Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Who's her father?

In the Introduction George something-or-the-other is claimed to be her father, in the article per-se it is said to be a Prince Albert. This should be corrected. 213.204.48.68 12:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

it's worth reading sometimes. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 12:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Prince Albert, Duke of York, became King as George VI in 1936 upon his older brother Edward VIII's abdication. john k 15:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Quote 1: "... her father, King George VI ..."
Quote 2: "Her father was The Prince Albert, Duke of York (later King George VI), ..."
Quote 3: "it's worth reading sometimes"! TrevorD 15:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Archived

I took the liberty of archiving old discussions, covering January through March. Fishhead64 17:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Balfour

The Balfour declaration only caused the British parliament to loose it's power over Canada the Queens always been supreme leader.

Her name

Why is the birth name of Elizabeth II and her predecessors treated differently from other monarchs (e.g. Wilhelm II, Juan Carlos I, Louis II, etc.)? I thought wikipedia convention was to bold the proper names of the subjects of its articles when they initially appear. Fishhead64 15:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocking non registered users from editing

I was just passing through and I noticed that this page seems to be under constant attack from vandals. Maybe it would be appropriate to block non-registered users from editing? This seems to be the case with other pages such as God. I'm not sure how to go about doing it, but maybe a more prolific contributor to this page could do it. Just a suggestion. Phileas 02:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I've given up reporting the vandals because they all seem to come from shared IP addresses (schools and the like) and reports either get ignored by admin, with no feedback, or they get blocked for a few hours at most, which achieves nothing. -- TrevorD 08:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well. Fishhead64 14:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

How do we go about getting this page protected? Perhaps an admin could comment / act? -- TrevorD 12:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Royals project

Is there any Wikiproject or similar for British royals? I find the current naming conventions rather odd - no mention of the title 'Queen' in the title, for example, and then you get names such as Victoria of the United Kingdom, which could refer just as much to Victoria Beckham as to Queen Victoria! I was wondering if these were decided upon by a project, or just by one user... — SteveRwanda 09:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Queen of Canada

Monarchs can number themselves however they like. You seem to think there are divinely ordained rules that they have to stick to, which is just silly. (Oh, and I don't know where you got the idea that Henry VIII wasn't Henry VIII in Ireland, because he was.) Proteus (Talk) 12:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

And furthermore, Ireland was not an independent kingdom, either. It was subject to England. And is Canada really a "kingdom"? It is never called that in any official context. TharkunColl 13:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not named "The Kingdom of Canada" (though, the Fathers of Confederation had originally proposed such a name), but, as a sovereign constitutional monarchy, Canada can't be anything other than a kingdom. --gbambino 16:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, Canada is officially a "Dominion" - and although that term has been quietly brushed under the carpet in more recent official documents, it has never specifically been abolished. To say that a sovereign constitutional monarchy must be a kingdom is simply untrue - as Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc. prove. TharkunColl 16:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Dominion is just another word for kingdom. It was a compromise at the time of Confederation in 1867 - the Fathers wanted the name "Kingdom of Canada," but the Brits felt it would cause trouble with the American republic to the south, so they settled on Dominion instead. Regardless, no matter what the name of the country, the constitutional structure of Canada makes it a kingdom - unless someone can tell me how a country headed by a king or queen is anything but a kingdom. --gbambino 16:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any sources for your assertion that the British govt. was concerned about U.S. opinion in its choice of the term Dominion instead of Kingdom for Canada? It seems to me that a far more likely reason was that at the time, the British monarchy was regarded as legally indivisible. The phrase "Dominion of the British Crown" was used in those days, because Canada, even though it had been granted a more or less independent parliament, still recognised the British sovereign as its head of state. For all practical purposes it still does of course, even though legal fiction since the 1930s says otherwise. TharkunColl 18:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the fact that she is referred to in Canadian legal documents as "Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada" should suffice to close the debate. Right now I am staring at a Canadian quarter on my desk that reads "Elizabeth II D.G.Regina." 'Nuff said. Fishhead64 17:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Edward VIII was actually the eleventh king of England to be named Edward. Henry VIII was actually the ninth of that name. TharkunColl 18:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Whether there are rules or not (and I am curious who writes these rules and but what authority such rules prevail), I cannot say, and I frankly do not think that is the point. An encyclopedia describes what is, not what should be. In this case, she is known legally, personally, and popularly as "Elizabeth II." Fishhead64 18:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see these rules you talk of. There is no mistake. According to the Royal Style and Titles Act, the Queen's title in Canada is, "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith." That is a Canadian statute, and the closest you'll find to any rule about what to call the Queen. --Q Canuck 03:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Until the mid-1950s there were no formal rules at all, still less any of a "legal" or "constitutional" nature. The numeration of monarchs was merely a convention. When Elizabeth II came to the throne in 1952 a small group of Scottish nationalists brought a court case, on the grounds that Scotland had never had an Elizabeth before and therefore "II" was incorrect. They lost because the monarch cas use any name she wishes. However, in response to this the queen announced that henceforth, the monarch would take either the English or Scottish regnal number, whichever was the greater. This applies to all her dominions, including Canada. And furthermore, Canada is not a kingdom! If it ever decided to have a real monarch of its own, rather than just happen to choose the same person as the British monarch, then it might justifiably be called one. But an absantee monarch with no power whatsoever does not a kingdom make. TharkunColl 12:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Ireland was also subject to the English parliament during that period, and in any case Ireland had its own monarchical tradition that predated the Norman conquest of it. Your assertion that all states with a king or queen are by defintion kingdoms is simply wrong - Canada is a dominion. It has never had a monarchical tradition of its own, and anything that it does have is simply a duplication of the British tradition. No monarch lives in Canada, and the Canadians contribute no money towards the upkeep of the monarchy. The queen has no power whatsoever in Canada, and all constitutional powers that are supposedly vested in her are exercised by somebody else, namely the governor general. Regardless of legal fiction, her status in Canada is part of the very gradual process of winding down the British Empire. In short, Canada - in practice - has no monarch of its own, and simply takes the British monarch as its head of state. Its monarchy is therefore in no way independent, and could be brought to an end at any time with no one noticing the difference. Canada is not a kingdom. TharkunColl 14:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

