Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

The use of the {{fact}} tag

Not sure who's applied the {{fact}} tag so liberally on this article but the level of usage is abusive. Please use {{Unreferenced}} on an entire section where needed. Thanks. Netscott 21:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I've removed all of the {{fact}} and {{citation needed}} tags and replaced them with a section heading tag: {{Unreferenced}} for Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom#Life_as_Queen. Please edit as necessary. Thanks. Netscott 00:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Canadian Arms

Is there really any reason to include the Canadian arms? There are several obvious reasons for including the UK royal arms more than any others, but more than that is getting a bit crazy. The Queen's personal flags in other realms are mentioned without going into this much detail, and that seems a much better template to follow. JPD (talk) 16:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

If her personal Arms in the UK and Scotland are mentioned, then why not her personal arms in Canada? I don't see any obvious reasons why one matters more than the other. It might well be prudent to remove the seemingly excessive detail about all the Arms (especially given that each has a dedicated article), and mention them here in the same sparse manner as the standards, but surely we're not going to get into this whole "she's Queen of the UK more than she's Queen of Canada" thing again. --gbambino 17:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Gbambino. It emphasises the point that she's not just the Queen of the UK. Leave it be. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, with the removal of much of the detail that is repeated in the articles on the individual Arms themselves, no? Otherwise we'd have to fill in detail about her Arms in Australia, NZ, and all the other Realms. --gbambino 17:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict saying the same thing)The detail is what I am complaining about, yes. The sort of argument you are using would lead to including the arms of Australia, New Zealand, etc. as well. I would love to emphasise that she is not only the Queen of the UK, but not by favouring one other realm over the others. I don't see how there could be a problem with simply mentioning them, without the image and lengthy description. JPD (talk) 17:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Remove the detail, but mention the other Arms, and at least have one image - maybe the Arms of some Realm other than the UK or Canada? --gbambino 18:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• If those are her Canadian arms, why does her standard in Canada need the "E" in the middle? Astrotrain 18:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Because the only difference between the Queen's arms in Canada and the Canadian coat of arms are the surroundings; the part on the shield seems to be the same to me, and the personal flags of the realms -- if they exist -- are flag versions of the coat of arms with the E in the centre part. —Nightstallion (?) 08:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The shield on the Arms of Canada is similar to the shield on the UK Arms, but clearly not the same - the former has Fleur de Lis in one quarter, and maple leaves in the lower element. If the cipher "E" which defaces the shield's pattern on the Queen's Canadian standard is meant to differentiate it from the Queen's UK standard, then it doesn't follow that there's an "E" cipher on all her other standards beyond the UK and Canada - Australia's, Jamaica's, New Zealand's and Barbados' shields look nothing at all like the UK's, but there's an "E" on them as well. --gbambino 14:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Neither Astrotrain nor Nightstallion mentioned the UK Arms. The point is that the "E" on HM's Canadian (or Australian, or...) personal standard differentiates the pattern from the arms of Canada (or Australia, or...), suggesting, according to one way of looking at things, that the arms of the realms are not actually her personal arms. See my comment below. JPD (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, the Queen's arms in Canada are the Canadian arms. This is the most explicit reference to the arms of an entity other than the UK as the royal arms that I have come across, and I can't actually see a reference for that anywhere outside wikipedia, but an argument that the arms of New South Wales were the arms of HM in right of NSW was put to a NSW parliamentary comittee a few years ago with some success. Astrotrain does raise a legitimate point against this sort of argument. As usual with these sort of things, it can be looked at either way. JPD (talk) 10:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

"According to Wikipedia, the Queen's arms in Canada are the Canadian arms." Yes, that's correct. Just as Her Majesty's Arms in Right of the United Kingdom are the UK coat of arms, so too are Her Majesty's Arms in Right of Canada the Canadian coat of arms. As the Sovereign is the personification of the State, her arms become those of the State as well.

