Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Talk archives for Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom (current talk page)
<< 1 < Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 > 10 >>

Contents

Commonwealth Realm

A similar discussion is occuring at Talk:Commonwealth Realm concerning the use of the term "British Crown" for NPOV reasons rather than using only "The Crown" which assumes readers are not Danish, Swedish, Dutch, Swazi etc. Please go to Talk:Commonwealth Realm. Homey 17:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

But, please be sure to note that the discussion is in regards to the Crown as the body shared amongst the Commonwealth Realms, not the "British Crown" in terms of the Crown within the jurisdiction of the UK Parliament. --gbambino 18:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

The Crown is not shared among the Commonwealth Realms. The Crown in Australia etc is a separate legal entity from the British Crown, just as the Queen of Australia is legally a different person to the Queen of the United Kingdom. This article should not get bogged down in semantic trivialities. Adam 05:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The Crown in Australia is indeed a seperate legal entity from the Crown in Canada, however they are still one Crown, just as the Queen of Australia is a seperate legal person to the Queen of Canada, but are still the same one person. The Crown is shared equally amongst the Realms just as the Queen is -- this as per the Balfour Declaration, 1926 and the Statute of Westminster 1931. --gbambino 14:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

"The Crown in Australia is indeed a seperate legal entity from the Crown in Canada, however they are still one Crown." Kindly explain how both elements of that sentence can be true. Adam 22:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

You correctly pointed out earlier that the Queen of Australia is a separate legal entity to the Queen of the United Kingdom. However, it can't be denied that Elizabeth II of Australia is the same person as the Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. This is the same for the Crown of which she is Sovereign -- the Crown within Australia is a separate legal institution to the Crown within the UK, but it is still the same Crown.

One Crown, one Queen, but the constitutions of each sovereign Realm create a distinct legal framework within which that Crown/Monarch operates; hence we see the term "The Crown in Right of Australia," or "The Crown in Right of the United Kingdom." In other words, when one says "Canadian Crown" or "British Crown" they really mean "The Crown" operating within a defined legal jurisdiction (ie. country). This is the result of the Balfour Declaration and the Statute of Westminster.

As Richard Toporoski put it: "I am perfectly prepared to concede, even happily affirm, that the British Crown no longer exists in Canada, but that is because legal reality indicates to me that in one sense, the British Crown no longer exists in Britain: the Crown transcends Britain just as much as it does Canada. One can therefore speak of "the British Crown" or "the Canadian Crown" or indeed the "Barbadian" or "Tuvaluan" Crown, but what one will mean by the term is the Crown acting or expressing itself within the context of that particular jurisdiction. Dr Smith suggests that this concept of "divisibility", however long it took for it to be articulated or accepted, explains how Canadians and Australians were able to make federal systems work. But there is a danger that this concept of the "divisibility" of the Crown, which, given the manner in which the legislative independence of the Queen's realms in the Commonwealth has developed, I must admit is a fact, can lead to the idea that the Crown is at present "divided". This is not true, but it would immediately become true if, let us say, an alteration were to be made in the United Kingdom to the Act of Settlement 1701, providing for the succession of the Crown... There is no existing provision in our law, other than the Act of Settlement 1701, that provides that the King or Queen of Canada shall be the same person as the King or Queen of the United Kingdom. If the British law were to be changed and we did not change our law... the Crown would be divided. The person provided for in the new law would become king or queen in at least some realms of the Commonwealth; Canada would continue on with the person who would have become monarch under the previous law..."

So, only if Canada were to unilaterally alter its line of succession (against the Statute of Westminster) would there be a Canadian Crown completely separated from The Crown shared equally by the other Commonwealth Realms. Until then, the "Canadian Crown" is only another way of referring to the institution of "The Crown in Right of Canada." --gbambino 23:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Well I think both you and Mr Toporovsky are wrong. Australia is an independent state, a constitutional monarchy, whose head of state is the Queen of Australia. In Australia the expression "the Crown" refers to the legal personality of the Queen of Australia as an embodiment of the state. The fact that Elizabeth Windsor, who holds the title Queen of Australia, also holds titles in other countries is quite irrelevant to that. Australia does not share its statehood with any other state. Adam 02:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

While I don't pretend to be an absolute expert on the matter, Mr. Toporoski certainly is. And, please be aware that his words are only one example.