You will also notice that the article in question does not call Canada a kingdom, for the simple reason that it isn't. It is certainly true that since the 1980s the British parliament has no power to legislate in Canada, but I'm talking about the monarch, not parliament. Canada continues to accept the British monarch as its head of state - surely that is not in dispute? It could, if it wished, appoint a separate monarch of its own, and then it would be a kingdom. But whilst it simply accepts the British monarch, it has no independent monarchy of its own. As for Scotland being part of the UK, I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. Scotland is still a separate country for many legal and constitutional purposes, and at the state opening of the new Scottish parliament in 1999 the queen was referred to under her Scottish title of "Elizabeth, Queen of Scots" with no numeral. For the UK as a whole she is Elizabeth II, because she takes the English regnal number. But she does not use the numeral for internal Scottish affairs, and it is left off all government inscriptions such as pillar boxes. That the Canadians call her "II" for all purposes is simply an acceptance that their monarchy is not independent of the British. TharkunColl 15:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Then I'm afraid that I don't understand your point. Canada is certainly a sovereign country, but it is not a kingdom because it has no monarchy of its own. The relationship between Canada and the UK is not a personal union, because Canada has never had its own monarchy and is totally dependent on the British to supply it with monarchs. A personal union - such as that between Scotland and England from 1603 to 1707 - comes about when two kingdoms with pre-existing monarchies happen (usually for dynastic reasons) to share the same monarch. It usually leads, after an interval, to some sort of political union. The situation with Canada couldn't be more different, as it and the UK have been gradually drifting further apart in legislative terms and are now completely separate. TharkunColl 15:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The Canadian monarchy and the British Monarchy are two seperate entities - the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927 replaced the concept of one singular British Empire crown with distinct crowns for each realm... in escence Elizabeth II is wearing 16 crowns, not one. Rob.derosa 03:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You'll have to try harder than that. NO British law has effect in Canada, and thus the constitutional laws that outline how the sovereign is chosen are Canadian laws, not British. That makes Canada a sovereign constitutional monarchy that happens to voluntarily have the same line of succession, and thus the same monarch, as the UK (and 14 other countries). Canada's status as a sovereign kingdom is demonstrated in the fact that Canada could perfectly well alter its line of succession, thereby giving Canada a different monarch to Britain. Just because the country agrees to maintain a symmetrical monarch and line of succession, doesn't mean the Canadain Monarchy doesn't exist, and Canada isn't a kingdom. --gbambino 16:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The question of what is a "kingdom" is completely irrelevant to both this page and the original question. Please take that discussion somewhere else. Obviously Scotland is in a different position to Canada, but TharkunColl's Scottish example did address the issue, by pointing out that the only legal or constitutional rules regarding the title of the monarch are those set out by relevant Royal Styles and Titles Acts or similar. JPD (talk) 15:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't care who brought up the subject of whether Canada is a kingdom or not. I am asking everyone to stop discussing it. I am not sure what you are saying about Scotland. The point of the example is that her title in Scotland is determined by the relevant UK law. Similarly, her title in Canada is determined by the relevant Canadian law, which calls her Elizabeth the Second. There is no general rule which applied to Ireland, England and Scotland in the past and now applies to Canada - in each case the only legal rule was the law of that country at the time. JPD (talk) 16:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to throw a spanner into the works, Newfoundland was proclaimed an English colony in 1583, when Elizabeth I was still on the throne. That colony, however, failed, and the next attempt was made in 1610 under James I. Perhaps the queen should be called Elizabeth II in Newfoundland but not anywhere else in Canada. Indeed, why should not the provinces be referred to as "kingdoms", rather than Canada itself which is actually a fairly loose confederation? This just highlights the absurdity of using the term kingdom at all. Colonies do not become kingdoms - they are something different. TharkunColl 18:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Colonies do not become kingdoms - they are something different. And what, pray tell, is that? (Though, JPD is right, this discussion shouldn't take place on this talk page - perhaps Monarchy in Canada, or Canada (where Canada is indeed referred to as a kingdom) would be better.) --gbambino 18:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

They become, in the case of Canada, "provinces". Or, in the case of Australia, "states". Or even, in the case of the USA, "states" (though that case is a little different in as much as foreign powers such as France succeeded in wresting some of our colonies from us). TharkunColl 23:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Some colonies of the UK in North America joined under a federal government to became provinces of a kingdom called Canada. So, I fail to see how this proves your claim that Canada is not a kingdom.

I'm intrigued to know whether or not you consider either Norway or Sweden to have not been kingdoms when the two separate countries shared the same monarch between 1814 and 1905. --gbambino 23:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Or even, to use a more apposite example, England and Scotland after 1603. Yes, they were both kingdoms, because both had their own monarchies before the personal union. Canada never had. It is derived from colonial expansion. TharkunColl 23:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

In answer to your question: Canada is a dominion of the British crown. TharkunColl 23:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

That depends on what you mean by "British Crown." If it's the traditional (though incorrect) way of referring to the Crown as shared, then you'll have to admit that the UK is a dominion of the "British Crown" as well. If it's the Crown operating within the jurisdiction of the UK, under control of the British government, then you're just plain wrong.