The Royal Heraldry Society of Canada states: "It was decided to make the arms of Canada (or, more properly, the Arms of His/Her Majesty in Right of Canada) very similar to those of Great Britain." As well, this charitable educational website makes reference to "the Royal Arms of Canada." Royal Arms of Canada are also referred to here, here, here, and here.

So what legitimate point is Astorian raising against this "argument," exactly? --gbambino 15:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for the references. The use of the phrase by the government website and the heraldry society should certainly be considered authoritative to some extent. The point raised by Astrotrain is that if the arms are HM's personal arms, then there is no need to include the E cipher in her personal flag, suggesting that whoever designed the flags did not think of the arms as personal arms. Obviously official usage outweighs this argument, but it it could reasonably argued that official usage should be different, since none of this is spelt out in any law, warrant or equivalent. JPD (talk) 16:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Image

Can someone please confirm that Image:Elizabeth II 80th.jpg is a free image? The source of the image states: "Please note that this image of The Queen is strictly for use for by individuals, communities, charities, parishes and other non-commercial organisations. All usage must be accompanied by the credit line 'Snowdon/Camera Press'." Wikipedia is a non-commercial organisation, and the image has been credited here with Snowdon/Camera Press. In my interpretation, that makes it as much a free image as the one Spencer insists on inserting (Image:Elizabeth II.jpg), which is tagged with the disclaimer: "The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the agency and the photographer are credited." Both images are released under essentially the same conditions.

Image:Elizabeth II 80th.jpg was uploaded and tagged with a fair use template. This may need to be altered to reflect it's free use status and conditions - I'm not aware of how to do that.

It should also be explained that Image:Elizabeth II 80th.jpg is preferable over Image:Elizabeth II.jpg as it is a) a better quality photo, and b) one which portrays the Queen without any distinguishing orders. Image:Elizabeth II.jpg shows the Queen wearing her UK orders, which is as biased as the image that previously showed her wearing only her Canadian orders (Image:Ac.thequeen.jpg). --gbambino 15:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Whichever and whatever is what, I've just warned the pair of you to stop reverting over it. It's not pressingly urgent, and brinksmanship up to the 3RR is unhelpful. -Splash - tk 15:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

"Non-commercial" is not "free use". Wikipedia expressly avoids images which are only for non-commercial use[1], as Wikipedia content is intended to be available for other uses. Spencer may have a point, although it is unfortunate that the free picture isn't as good. JPD (talk) 15:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I see. Well then, I concede and recognise that Image:Elizabeth II 80th.jpg is not appropriate - though, point 1 of Wikipedia:Fair use criteria doesn't adequatly explain the reason why. Your explanation, JPD, makes sense; Spencer's did not.

I'm going to try to crop Image:Ac.thequeen.jpg to remove her Canadian orders and upload that, if I can. --gbambino 15:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

What difference does it make if she is wearing her Canadian orders? The article is supposed to be about the person, and she is Queen of all the realms no matter what she is or isn't wearing. Astrotrain 17:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The Queen wears the insignia of specific orders when she's acting in her capacity as sovereign of a particular country. For the main portrait of this article, using an image that doesn't show her wearing any insignia is less partisan - it's an image of Elizabeth II, not exclusively a portrait of the Queen of Canada or the Queen of Australia, etc. Some might find it trivial, perhaps, but I think others wish to maintain a relative balance in this article that doesn't unduly favour her as Queen of one country over any other (title of the article aside, of course). --gbambino 17:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Sighs. I think most people would like the best quality picture which complies with free use and really don't care which of her many orders she may or may not be wearing or if she's wearing any at all. Alci12 13:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there something wrong with the image there now? --gbambino 14:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The point about the clothing being biased because of the insignia is totally nonsensical, as the article is called Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom! So, according to this, it should be renamed in order to represent the fact that she is monarch of several realms. Lofty 14:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't think I understand what you're saying. Are you arguing that the images should show her wearing only her UK orders because this article is titled Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom? Or, are you advocating that the title of the article itself is a misrepresentation?--gbambino 15:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I've just tried to find a solution to this by calling the Press Office at Buckingham Palace and asking for a suitable image which we could use, noting the sensitivity of which regalia are shown. Unfortunately, the staff who eventually dealt with my call (after a lot of buck-passing) were somewhat unable to grasp the concept of Wikipedia. They directed me to another organisation which sells images of HM, but that's obviously not a lot of use for uploading to here. *sigh*. I just mention it here to save anybody else the bother of trying it! – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 15:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