Like the other Realms, Australia is without doubt a completely independent kingdom. Only Australia, also like the other Realms, is a kingdom that has freely agreed to share its Crown with 15 other countries, and to abide by the convention laid out in the Statute of Westminster (a part of Australia's constitution) that all these Realms (and that means the UK too) must maintain the same Monarch and the same line of succession to keep the one Crown over them unified. Thus, though they have the power to do so, no Realm should alter their line of succession without the consent of the other Realms.

This arrangement where the Crown is shared (like a treaty, as one Canadian judge put it) does not impede on any nation's sovereignty. Each Realm's constitution sets up a legal framework which defines the State, separate and independent of any other Realm, with the Crown as its foundation and the Sovereign as the living embodiment. Because each legal framework is completely independent of any other, the Crown within it will operate distinctly from the Crown within another, giving us the Crown in Right of Australia (the Australian Crown), separate from the Crown in Right of Canada (the Canadian Crown), separate from the Crown in Right of the UK (the British Crown), and so on; but ultimately they are all the same one Crown.

To try and sum it up, the one Crown is like a pan-national umbrella over all 16 Realms of the Commonwealth, being shared by the Realms who have each taken one equal part of it as the foundation of their State, and made that one sixteenth, by their constitutional laws, their own. But as long as it is shared, all the Realms must agree to the Sovereign and the line of succession that follows.

I also used to think there literally were 16 separate crowns. But after understanding the purpose of the changes that took place between 1926 and 1931 (the Balfour Declaration, the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act, and the Statute of Westminster) it became clear that there is one Crown shared, just as there is one Monarch shared, but each country is still a sovereign kingdom. --gbambino 16:39, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Possibly at the level of high constitutional metaphysics that is true, but in practice it is totally meaningless. This arrangement has been preserved in aspic during the lifetime of E2, mainly out of respect for her, but all the content has drained out of it, and no-one now things of "the Crown" as anything other than a fancy word for "the state." I suspect once E2 departs the whole structure will unravel fairly rapidly. Adam 11:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Overseas Visits

Wikipedia has a List of state visits made by Queen Elizabeth II and a List of Commonwealth visits made by Queen Elizabeth II, but they do not encompass a total of her overseas visits, I guess. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think it is possible for the Queen to pay private and 'official' visits to other countries. Mapple 09:44, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Her private visits are marked in List of Commonwealth visits made by Queen Elizabeth II by "(private)" at the end of each country. I don't believe she's ever ventured outside of the Commonwealth for a private holiday. It would be quite interesting to know of any holidays she has took outside of the Commonwealth though. Craigy (talk) 21:19, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
She was in Magaluf a few years back.
I've had in mind her visits to the Royal events--weddings, funerals, the like (the Queen attended King Baudouin's funeral in 1993, for example). Mapple 21:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
King Baudouin's funeral was, I believe, the only royal event she has ever gone to in another country. She has also paid private visits to farms in Kentucky. --Ibagli 16:37, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Hmm... Elizabeth II attended the silver wedding celebration of Queen Juliana and Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands in 1962. Probably there were some other visits. Mapple 19:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
According to the 'Yearbook of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia 1980', Elizabeth II visited several of the Gulf states in 1979. Mapple 10:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Defender of the Faith

I know that this is a title that she holds in some Commonwealth Realms, but I am not sure that it is appropriate in that sentence. Is it a "position"? If so, is it a position that she can be said to reign in? If not, then it should either be left out, or the whole sentence modified. To me, as a not universally used title, it doesn't seem to belong in this part of the article. JPD 09:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Its a title she holds as have all British monarchs since the 15th century. So it is important. The title is on all British coins- eg Elizabeth II DG Reg FD, where FD is the latin for Defender of the Faith in abbriviation. Astrotrain 10:03, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
I know that! My point is that the sentence I removed it from is about positions that she reigns in, not about titles that she holds. There is a whole section on titles later on. JPD 10:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
That's a bit more complicated. Firstly, she does not reign as ' Head of the Commonwealth, Supreme Governor of the Church of England, Commander-in-Chief of the UK Armed Forces' either. Secondly, the Queen of the UK is Defender of the Faith. The Queen of Canada is Defender of the Faith. The Queen of Australia is not. Mapple 10:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
The article is about Liz herself, not her roles in the different realms. She personally has the title Defender of the Faith. Astrotrain 10:27, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
She doesn't personally hold the title 'Defender of the Faith.' She holds it in her roles as Queen of the UK and Queen of Canada. In the UK, it refers to her role as Supreme Governor of the Church of England. In Canada, I believe it refers to her role as upholding peoples' right to have a religion. The Queen of Papua New Guinea is not the defender of the faith, however. In the unlikely event of her abdication, she would lose the title 'defender of the faith' as only the monarchs of the UK and Canada have that title. If she held as a personal title, she would keep it. --Ibagli 22:30, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Do you propose to add the whole bit of her titles in that particular section? As for me, I think that the section has to be reworded. Mapple 10:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
She has that title, and uses it in some, but not all, of her realms. The other titles listed are not simply titles, but positions. The use of "reign" for these positions may be questionable, so maybe the sentence should be reworded, but the distinction between positions and titles will still remain. JPD 10:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Intro paragraph