Besides, "dominion" really is just a synonym for "kingdom." --gbambino 23:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Dominion is not a synonym for kingdom. Why was this term coined in the first place? As for the UK being a dominion of the British crown - well, what do you expect? The UK is the home of the British crown! TharkunColl 23:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

You're clearly very confused. But there's lots of information here on Wikipedia which can help you understand better. Happy reading! --gbambino 23:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

No. It you who are confused by legal fictions. The truth is a great deal simpler. The UK has a queen. A lot of other countries choose the British queen as their head of state, for reasons connected with the former British Empire. Don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia. TharkunColl 23:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I suppose the Australian High Court, judges of the Ontario Superior Court, constitutional scholars and others have all been duped by these legal fictions as well. Good to see you're the one with crystal clear understanding, while the rest of the planet bumbles along in ignorance. --gbambino 23:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

You are deliberately, perhaps gratuitously, failing to see the difference between legal technicalities and practical fact. TharkunColl 23:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The monarchy doesn't exist or operate without law, therefore the legal technicalities are the facts. You, perhaps, are failing to look beyond mere geography when asserting that Canada is reigned over by a British monarch. The legal realities will tell you otherwise. But, none-the-less, this debate has gone on far too long in the wrong place. --gbambino 00:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

TharkunColl is about 50 years out of date in his understanding of the legal basis for Commonwealth Realms. No-one, not least the Queen, regards her reign in Canada in the way TharkunColl thinks. That legal concept died many generations ago, as shown in vast numbers of legal judgments, interpretations of laws, opinions of attorneys-general and governments and the crown itself. Even his claim about the Queen's ordinal being II indicating a link between the "British" crown is false. In countries with shared monarchies in the twentieth century, the practice has generally been for all of them to use the same ordinal, with that ordinal being the highest ordinal possessed by the monarch in one of them. If England and Scotland were independent and just shared the same monarch (rather than one state) and the Prince of Wales decided to become King James, he would be known as James VIII because there have been seven King James' in Scotland. That has been international precedent since the 1920s. Nor is the concept of a dominion what Thark thinks. That concept was replaced in a series of Commonwealth Conference decisions starting back in 1926. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 00:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)}

Ireland already had its own monarchical traditions that predated the Norman conquest of it in the 12th century, which the Normans attempted to usurp for their own purposes (and notice I said Normans here - the English had nothing to do with it and were just as much a conquered race as the Irish became). And furthermore, Ireland was never "nominally independent", even when Henry VIII elevated it to a kingdom. Its parliament was always legally subordinate to the English parliament. TharkunColl 08:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what the point of this argument is. It seems to be, primarlily, about arguing. Fishhead64 04:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The very example you gave, Poyning's Law, proves that Ireland was not even nominally independent, and I can't understand how you could possibly assert that it was. Poyning's Law was very explicit, and placed the Irish parliament directly under the control of the English one. TharkunColl 14:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Gentlemen, this discussion is now well off-topic. If you want to continue it, please do so on FDR's talk page. I intend to refactor any further off-topic discussion there in any case and would suggest that other editors do likewise since this page is intended for discussion of ways to improve the QEII article, not for discussion of Ireland's status pre-19th century. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

We're only interested in what she is called. Not in what she should be called. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

FDR, I myself agree with you but that's not the point. The point is that Wikipedia has to report what is; not what should be. So despite the fact that I think that Elizabeth logically is Elizabeth I, I have to accept that legally she is Elizabeth II and therefore that that is how she should be described in Wikipedia. I recommend that you accept it too. -- Derek Ross | Talk

No, I think the subject of the Queen's title is moot - by Canadian law she is Elizabeth II, therefore that's all Wikipedia can state. There isn't even any strong faction (if any at all) of Canadians claiming the title is incorrect, as there were in Scotland. And, besides, technically Elizabeth I reigned over territory that is now Canadian, meaning that one could have a good argument for saying the present Elizabeth II is correct, at least for Canada and the UK.

As for Canada being a kingdom, however, TharkunColl has taken his inane argument to Talk:Canada#Canada is not a kingdom, so it's at least finished here. --gbambino 16:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I had decided to delete my contributions to this sections but somebody restored them but now I am deleting them again. They are my own contributions so I have the right to delete them. I suggest that we all delete this section of the talk page by mutual agreement. FDR | MyTalk 10:48 May 31, 2006 (UTC)

Her Majesty tends to be referred to in Canada as Her Majesty the Queen of Canada. To clear things up above, Canada is a dominion in lawful terms, but the term has fallen into disuse (while it was never officially abolished). Our Statutes and constitution in Canada define that Her Majesty is the Queen of Canada in a capacity which is separate from that of the United Kingdom, which is why Canada's consent is required separately from that of the U.K. in order to change the rules of succession (while, in practical terms, Canada would likely not challenge a change to the rules initiated by the U.K.). FiveParadox 06:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Duke of Lancaster