What I am arguing is that as the article is named such, there should be no problem in representing her clothing as about complained. If as much fuss is made over the clothing, when something more important like the title is, if you want my opinion, misrepresentative, then some priorities are wrong. I would suggest a title like Elizabeth II of commonwealth realms or something pertaining to commonwealth realm head of state. Lofty 18:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

While I share your aversion to the current title, the argument over it has cyclically popped up here about a thousand times, and it never goes anywhere. So, with that essentially permanent, it seems to me we can only be as fair as possible with the article content - including the images. Therefore, as the Queen wears specific insignia to communicate something specific (when wearing her UK orders she is representing the UK, when wearing her Canadian orders she is representing Canada, and so forth), I think it's best to simply have, as the main portrait at the head of the article, a picture of the Queen wearing no distinguishing insignia or regalia that would attach her to any one specific country. --gbambino 18:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't argue with that...I'm thinking for the title

Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, and Saint Kitts and Nevis

hmm, maybe not :-)Lofty 19:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a note to remind editors at this article to not revert unfree image cleanup. Unfree images that have freely-licensed replacements will be deleted. Don't add more work by adding them to articles while the cleanup process is happening. Jkelly 03:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It should also be noted that no image of the Queen is completely free; there are limitations to the use of images of members of the Royal Family, their arms, standards, etc. This includes copyrighted images released for free use. The rules are outlined here. --gbambino 04:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Direct descent from Fergus Mór to Elizabeth II

Please see the discussion here:

• Talk:List_of_monarchs_of_Scotland#Direct_descent_from_Fergus_M.C3.B3r_to_Elizabeth_II

--Mais oui! 10:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC) Insert non-formatted text here

TOC

Will whomever keeps putting in the special table of contents box please stop!!! There is a reason we don't put them there. It may look OK on your computer screen but on millions of others your change screws up the page. If people don't have the WP screen open fully on their desktop, or they have the font set large, or if a host of other things are done, then your edit turns the page into an unreadable mess. On my screen it reduces the entire first paragraph to a row of one word lines. On a different browser it broke the paragraph mid sentence with part of the paragraph before the TOC and the rest at the bottom. That is why we never ever ever but a TOC at the top of a page when that page has a template.

If you don't like white spaces beside the TOC (and there are always white spaces beside a TOC) then put pictures or something in that space. Because different people may be looking at the page with different monitors, we cannot have pictures larger than 250px, cannot have the TOC at the top, and cannot do a host of other things. So stop it. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 15:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

PS: I've moved the royal family template up to be beside the TOC so you don't have to look at "white space".

Agreed, it was a right mess! Astrotrain 15:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

How to say "II"?

Please add how to pronounce "Elizabeth II" (I think it is "Elizabeth the second").

Thanks. -- Anon

You are right. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

HRH Duke of Lancaster...Again

Someone had added Duke of Lancaster to the titles part. Any comments? Joshua Chiew 00:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The person who added it seems to be misinformed, for he placed it in a box suggesting she was once styled 'HRH The Duke of Lancaster'!. Anyway, its been removed, but its still in the text, where it belongs. --Berks105 10:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Proclamation/Honourary Appts sections

It is true that this article is always going to be a bit on the long side, but I am not sure that the section about the Proclamations needs to be here. The proclamations themselves probably belong on Wikipedia, and the explanation surrounding, while interesting, is not the sort of detail I'd expect in this sort of biographical article. I am also not sure we need the Honorary military appointments section. It is nothing but a list, of arguable importance. Surely it wouldn't hurt to move it to a subarticle? JPD (talk) 11:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Title in Infobox

