. --Berks105 17:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Really, from my reading of it, either version works in this case. --gbambino 17:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

OK. I've s/Queen/the queen to make it scan better—she isn't after all titled Queen of 16, which sounds like a bad song). By all means change it back if `Queen' is preferable for any reason. I also think the link to Queen regent should be unpiped just to add extra clarity, even though it should be obvious she is a queen regent, but I've left it for now.

Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 21:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Languages spoken

A user has recently:

• deleted comments about when the Queen has shown her French fluency; and
• added that she speaks German.

I have re-inserted the passage about French fluency. Donnog - Please do not delete useful info without good reason, and/or explain the reason.

Donnog - also please show verification of the fact that she speaks German. I have looked on the Royal.gov.uk website and could not find mention of it there.

TrevorD 13:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The material was exaggerated and POV. Specific reference under "education" to events where she spoke French is unecessary because it is virtually unthinkable that a British monarch (especially one born in the 20s) did not learn both French and German fluently. Donnog 16:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems fairly factual to me. In what way it is either exaggerated or a POV - it's a fact that she spoke French on specific ocassions, not a POV. It reflects on her level of fluency and is therefore relevant under education.

Again, on what basis have you suddenly added that she speaks German?

TrevorD 19:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention that millions of her subjects speak French as a first language. Elizabeth regularly speaks both English and French when visiting Canada. Fishhead64 19:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I know - that's why I'm objecting to deletion of a section amplifying that. Are you agreeing that it should be reinstated? TrevorD 22:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Fishhead64 22:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha

A user has recently added:

• The sentence "Her family, Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, originates in Central Germany."
• The Category "House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha", which is non-existent.

I have corrected the Category listing, but question whether it is correct to list QEII and her predecesors since 1917 there, because they now belong to the House of Windsor.

I also question whether it is appropriate to include the sentence quoted above - her family has not been called Saxe-Coburg-Gotha for several generations, and how far back do you go? - why stop there and not go back further?

For the present I have left the sentence and the category in, while awaiting the views of others.

TrevorD 13:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It could be noted that patrilineally, The Queen is a member of the house of Wettin, which has origins in central Germany, but is a member of the house of Windsor... (explaination of 1917, etc), etc. Houses are historically and generally defined as a family of agnates. Charles 14:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

A similar reference exists in the ancestry section, where it is more appropriate. Therefore I have removed it from the top. Charles 15:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that. TrevorD 16:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

"Windsor" is not a separate "house", but only the name used by the branch of the house of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha which possesses the British crown. Changing your family name does not change your family. It is quite usual that members of the same house (for instance Saxe-Coburg-Gotha) uses a numbers of different personal or dynastical names, but they still belong to the house by virtue of birth. From a neutral point of view, she belongs to the house of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha whatever she names herself. Even if she called herself Elizabeth Carpenter, she would be a member of the house of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Donnog 15:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Another example: Many members of the House of Hohenzollern have the personal name "Prussia" (Prinz/Prinzessin von Preußen). Other members, like those of the Catholic South German branch, have the name "Hohenzollern" (Fürst von Hohenzollern, Prinz/Prinzessin von Hohenzollern). But, they are by birth all members of the family known as Hohenzollern, and may be found in the Hohenzollern category. Donnog 15:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

2 points:

1. The article of the House of Windsor states "The House of Windsor, previously called the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha" - so you're correct that it is not a separate House, but it has changed its name, so it doesn't seem appropriate to revert to the old name. As said before, how far back do you go? Why stop at Saxe-Coburg-Gotha? Why not Wettin?

2. The House of Windsor article also makes a clear distinction between dynastic (House) name and Family/Personal Name. So, from what I understand, references to Family/Personal Name seem irrelevant.

TrevorD 16:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

A common comedy of errors is that Saxe-Coburg-Gotha/Saxe-Coburg & Gotha is a house name. Pedantically, it is only a territorial designation. It seems to be that the blanket house name for all the Saxon duchies, the Grand Duchy of Saxony at Weimar and Royal Saxony is Wettin. It is all-inclusive with regards to divisions of Saxony and is entirely accurate for the purpose. Charles 16:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should tell the Royal Family's webmaster that the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha doesn't exist... 135.196.23.105 15:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)