The Queen is both Duke of Lancaster and Duke of Normandy. I don't know where Proteus is getting is info from, put if you look at this from the Royal website it clearly says she is Duke of Lancaster. --Berks105 11:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• I have changed the wording to say The Queen is styled Duke of Lancaster, as this is undebateable. Whether she is legally Duke or not, she is styled as by the Palace. --Berks105 11:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The Royal website is wrong. (It's hardly a reliable source — legal documents, the London Gazette, etc., are reliable sources, but a website written by some Palace lackey isn't.) Oh, and she's never "styled" by either of those titles. She's occasionally incorrectly referred to by them, but that's hardly a legal basis on which to claim she has them. Proteus (Talk) 12:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Once again Proteus you are showing your amazing arrogance at assuming you are right and the rest of the World is wrong. The fact is the Palace refer to her as 'Duke of Lancaster' (see this from the Court Circular last week, which is not written by a "Palace lacky" but an official record of The Royal Family's activities). The Queen is, correctly or not, styled Duke of Lancaster by the State. --Berks105 18:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Styled is a problematic use as they are matters of formal address not informal misuse - which talking about the Duke of L certainly is.Alci12 15:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The Court Circular has no authority to be and is no guide to correct usage, constitutional law or anything much else; it is little more than a public diary to show what various people are doing and is certainly written by a 'lacky' - if you want to use that perjorative.Alci12 18:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The Court Circular has been wrong before. this entry says that the Royal York Hotel is in Mississauga and that Massey College is in Oakville. --Ibagli 21:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The queen is the duke of Lancaster as it was merged with the crown in 16th century the queen also is the commander in chief of the new duke of lacaster regiment. I should know im lancastarian. King Konger 20:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Also many lancashire newspapers including the evening news do declare her as the duke of lancaster.

So, the "British Monarchy" webpage, the Court Circular, and the Duchy of Lancaster all verifiably refer to the Queen as the Duke of Lancaster. This seems pretty compelling. I have not seen any evidence from the other side to dispute this claim, aside from tenacious assertion. I would say that the preponderence of evidence submitted thus far is that she may, at least, be so styled. Absent verifiable evidence disputing the claims of the official websites, I think we should leave it in. If there is contrary evidence, I think it would be fair to add a corollory, "though there is evidence to dispute this claim [citation]," or somesuch. Moreover, it seems counterintuitive to have a Duchy in existence that does not actually have a Duke. Fishhead64 20:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Newspapers called Screaming_Lord_Sutch by that name it didn't make him a lord. Whether you find the idea of a duchy without a duke counter-intuitive is irrelevant, it's a matter of law not whether a layman finds it logical. The 'other sides' assertion has been the small matter of that acts of parliament, legal case law and royal proclamations support this side and that your links had no authority whatsoever. Repeating a mistake in the press doesn't make it any less a mistake the more it is repeated.

Still, lets try and end this once and for all. Royal titles are defined by three sources: Acts of parliament, Case Law/House of Lords rulings and Royal Proclamations. The first and the third can be covered in this reign by [1] the case law by Buckhurst. In terms of debunking the nonsence about the various claimed dukedoms (Normandy Lancaster) [2] is a fair source quoting the above acts and proclamations in the context of the specific titles, and saving me a very very long post.

All this article needs, if any mention is made, is that QEII is 'sometimes erroneously referred to as Duke of L' Anything else is misleading the reader.Alci12 09:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

What are you getting your knickers in a knot about and being all snarky? All I asked for was evidence, I don't actually care whether she's Duke of Lancaster or Viscountess of Igloolik or whatever. Moreover, I didn't post any links. Sheesh, have some perspective. Fishhead64 15:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The Queen is the Duke of Lancaster as it is one of her many titles like the Duke of York, Cornwall etc the only difference between Lancaster and those is that they have been donated to her children. Also as D of L she keeps lots of land in Lancashire.

The Queen is Duke of Lancaster as she owns the lands of the estate of the D of L. It is also widley known around Lancs that she is the D of L. This proof along with expressions from actual Lancastarians proves against this proposterous claim. King Konger 14.25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

See my above links which deal with law, your understanding of how peerages devolve is wrong. Titles aren't donated, the monarch can't hold any of her own titles and the duchy of Cornwall descends by charter.

People called Diana, Princess of Wales 'Princess Diana' but that didn't make it true or legally so. Your claims that some lancastrians call QEII 'D of L' are not proof of the true status in law, they show nothing but the mistaken views of those individuals. Thankfully we have peerage law which is based on acts of parliament and judges rulings, not the misguided opinions of the first person out of the door at the dog & duck.Alci12 14:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

All the proof you need is that the new Duke of Lancaster Regiment is named so after the queen who had to select the badge because she is the Duke of Lancaster. King Konger.

The Queen approves directly or indirectly all regimental names and badges, she could have called it the Royal Regiment of fairies but it wouldn't have made her Queen of the fairies - it's just a name. Clearly you don't understand that she simply has no legal capacity to make herself Duke of anything. The regiments naming doesn't have the slightest influence of what titles she legally holds or could ever hold. If you bothered to read my links to the legal position you would see it is impossible.Alci12 13:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Believable as it might be, the Queen is not and cannot be Duke of Lancaster. A Sovereign cannot and never has held a peerage dignity since they're the "fount of honour". She is toasted and styled assuch in Lancashire, but that's tradition not law. I can see where everyone's coming from - she holds the duchy etc. But the sovereign does not hold peerage dignities (which why we use the expression "merge into the crown"). --130.88.243.133 15:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The Queen is the Duke of Lancaster like Prince Charles is the Duke of Cornwall the monarch is named after his or her most important title in Charles' case the Prince of Wales. She is the Duke of Lancaster along with the Duke of Normandy she doesnt hold one title. King Konger

The Queen is NOT Duke of Lancaster, she cannot and does not hold peerage dignities as she is the fount of honour. She holds the duchy of Lancaster but that is not the same as a dukedom (in fact all dukedoms bar Cornwall don't have duchies). The Dukedom was held by Henry of Monmouth but when he became king in 1413 the dukedom merged into the crown. If you are saying that the Queen is duke of Lancaster by virtue of this then she is therefore the holder of every single extinct dukedom since they have all reverted to the crown. She is traditionally toasted as Duke of Lancaster but that is tradition alone. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_Lancaster.