Shouldn't we introduce this as Queen Elizabeth II, not just Elizabeth II? This would make more sense as articles like Anne of Great Britain are now simply introduced as Anne, which doesn't make much sense to me. --Matjlav(talk) 21:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

"Anne (1665-1714) was Queen of Great Britain..." - what's wrong with that? I think that it's awkward to include the title before the dates, and completely unncessary. john k 03:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Under that logic, we should introduce articles like Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall as Camilla (b. 1947) is the Duchess of Cornwall, etc". Which isn't what we do. --Matjlav(talk) 16:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

"Duchess of Cornwall" is part of her name. john k 17:34, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Plus, standards for reigning monarchs are different from standards for everybody else. john k 17:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

My opinion is that just saying "Anne" or "Victoria" is not specific enough. We do not need to introduce someone like George W. Bush as President George W. Bush, because there aren't many other George W. Bushes. However, there are countless Annes and Victorias, so it just seems proper to add the designation Queen. --Matjlav(talk) 21:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Positions/titles in intro

Firstly, the Queen is not Commander in Chief in all realms. Secondly, I removed this, and the reference to Defender of the Faith, because they belong better in later parts of the article. The Commander-in-Chief role is one of the functions of her positions as Queen of realms already mentioned, so belongs in the "role in government" section. The Defender of the Faith is a title, not a position, and is described in the titles section. It is a title given to the person in positions already mentioned (Queen of UK, Canada, Supreme Governor of CoE), and doesn't describe anything extra, so does not belong outside the titles section. JPD 10:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Two quibbles

  • "She is the fortieth monarch since William I, the Conqueror." No, she isn't. From William I to Anne there was a Kingdom of England, which no longer exists. Elizabeth is Queen of the United Kingdom, which has only existed since 1707.
  • "She is known as 'Lilibet' to her close family." Who calls her this today? Her children? Her husband? I doubt it. Even if they do, the sentence is speculation. Adam 03:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the United Kingdom has only existed since 1801. But I think it's fair to say that she is the 40th English monarch since William the Conqueror - she is the monarch of England, even if she isn't the Queen of England. My understanding is that "Lilibet" was her childhood nickname. john k 04:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

  • The United Kingdom of Great Britain was created in 1707. It added "and Ireland" to its name in 1801 and "Northern" to that name in 1922. So the UK has existed since 1707.
Er, no, the united (lower-case - i.e., not part of the name) Kingdom of Great Britain was created in 1707. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was created in 1801. john k 04:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Er, yes, you are right. But the point is that the Kingdom of England ceased to exist in 1707 and was replaced by another Kingdom, so I am right about that. Adam 04:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The article doesn't say "she is the 40th English monarch since William I," it says "She is the fortieth monarch since William I," leaving unanswered the question "40th monarch of what?" If that question cannot be answered correctly and concisely it should be removed from the opening paragraph.
This is the key point, which you haven't answered. Adam 04:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, I am not advocating saying "she is the fortieth monarch since William I," so I don't see why I should have to defend that. john k 06:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Excellent. Then I will delete it. Adam 06:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The statement "she is the 40th English monarch since William the Conqueror" is in any case also incorrect. In what sense were William I, James I, William III or George I "English"? George I was not King of England, was not born in England, did not have English parents, did not die in England and did not speak English. His claim to the throne was based on his descent from James I, who was half Scottish and half French. He could hardly have been less English if he tried. So Elizabeth is clearly not 40th in a line of "English monarchs."
She is the fortieth monarch of England. You are being purposely difficult here. I am not saying that the person is ethnically English, just that they reigned over England. Whenever Queen Anne is given a reign of 1702-1714, which she almost always is, people are assuming a continuity between pre-1707 (England and Scotland) and post-1707 (Great Britain, later the UK). George I may not have been King of England, but he was king of England. john k 04:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, yes, but he was also king of Kent, but we don't call him that, because Kent was not a Kingdom (although, like England, it once was). The key question, still to be answered, is "40th monarch of what?" And the answer is, of nowhere: not England, not the UK. So the statement is incorrect. Adam 04:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, yes, but he was also king of Kent, but we don't call him that, because Kent was not a Kingdom (although, like England, it once was). The key question, still to be answered, is "40th monarch of what?" And the answer is, of nowhere: not England, not the UK. So the statement is incorrect. Adam 04:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
The status of England within the UK is rather different than the status of Kent. It seems rather tendentious to me to pretend that what happened in 1707 was really the creation of a new kingdom, rather than the annexation of Scotland by England, which then took a new name. This is certainly how it was viewed by Scots for most of the 18th century, and by most English people until well into the twentieth century. Lists of the "Kings of England" always start with William I, and continue without a break through Anne and the Hanoverians to Victoria and her successors. Sure, this is technically incorrect. But it also acknowledged a larger truth, which is that the Kingdom of Great Britain, and the United Kingdom which has succeeded it, are successor kingdoms to the Kingdom of England, which remains by far the dominant part of the kingdom. This is not only true of the monarchy - the Westminster parliament is the direct successor of the English parliament; many of the Great Officers of State still hold their position specifically over England, and not over the United Kingdom; and so forth. That said, if you want to remove it, go ahead - it's not terribly important. But the pedantry over this point (usually a pedantry supported by furiously angry Scottish people, although obviously not in this case) can become rather grating. john k 06:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