As has been explained several times, "the United Kingdom and her/the Commonwealth Realms" is ridiculous unless you are saying that the United Kingdom is not a Commmonwealth Realm. Throughout Wikipedia, the term Commonwealth Realms includes the UK, based on the (exceedingly logical) definition of Commonwealth Realm formerly on the monarchy's website. It is true that the rest of the website does not seem to use the term in that sense, but if you are to argue that the UK is not a Commonwealth Realm, then you should be changing Commonwealth Realms and a lot more, not simply putting a strange title in an infobox. "Queen of the Commonwealth Realms" is not an official title anywhere, but neither is "Queen of the United Kingdom and her Commonwealth Realms". If we are not going to use an official title, then use the version that makes sense (apart from anything else, "Commonwealth" is redundant after "her"!). I personally would not be bothered if the infobox used the British title (of the UK and her other realms and territories), but I'm sure some would object. JPD (talk) 13:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining the status of the UK as a Commonwealth Realm. As per usage of an official title, she holds sixteen of them; which one then should be inserted into the infobox? Even her UK title - Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith - is a tad long to fit in there. Queen of the Commonwealth Realms is not an official title, but she is, by the nature of her being Sovereign of each Realm individually, Queen of the Commonwealth Realms. --gbambino 14:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Right, well, Queen of the Commonwealth Realsm is all well and good, as is Queen of the United Kingdom, seeing as that's her home nation, and the realm of which her dynasty have been sovereigns for a very long time. The reason I used "Queen of the United Kingdom and her [as in the UK's] Commonwealth Realms" was because she is primarily our queen, but is also the queen of the 15 other commonwealth realms. Should we perhaps use:

Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms // DBD 15:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's the age-old debate about whether perception is more important than legal facts. Some see her as "primarily" Queen of the UK, but others see her as being "equally" Queen of Australia - in either case it's a POV. Where there is no room for interpretation in what's written in law, and that is that she's queen of each country equally. Besides, isn't it already apparent enough here that her home Realm is the UK? --gbambino 15:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit conflict] "her [as in the UK's] Commonwealth Realms" is completely wrong. The 15 other realms are Her Majesty's realms, but they aren't the UK's realms in any sense at all - the 16 realms have equal status. The question of whether she is primarily the British Queen comes up all the time in discussions about this page, and depends on what you mean by the statement. As for the title in the infobox, I have already said that I wouldn't object to a sensible abbreviation of the official UK title. I also wouldn't object to Queen of the UK and the other Commonwealth Realms, but I really don't see what is wrong with "Queen of the Commonwealth Realms" apart from the obscurity of the term "Commonwealth Realms", particularly since the UK is already given more significant prominence in the title of the article. JPD (talk) 15:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It may be POV to say that she is primarily Queen of the United Kingdom, but it's not POV to point out that she is generally regarded primarily as Queen of the United Kingdom, especially as there are fairly obvious reasons for that perception. Also, "the Queen of 16 independent sovereign states known as the Commonwealth Realms" is very different to "Queen of the Commonwealth Realms", as the latter looks far more like an actual title (which, of course, it isn't). I personally don't see what's wrong with just putting "Queen of the United Kingdom" under her name in the infobox and letting the article text explain that it's not her only title — it's already the title in the article name, so it's not as if it'd be introducing any bias that's not already there. Even "Queen of the United Kingdom, etc." would be better than using something that looks like a title she doesn't have. Proteus (Talk) 15:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"...it's already the title in the article name, so it's not as if it'd be introducing any bias that's not already there." That statement acknowledges that there's bias in the title, and I agree, but I'd counter that acknowledging only "Queen of the United Kingdom" (which itself is not a title) in the infobox only enhances the bias, and fosters misconceptions like DBD/Esperanza's belief that the other 15 of the Queen's Realms are actually the UK's Realms. --gbambino 16:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Any such misconception would be swiftly removed by reading the article. Infoboxes aren't meant to be used on their own, and detail is bound to be lost when information is condensed. That doesn't mean we should try as hard as possible to squeeze everything in the article into the infobox. It's only intended to be a quick summary. And of course we're allowing some bias every time we decide on an article title — it's biased, for instance, that London is given precedence over London, Ohio, but it's the World's bias, not ours, just as it's not our bias that Queen Elizabeth II is primarily regarded by the vast majority of people as Britain's Queen and not Australia's Queen. Proteus (Talk) 16:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It is totally stupid to have in the info a title which she does not hold. I agree with Proteus that in the infobox should be Queen of the United Kingdom (which is an abbreviation of her actual title, not an invented title like Queen of the Commonwealth. To say that putting the former is POV is also wrong, it is mearly using the title by which she is most known. --Berks105 17:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Noone suggested "Queen of the Commonwealth". That is plain wrong, as well as not being an official title. To use the UK title is to use one POV - the only question is whether this is justified. JPD (talk) 09:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's trying to invent titles. But, if it's to be a matter of how she is "most known," then we may as well insert Queen of England into the infobox, because, well, that's how the majority of people around the world would dub her. Of course, we can do no such thing, but I only raise it to show that popular consensus does not always equal accuracy. Now, Queen of the United Kingdom is accurate, and that has never been contested, but its sole use here is inherently biased and POV. The argument that this bias is justified because it is popularly supported holds as much validity as the argument for calling her Queen of England. Does the following seem appropriate?: --gbambino 18:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Elizabeth II Queen regnant of each of the Commonwealth Realms (Titled accordingly) As far as I admire your attempt at a compromise, I feel certain that, the issue of whether to include Queen of the UK aside, Queen of the Commonwealth Realms would be a good solution - I feel regnant to be unnecessary (were she consort, she would have no regnal number...) - three lines would be undesirable. I can't see why each need be there either... // DBD 21:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC) It's better than inventing a title, I suppose, but it's so complicated that no one would bother trying to work it out — the whole point of an infobox is to present the most important information quickly and succinctly. If it's too complicated, there's no point in having anything there at all. I suspect most readers would shut down at "regnant". And I think "Queen of England"'s a bit of an irrelevant distraction: the policy is known as "most common name" but it's obviously really "most common name that's not actually incorrect", which in