She is offically styled the Duke of Lancaster due to the fact she keeps the land. It was meged with the crown but in officall duties she has acted as the Duke of Lancaster. Lancashire Day, The starting of the D of L regiment etc.

Aren't there more interesting and debateable things to talk about? This is a waste of webspace. She's Duke of Lancaster. Get over it.--Gazzster 23:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The Queen holds the Duchy of Lancaster. She is not Duke of Lancaster, although she is occasionally described as such. The whole ridiculous business of "Duke of Lancaster" shows the silliness of it - actual dukedoms can be held by women as duchesses (of currently existing Dukedoms, Hamilton, Marlborough, and Fife have been held by women in the past, and they were referred to as duchesses). john k 00:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe in the Channel Islands she is still styled 'Duke of Normandy' (not Duchess), as technically they are still part of the Duchy of Normandy and are not British.I agree, the style is bizarre, especially as all British claims to French soil have been surrendered by treaty. But the vagaries of Royal titles and styles are so complicated.If this talk section gets bogged down with the technicalities of it all we will be here forever. Let us just agree to diagree. And heck, does it really matter?--Gazzster 12:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Most Powerful?

"She is one of the most powerful heads of state in the world although she exercises little executive power personally" I think not! She exercises little executive power personally because she has no constitutional right so to do: in the UK at least, the powers of the Crown are exercised by the government, currently in the guise of one T. Blair esq. Surely all of the world's executive presidents (USA, Russia, China et al) wield more power? I say 'executive' to distinguish from the Irish style of presidency where the president is Head of State but does not exercise power. As a constitutional monarch she may have the theoretical power to refuse assent for instance but this hasn't happened for donkeys' years. And you have to ask yourself, if she did refuse assent, what would the consequences be? To be powerful a monarch has to be unpopular and get away with it. It might be argued that, in this context, power is synonymous with tyranny. I concede she may well exercise a great deal of influence around the world but that's not quite the same thing. Oh, and by the way, "one of the most..." are weasel words.217.154.66.11 13:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It's rather tricky. She has vast powers in theory - far more so than any other constitutional monarch - but as you say they are devolved to the PM (making him one of the most powerful PMs in terms of range of powers). However this is all handled by convention not by law. She certainly could use them though of course it would have obvious consequences. The weasel words could be rephrased to most powerful constitutional monarch in terms of her theoretical powers perhaps but it is hard to rank monarch's in terms of powers they might theoretically use as so many of them aren't precisely codified as to make that comparison easy. As to refusing consent - it depends on how you define that - the Queen refused a private members bill in the last parliament that sought to limit her war making powers. Though this was with Blairs advice.Alci12 13:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's not quite that. The debate of 'war making' by the Commons requires the sovereign's permission. In this case, the debate was to be on a private bill that would have resulted in Parliament (the Commons?) having to agree to make war before the Crown could go ahead. She declined to give that permission to the debate, on the advice of the Government. It wasn't an issue of refusing to assent to an affirmative vote in Parliament. Also, there is the convention that a Government's 'advice' to the monarch is binding, so she couldn't easily have allowed the debate with that in mind. -Splash - tk 14:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Great, our elected legislature cannot debate a limitation on the power of the Crown because it is vetoed by, er, the Crown. Vive la Revolution!217.154.66.11 12:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, vetoed by the government, really. This is why all other European monarchies are on the Belgian model of "actually have a written constitution." john k 12:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, the basic model is: the queen has nearly unlimited theoretical power to make war and peace, to appoint ministers, to dissolve parliament, to veto legislation and a fair amount of other stuff. In actual fact, however, that theoretical power is limited by a number of conventions which are not written into statute, but are considered to be part of the uncodified constitution:

1. The Queen must appoint ministers who can command a majority in the House of Commons.
2. The Queen may not dissolve parliament without the advice of her ministers.
3. The Queen may not unilaterally dismiss her ministers (perhaps with the exception of a situation where a ministry refused to resign despite the other party having attained a commons majority.)
4. The Queen may not refuse to give consent to legislation (perhaps with the exception of instances where her ministers advised her to do so)
5. The Queen is obliged to follow the advice given to her by her ministers, with respect to use of just about any powers that she has.

Is that about it? What this adds up to is that, so long as the monarch is willing to abide by these guidelines, she is powerless. However, there is nothing in statute law which would prevent her from, as her great-great-great-granduncle did in 1834, firing a ministry that commands a common majority, appointing a new minority ministry, and dissolving parliament and calling for new elections. The explicit legal situation now is, as I understand it, exactly the same as when William IV did this in 1834. What I'm not really sure of is what would happen if the Queen actually did do this. If, tomorrow, she were to fire Blair, appoint Cameron prime minister, and dissolve parliament, what would happen? Would this be considered legal, or not? Either way, one imagines it would be considered ill-advised, and even if accepted as technically legal the only obvious result would be that these powers would be officially taken away from the monarch. But I'm not sure it would be accepted as technically legal. Has anyone ever written about what would or should happen in the instance of a rogue monarch? john k 12:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

"The Queen must appoint ministers who can command a majority in the House of Commons." - that's bunkum I'm afraid, otherwise there would be no possibility of a hung parliament, and we've had one of those within living memory. Bbombbardier 11:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing legally to prevent a W IV or for that matter a Edward VII - where he insisted on the general election before he would consent to unprecedented peerage creations. Points 2/3 don't consider the situation were a government not to call a general election at the end of their term. The monarch would either have to appoint a minority administration simply to give her the 'advice' to call a general election or call one directly. The other tricky area is in a hung parliament, were no clear agreement reached the monarch might ultimately have to decide which coalition to ask to form a new government or even MacDonald like to find figure to could straddle two different groups. Finally were the PM to die in office there is constitutional clarity wrt the new PM. There has always been great care with the appointment of Deputy PMs to make clear that it would be unconstitutional for them to become PM as of right because the Monarchs hands cannot be bound. So Brown or Prescott would make an interesting test case of if this has changed. Alci12 16:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't the Parliament Act say that a new parliament has to be called after five years? But, yeah, there's plenty of ambiguous situations which could arise where the monarch would actually have to make choices. I was just thinking of the monarch's right to actively break the unwritten conventions. john k 16:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The Parliament Act of 1911 sets it at 5 years *but* this is the fun bit - how is it enforced. Only the monarch can dissolve parliament and the monarch cannot be taken to court - so how do you enforce the act? Alci12 16:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It is clear, from the precedent set by Edward VIII, that an intractable monarch would be forced out of office. If that happened today, it is very unlikely that the institution of monarchy itself would survive. The current queen knows the system, but Prince Charles may be a rogue element if and when he ever becomes king, judging by some of his past actions. I doubt that the monarchy will survive him in any case. He himself may never even become king - think of his current age and that of the queen, then look at how old the queen's own mother was when she died. TharkunColl 17:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Edward was only forced out of office because he let himself be. He could have made things a lot messier than he did. Perhaps he would have ultimately been forced out of office anyway (this is quite likely), but I don't think he even nearly exhausted his options. What is he had insisted on marrying Wallis, the Baldwin government had resigned in protest, and he'd appointed a new government headed by Churchill and dissolved parliament? A genuinely intractable monarch could have caused a lot more damage than Edward VIII did. john k 19:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Churchill complained 'our cock won't fight' or something to that effect. People forget now just how popular E VIII was and public support was probably on his side. However either way the point above was there is no legal enforcement of an act in which discretionary use the royal perogative is involved. Alci12 09:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Third longest reign

The page claims her reign is the third longest after Good Queen Vic and George III but weren't James I and Henry III's reigns longer than hers? GusF 12:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Henry III reigned for 56 years, and James I for 22 years in England, but 58 years in Scotland. TharkunColl 11:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes but wouldn't she be the fifth, counting James I since, as you said, he ws king for 58 years? GusF 13:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The point is arguable of course, but since most of his 58 years only applied to Scotland it may be misleading to include him. After all, whoever first put that sentence in had no problem in including George III, even though the "United Kingdom" as such was only set up after he had already been on the throne for 41 years.TharkunColl 14:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

But the kingdoms had been de facto joined under Geo III. In James' case, Scotland was a distinct, independent political entity prior to accession to the English throne. Fishhead64 15:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. And that's why it is reasonable to include George III, but not James I (since his reign in England was only 22 years). TharkunColl 15:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

However, there doesn't seem to be much reason to include Henry III, but not James VI. JPD (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

England - Great Britain - United Kingdom: the historical continuity between these entities is plain, even down to the enumeration of monarchs. But once we start including places that were once independent but were later annexed, such as Scotland, where does it end? TharkunColl 15:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - see the extended and somewhat surreal discussion above concerning whether the Queen should be Elizabeth I of Canada or Elizabeth II of Canada. Fishhead64 16:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that discussion made it quite clear that the numbering of monarchs is not a good guide to use. I also agree that there is no clear place to end, but it seems to me that listing English but not Scottish kings is controversial enough that the version we had before this discussion is probably the best option, as long as it makes it clear it is speaking of rulers of the whole of GB. JPD (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

This highlights a fundamental problem with a large number of Wikipedia articles, which appear to say that the English state was abolished in 1707. The people at the time most certainly didn't see it that way, and furthermore the Scots were under no illusion that they were being annexed. In any case, with the specific example of Henry III - he reigned for 56 years, so if we just wait for a couple more years the problem will go away. In the meantime, not including him would be factually incorrect. TharkunColl 17:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Henry III clearly reigned for longer than Elizabeth II has as yet. The UK is the successor to England in a way it isn't to Scotland, as Tharkun notes. I think she should clearly be listed as fourth longest reigning monarch, after Victoria, George III, and Henry III. john k 12:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

only monarch to be head of state of multiple nations?

It seems as though this might not technically be true. Jacques Chirac is Co-Prince of Andorra, which arguably makes him a monarch of Andorra. He is also, as President of the French Republic, the Head of State of another country. Which would mean that Chirac is a monarch who is head of state of two countries. Right? john k 12:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

And isn't Queen Margrethe II of Denmark also queen of Greenland? Does Greenland count as an independent state? It certainly had enough autonomy to be able to leave the EU, anyway. TharkunColl 12:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Greenland and the Faroe Islands are not considered independent states. They are self-governing dependent territories of Denmark. She is not "Queen of Denmark" and separately "Queen of Greenland" - she is "Queen of Denmark," which makes her queen of Greenland. john k 12:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Because of the France/Andorra situation it would be preferable to say Elizabeth is "the only person who is now monarch of more than one independent nation". Greenland is not an independent nation because Denmark is responsible for its foreign affairs. --Mathew5000 13:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Andorra is independent, either. It's defence is looked after by France and Spain, for example. TharkunColl 13:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Andorra is independent; it's a full member of the UN. --Mathew5000 15:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of examples of independent states sharing monarchs in the past (Scotland & England, Norway & Sweden, UK & Hanover, etc.), but I think that at this point in time EIIR is the only monarch who reigns as sovereign of multiple autonomous nations.