this case is "...of the United Kingdom" without a doubt. Proteus (Talk) 21:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC) I understand what you're trying to say, but it doesn't counter my point that just because the bias is popularly accepted is it justified. Also, if people are going to "shut down" after only the one word, then how can you argue that they'll move on to the larger, longer, and much more dense body of the article to see that she isn't just Queen of the UK, but also equally, and separately, Queen of fifteen other countries? The assertion is tantamount to saying that articles should be written in a manner which appeases the laziness of readers. Neither "Queen regnant of each of the Commonwealth Realms," "Queen regnant of each Commmonwealth Realm," nor "Queen regnant of the Commonwealth Realms" is complicated; perhaps the bracketed "titled accordingly" could simply be eliminated all-together. --gbambino 22:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC) Because people come here to read articles, not infoboxes. If the infoboxes aren't simple, they'll just ignore them and read the article, and we might as well not have infoboxes at all. Proteus (Talk) 22:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC) Why not "Queen of the United Kingdom and her other realms and territories?" This is the actual title used in the UK, and indicates that there is both the UK, and other realms (the realms could have a link to Commonwealth Realms). john k 23:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC) "Queen of the United Kingdom and her other realms and territories" is longer than "Queen regnant of the Commonwealth Realms," and singles out her UK title. --gbambino 00:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC) It does however avoid using an obscure term that doesn't seem to be used outside the monarchy's website and Wikipedia. I don't object to either one, but it does seem strange to insist on increasing the UK emphasis. JPD (talk) 09:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC) Singling out her UK title, both as the only one of her many titles in which she effectively functions on a day to day basis as head of state, and as the one which is historically most important. As noted "Queen regnant of the Commonwealth Realms" is a made up title with no legal basis whatsoever. There is nothing POV about emphasizing the queen's relationship to the United Kingdom. As far as I can tell, Gbambino's entire purpose on wikipedia seems to be to dispute the perfectly reasonable idea that the Queen, who lives in the UK, and who, in the UK, uniquely, is not represented by a Governor-General, cannot be described as "Queen of the UK" unless Belize and Papua New Guinea, where she has no de facto role at all, practically all of her duties as head of state being performed by a Governor-General appointed not by her, but by the government of said country, are also mentioned at once. This is absurd and ridiculous, and not to be tolerated. john k 18:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC) The fact that the Queen is equally head of state of sixteen countries and not just of the UK seems to be such a thorn in your side, John. Unfortunately, however, it is the truth, and cannot be dispelled by your acrobatics in logic. Elizabeth II may spend most of her time in the UK, but the assertion that this justifies the elevation here of her UK title over and above all her others is, by your own admission, only a "reasonable idea." Her geographic location has nothing to do with it, popular ignorance has nothing to do with it, even her governors general (who, by the way are appointed directly by her - I mean, really, who else would?) have nothing to do with it. It is about being unbiased and factually accurate. The article title already highlights her position as Queen of the UK, thus it need not be enhanced any more. So, unless you can argue that the phrase "Queen regnant of the Commonwealth Realms" (which, by the way, was never put forward as a title) is biased and factually incorrect then tolerate it. Or, at least, try and work towards a compromise instead of being so bloody petulant when something isn't as easy as you'd like to pretend it is. --gbambino 18:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC) I see now how the infobox section in question is titled "Title", which, as already established, "Queen regnant of the Commonwealth Realms" is not. Thus, how about: Elizabeth II Various titles within the Commonwealth Realms --gbambino 19:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC) De jure equal is not de facto equal. How hard is that to understand? john k 02:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC) Do you actually have any specific objection to my last proposal? --gbambino 03:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC) It's logically equivalent to replacing the caption "Prime Minister of the United Kingdom" in Gladstone's infobox with "Various offices throughout his career" on the basis that legally every member of the Cabinet is equal and so it's POV to single out his Premiership simply because it's de facto the most significant office he held. Proteus (Talk) 07:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC) Just make sure there is something there that is simple and accurate. I don't agree that it has to be a title simply because the infobox parameter is called "title". JPD (talk) 10:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC) Simple and accurate. I would like to suggest simply putting her as "Elizabeth II" in the infobox and let the article explain everything else. Joshua Chiew 10:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC) This is ridiculous. She is Queen of the United Kingdom, so it is accurate to refer to her as such. Of all her kingdoms, it is the only one in which she personally acts at all times in the capacity of head of state, and it is the only one with any historical importance. I am not willing to kowtow to Gbambino's stupid Canadian monarchism. There is absolutely zero reason to avoid referring to the Queen as "Queen of the United Kingdom," save