Can the co-princes of Andorra be considered monarchs? --gbambino 15:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds more like a duarchy to me. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

lol --gbambino 16:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Chirac sounds like the head of state of one and a half countries to me. Proteus (Talk) 16:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

But, if he's a monarch, or co-monarch, of Andorra, then he's technically a monarch who is head of state of more than one country, despite being a prince in one and a president in the other. An interesting situation. --gbambino 17:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

According to this Chirac may well be a monarch of Andorra. --gbambino 17:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You can't have more than one monarch, though — the word means "sole ruler". Proteus (Talk) 17:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

That's the original Greek, certainly. Beyond that is uncertain. OED gives us "any ruler or sovereign bearing the title of king, queen, emperor, empress, or the equivalent of one of these." Which would main that each of the two Spartan kings would qualify in English usage as a "monarch." I'm not sure about sovereign princes, though. Are they equivalent to kings or emperors? Is the Grand Duke of Luxembourg a monarch? john k 23:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Under the original definition, the USA is a "monarchy" because executive authority is vested in a single individual. The UK, on the other hand, is a "republic", because executive authority is compartmentalised and legally delegated to different people. TharkunColl 23:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not really true. All executive authority derives from the monarch in the United Kingdom. The monarch has the right to appoint and dismiss ministers at will, and so forth. john k 02:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Only in a theoretical, technical sense. The true power of the monarch would be mercilessly exposed if one of them ever tried to exercise such "rights". TharkunColl 06:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but cabinet government is almost as much of a sham. The Prime Minister, not the ministry as a whole, exercises pretty much all of the monarch's theoretical powers. john k 10:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the "oneness" of the mon- prefix is retained in English, regardless of what the OED says. We have lots of words with it in where the importance of "one" is still apparent (monocle, monorail, monism, mono sound, monochrome, monogamy, etc.), so it's hardly a connotation that's unique to classicists. Proteus (Talk) 06:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Are Spartan kings ever referred to as "monarchs." As in "the old Spartan monarch died in Egypt," or something along those lines? I know the government is referred to as a "dyarchy". john k 10:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Not in my experience, no. They're generally just called "King Name" (or "Name"), since they can't really even be called "the King" or what not since they weren't the King at all, merely one of them. They weren't really kings in any meaningful sense of the word, anyway, merely the holders of hereditary high offices of state. (About their only significant function seems to have been acting as military commanders.) Proteus (Talk) 15:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Acting as military commanders is the primary function of kings in ancient societies, though having two of them is certainly unusual. Like us (but in different ways) the Spartans had limited and restricted the role of their monarchs in their society. TharkunColl 15:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

We've gotten rather far afield, huh? In terms of how Spartan kings are referred to, one would assume that with proper antecedents, a Spartan king could be called "the King." Also, acting as military commanders in Spartan society is a rather important function...we know a lot more about the Spartan kings than we do about the Ephors. john k 16:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It was certainly an important function, but by no means the primary one. They had almost no executive power, which has always been the most important function of a "king" (and didn't command the army in the sense that, say, Philip of Macedon, commanded the army — they didn't get to decide who to fight, for instance, merely how to fight who they'd been told to fight). Proteus (Talk) 16:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

To get back to the idea of a crowned head of state (maybe we could use that term, instead of 'monarch'?)who is sovereign of several independent nations- here's a conundrum for you all. If a state whose head is the queen came to be in a state of war with another country whose head is the queen (say Australia kidnapped the New Zealand All Blacks) would Her Majesty be in a state of hostility against herself? Interesting, eh? Sounds like a daft question, but it could happen! Maybe it has! Anyone know?--Gazzster 02:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I preferred the old picture

A while back this article had a picture that was more regal. Can we have it back please? Chicheley 19:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The licensing situation of the picture was rather poor. Furthermore, it showed her wearing the insignia of only one of her realms (Canada) and was rather a peculiar choice as a result. -Splash - tk 19:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the current picture is poor at best. Autkm 05:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Scotland

Is she not Elizabeth I of Scotland? Didn't see any mention of that...

No. Proteus (Talk) 08:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

To expand Proteus's answer, see the lengthy discussion in the Queen of Canada section, which takes up the Scottish example as well. -- Jao 12:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death on various pages. The conclusion being that logically she might be Elizabeth I of the UK, Canada, Australia, etc. but that legally she is Elizabeth II of the UK, Canada, Australia, etc. And if it's good enough for the courts, it's good enough for Wikipedia. She could only become Elizabeth I of Scotland if Scotland became independent and even then she would almost certainly choose to be called Elizabeth II. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with calling her what the courts decide, but she is the first Elizabeth of the United Kingdom. The first Elizabeth did not rule over the United Kingdom, but just England and Wales. Historically, the term is incorrect. She's Elizabeth II of England, but Elizabeth I of the United Kingdom. Rshu 23:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It has been determined that the highnest ordinal is to be used. That being said, it is not incorrect. Charles 23:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, well, would this be true? If there is another King James, he will have to be James the IX of the United Kingdom. Even though there was never a James III in England, the monarch goes by the highest numeral, right? Rshu 02:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

He would be James VIII, if you accept the Glorious Revolution and its aftermath. He would be James the IX and IV if you don't. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Despite the legality of her "II of the UK" status, the post boxes weren't the only things in Scotland which didn't entirely fall in line. I've added a note about the Royal Mail vehicles (also no "EIIR") and the different issue with red telephone boxes, which were designed to have the wrong (for Scotland) crown at the top, and were modified to have interchangeable ones. Have a look at a K6 box; if it's from before the early 1950s it will have a solid crown, if it's later, under the layers of paint you'll see the crown is on a swappable square plate. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 14:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It's probably a foregone conclusion that no future British monarch will ever use a name that yields a number different to the English number. In other words, we'll never have any monarchs named James, Kenneth, Constantine, Donald... etc. TharkunColl 16:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