Gbambino's idiosyncratic ridiculousness. And I'm sorry if I'm engaging in personal attacks, but this nonsense has been going on for months, possibly years, now, and it's got to stop some time. I object to Gbambino's proposal on the same grounds that Proteus did - it's elevating some obscure de jure consideration over the practical fact that the Queen's most important role is her role as Queen of the UK. Let me try to put this another way. I am perfectly willing to accept that the Queen is equally head of state for each of her realms. This means that she gets the same diplomatic precedence for all her roles, and certain other such issues. However, not all heads of state are equal. The President of the United States has a much more important constitutional role than the President of Italy, despite the two of them being equally heads of state. In certain very specific (formal) circumstances, the latter counts equally with the former. But in nearly all practical circumstances, the President of the United States is the more important. Similarly, the Queen of the United Kingdom has a much more important constitutional role than the Queen of Australia. This is not a POV, it is simply a fact. All Heads of State are not created equal. Note also our article on Philip IV of Spain. The article only gives him two titles in the intro (there's no infobox) - "King of Spain," and "King of Portugal." In fact, the title of "King of Spain" did not exist. Rather, Philip was (to include only the titles that had constitutional significance) King of Castile and León; King of Portugal and the Algarves; King of Aragon; King of Valencia; Count of Barcelona; King of Majorca; King of Sardinia; King of both Sicilies; Duke of Milan; Duke of Brabant; Duke of Luxembourg; Duke of Limburg; Duke of Gelders; Count of Burgundy; Count of Flanders; Count of Artois; Count of Hainaut; Count of Namur; Count of Charolais; and Lord of Malines. (I may have missed some, as well). His role in each was separate, and all of the Kingdoms, at least, are equal. But none of that would justify the silliness of calling him "Various titles in different parts of Europe." john k 13:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC) Similarly, the Queen of the United Kingdom has a much more important constitutional role than the Queen of Australia: Sorry, but that's wrong. Her constitutional role is equal in each kingdom. Because she spends most of her time in the UK, and has delegated a governor general to perform her duties on her behalf in her other realms does not diminish this reality. It does diminish the importance. Maybe not de jure, but de facto. Do you even know the difference? john k 16:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC) Let's also look at this for an example: when she attended the ceremonies, in France, marking the 60th anniversary of D-Day, she was present at various events related to her various realms - at each acting separately as Queen of that particular realm. However, when it came to the main international event at Arromanches, where all the heads of state gathered, the name of each monarch and president listed was paired with the name of the country they were representing, except Elizabeth, who had no country following her name. Further, when she has met with other heads of state on behalf of Canada (President of France at D-Day 40th anniversary, President of the US at the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway, President of the US in Washington, etc.) she's present as Queen of Canada, not of the UK. It's been recognized at numerous international gatherings by different foreign governments that her role as Queen of the UK isn't "a more important constitutional role," so why do you insist on pretending, so rudely and obstinately, that it is? That's because she was specifically acting for several countries at the D-Day event. I know that in certain very specific situations she appears as Queen of Canada, or Queen of Australia, or whatever. But by default she is Queen of the UK. john k 16:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC) Though I don't currently care about Philip IV of Spain at this moment, "Various titles throughout his realms", or some such things, linking to an article which listed all of them, would seem like a perfectly viable solution to me. --gbambino 15:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC) Not mentioning "King of Spain" would seem viable to you? You're ridiculous. john k 16:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC) What do you mean by "all head of states are not created equal"? They may have different roles in their respective countries, but they are equal in status. As Queen of sixteen different countries, the Queen holds these titles equally. The article's name has already singled out the UK as her main residence country. When she travels to other Commonwealth Realms, she addresses herself as being the Queen of the respective realm, e.g. Queen of Australia, Queen of Canada, etc. I can't deny the fact that when most people in the world speak of her, they would think of her simply being the Queen of the UK (or "Queen of England", as the UK was commonly mistakenly called). I suggest that we simply state her as "Elizabeth II" in the infobox, or: Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, and Saint Kitts and Nevis (provided it does not violate the MoS or other relevant policies) Joshua Chiew 15:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC) They are equal in status. I said as much. Who cares? Her actual role in the UK is much more important, because she lives there and does it on a day to day basis. john k 16:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC) As an experiment I tried listing every country in the infobox, but, of course, it is a very long list. This is why I suggested that the infobox link to the article where all her titles are already listed - it seems to solve the problem of bias and saves a lot of space. Simply "Elizabeth II" in the infobox is a possibility, but why not include the added information and link to the list of her titles below? And, Proteus, I see your point, but wonder, did Gladstone hold more than one portfolio when he was PM? The Queen holds all her titles simultaneously. --gbambino 15:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC) Gladstone served as Chancellor of the Exchequer during parts of his first and second premiership. He was, I believe, Lord Privy Seal during his last two (or possibly Lord President.) john k 16:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC) That's because she was specifically acting for several countries at the D-Day event... But by default she is Queen of the UK.: Apparantly, sir, you are the one who is ridiculous. She "acts" for several countries all day, every day; as their Sovereign. And, as my example pointed out, she clearly isn't Queen of the UK by default. Frankly, I trust the judgement of the French government, as well as that of constitutional scholars, on this matter more than yours. You clearly have some axe to grind. --gbambino 16:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC) Ba! She is queen of the UK by default, except when she is actively doing things in the name of one of her other countries. At the D-Day thing she was actively doing things in the name of several countries at once. That's not the same thing as "when she's not doing anything specific for any of the countries of which she is queen" - in the latter situation, she is the Queen of the UK." john k 16:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC) Ba, indeed. There is no default. She's addressed as queen of a specific state when she's acting on behalf of that state, but never ceases to be sovereign of the others because she is, at that time, performing her duties for only one. And she certainly is never "not doing anything specific for any of the countries" - she doesn't punch out as queen at 5. Just because she acts on the advice of her UK ministers for the most part doesn't mean she's any less queen of any of her other countries, de jure, de facto, or de otherwise. --gbambino 16:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC) There's no point in arguing with you. You can do whatever sophistry you want to pretend that there's no difference, but anyone with a brain can see that there is. I shall rely on other users to have brains. john k 19:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC) No personal attacks, please. Joshua Chiew 06:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC) Is the UK a Commonwealth Realm? Looking at "Commonwealth Realm" on google and excluding wikipedia, I seem to see a number of sites that say that there are only 15 commonwealth realms, and that thus, by implication, the UK is not, in fact, a commonwealth realm. The official royal site suggests as much as well. Besides having most of the site deal with the Queen's relationship with the UK (and crown dependencies), the section on the Queen and the Commonwealth contains the statement "The Queen and the Royal Family retain close links with the Commonwealth realms, and with other members of the worldwide Commonwealth organisation." In this sentence, "the Commonwealth realms" clearly means "the countries other than the UK of which she is Queen. It seems to me that unless Gbambino, et al, can present some evidence to the contrary, the UK is not, in fact, a commonwealth realm. There is absolutely no citation in the article Commonwealth Realm which supports his interpretation of the UK as being one. A "commonwealth realm" is, in fact, the new term for what used to be called a "dominion". The UK was never a dominion, and it is not now a commonwealth realm. It is the United Kingdom, and is sui generis. Thus, "Queen of the UK and the 15 Commonwealth Realms" would seem like a perfectly appropriate statement. As far as I can tell, all internet references to the UK as a commonwealth realm are derived from wikipedia's use of the term. john k 11:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC) Note also this from the royal website about a medal the Queen gives out: "The Medal is given for a book of verse published by someone from the United Kingdom or a Commonwealth realm." Here, the UK is pretty explicitly not considered a Commonwealth Realm. john k 11:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC) Also note [2] and [3]. The clear implication of just about every instance of "commonwealth realm" I could find on the royal website is that it does not include the UK. There's one royal insight page (here) which describes a commonwealth realm as "a country in which the queen is sovereign," but it is referring to Australia, and the same description is used in one of the other links I give above, but in a context where the UK is clearly excluded. It seems clear that the Royal website, for whatever that is worth (and I will admit that it can sometimes be shown to be wrong) views the UK as not a commonwealth realm. I think it is up to others to provide some sources to show the contrary. john k 11:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC) I agree. It's always struck me as a little odd calling the UK a Commonwealth Realm, but I had assumed that we did it because someone had shown it to be so. If our practice is merely another result of this ongoing campaign then it should certainly be abandoned and a correct practice substituted. Proteus (Talk) 17:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC) I will admit to having possibly put the case a bit too strongly. There is certainly some usage in which the term "commonwealth realm" is used to include the UK - I believe the Australian Monarchist League does this. There's also a speech which does this by the Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia. But there's also plenty of usage which goes the other way, and, when one discounts wikipedia mirrors and material written on message boards by, er, Gbambino, it seems to me that there's more going the other way. See Talk:Commonwealth Realm for more discussion on the subject, and where I highlight the Monarchist League of Canada and the Times of India using the term in a way to exclude the UK. john k 17:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)