There's a persistent rumour that Charles wanted to call his first son Arthur, but was blocked from doing so. Not Wikipedia-esque, just thought I'd throw it into the conversation ;-) – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

There have been at least two Arthurs who should have succeeded to the English throne, but died young. Seems like there will never be an Arthur "II". TharkunColl 16:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Use of the word "Issue"

Hello everyone - I was wondering why is the word "issue" to mean "children" of female royalty in the wikipedia template? It's a bit archaic, perhaps it is a tradition when discussing this subject? It is not used on the pages describing male royalty (see Edward VIII) 70.149.122.165 (talk · contribs)

Hi anon user. The use of "issue" is fairly standard in genealogy and is an acceptable (and sometimes encouraged) encyclopedic format. That being said, it is especially traditional when discussing royalty as it is heavily based on ancestry and descent. It is not applied evenly, however, although I feel that it would be better to do so. It is not restricted to females. Charles 01:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Spouse/consort?

All monarch bio infoboxes (why isn't there a template?) use spouse. Wouldn't consort be more fitting to the context? Paul C 17:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe it really would be. Charles 19:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for Elizabeth II/Archive 8 has failed, for the following reason(s):

(Lots of Places in need of citations and even in the with them, their one siddedness may indicate POV issues in specifically in terms of the queens motivations toward Diana (not getting her, why she bowed, etc.) TonyJoe 01:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That's all very well, but you cluttered up the article with so many s that it looked a total mess. I have deleted most of them, not because I necessarily think they do not need citations or that they are not POV, but just because nobody would want to read it in the state you left it in. If you have a problem then I suggest that you find the citations and put them in yourself, instead of just littering the text with citation tags and then swanning off to let someone else do the work for you. Sorry if that's a bit harsh, but it really did look awful.Richard75 17:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Area of realms and territories

Is there any info on the total area of the Queen's realms and territories? Would it make her the head of state with the most territory in the world? Astrotrain 19:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Adding up all the areas of the Commonwealths Realms, it comes to about 18,726,720km² (7,230,427mi²). As you know she's head of state of each one separately so the award naturally goes to Putin. However as a person, I guess this would make her head of state with the most territory on a collective basis. Craigy (talk) 19:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Does that include the territory she claims in Antarctica? Astrotrain 21:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

No. The above calculation doesn't include other overseas territories and crown dependencies either, so adding all those to the above result (as well as Akrotiri and Dhekelia) would give 20,140,386km² (7,776,246mi²). This all adds up to almost 7.5% of the Earth's land mass, or almost 25.5% of the Earth's total surface area. Craigy (talk) 11:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

In your calculations, you've included only the United Kingdom's Antarctic Territories. Far more important to the total land area is Australian Antarctica (Australian Antarctic Territory), which, at over 6,000,000 km², is almost as large as Australia itself. There's also New Zealand Antarctica (Ross Dependency), which is larger than New Zealand, although 'only' 450,000 km². Thus, including those, the figure's something like 27,000,000 km². Bastin 16:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Boxes at the end

Is is really true that Geo VI was King of Canada? If my information is correct there was only one title after 1948, the one that went Geo 6, of the UK and the dominions over the seas etc, King, Defender of the faith. I had the understanding that the various national titles only came into existence some time into Elizabeth 2's reign and that the Queen's oaths to govern the various realms was only in recognition of their independent political status, and not because of a separate obligation to do so due to separate titles.

Also the huge list of boxes make the article look unprofessional, esp. with the one-off transitional titles like Queen of [newly independent colony]---I've noticed that in some cases with the nobility titles, titles whose first and last holders are the same person do not have boxes at all.

Also, I think succession boxes for the new national titles (Queen of Canada etc) should not be there until Her Majesty ... 'departs' (may she live a long and happy life), though on this point I am willing to be ignored since articles on presidents of new republics will probably have them.

Sorry for myincoherent rant. Apologies if these topics have been considered before. 202.180.71.156 07:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know when it got changed. It used to be a little more clear, showing that George preceeded her, but as King of the UK, not as King of Canada .. --Q Canuck 18:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

George V, Edward VIII and George VI were all sucessively King of Canada - due to the 1931 Statute of Westminster. Though the monarch's title wasn't changed to explicitly state this until 1952, it was altered in 1927 to reflect that the dominions were no longer a subordinate part of the UK, over all of which George V reigned as the British King, and that the King was now King of the UK and of Ireland and of the other dominions separately.

This new structure was demonstrated after 1931 in the point that the King could no longer be advised in Canadian affairs by anyone other than his Canadian ministers. A less political example was also seen in 1939 when George VI made a visit to the United States from Canada, and was accompanied by the Canadian Prime Minister, not a British minister - meaning the King was there as King of Canada and not of the UK.

Though the number of boxes may make it seem unwieldly, it's simply caused by the fact that the Queen is, and was, monarch of so many nations. Frankly, I thought whoever constructed the list did an excellent job of explaining such a complex situation in a clearly laid out manner. --gbambino 23:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Her Majesty does not have a surname. She is head of the Royal House of Windsor, but it is a fallacy to present this as Her surname (it is as absurd as listing Tony Blair's name as 'Anthony Charles Lynton Blair Labour'). I have therefore removed it from that misleading context.