My great-grandfather was a Gillespie from Lanarkshire, so och aye hoots mon etc etc. Adam 06:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

  • The Lilibet statement is clearly wrong and needs to be moved and put in the past tense. Adam 04:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough. john k 04:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

However long the UK has existed, and whether you view it as a successor to the Kingdom of England, or a union of previous kingdoms including England and Scotland or even like to think of it as a completely new thing, it is definitely true that the monarchs of the UK are those who have inherited it from those who were once kings of England and Scotland, so the descent in both lines is relevant. It is probably a bad idea to mention William I without mentioning Scottish lineage, but it is plain ridiculous to leave out both, but include descent from the Kings of Wessex, which has nothing to do with inheriting the crown. JPD 17:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Do you think we should count English monarchs from William the Conqueror and Scottish monarchs from Kenneth MacAlpin? Or from Malcolm Canmore? john k 17:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

"Windsor" surname

It should be noted that the anon who removed "Windsor", referring to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies), himself added the relevant guideline to that page earlier today [1]. — Dan | Talk 20:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Afaik, the introductory paragraph should not use any family names for royalty except where English speakers normally use them (rather, surname questions can be explained at a portion of the article, not to push/endorse their use if the use is uncertain or nonexistent).

As we very well know that her putative surname is not in use, and certainly not in similar use as commoners' surnames are, I believe we should not be pushing its use here. Its place is not in the opening line.

Its place is somewhere in the article, later - I think it could be put it into her early life, stating that she was born to the Windsor royal family.

If there are no significant objections, the surname questoion will be edited into the article according to how I outlined it above. Arrigo 22:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I referred to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles), where that specific instruction has been already for a long time, and was a result of consensus. Not mynproblem if you do not want to accept that guideline. Please read it carefully, it actually says Elizabeth II's article as its example.

For visual clarity, an article should begin with the form "{royal title} {name} {ordinal if appropriate} (full name (+ surname if known, but not for monarchs)" with the full name unformatted and the rest in bold (3 's). In practice, this means for example an article on Britain's Queen Elizabeth should begin "Queen Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary)".

Should we for some reason ignore it? 217.140.193.123 20:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Surnames should not be put to royalty articles as if surnames were used. Thus, surnames belong to the introductiry paragraph only very exceptionally, and should not usually be there in case of royals. Particularly monarchs do not use surnames. Elizabeth II's introductory chapter should not contain the surname, the surname issue should be explained apropriately in later portions of the article. Arrigo 11:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Descent from Egbert

Why is her descent from Egbert notable? And shouldn't her descent from Kenneth McAlpin also be noted in that case? I also note that the number of generations depends heavily on how you count. There are a number of ways to do it, and in particular there are three notable ways to get from Edward III to Margaret Tudor. To wit:

  1. Edward III - Lionel of Antwerp - Philippa of Clarence - Roger Mortimer, 4th Earl of March - Anne Mortimer - Richard, Duke of York - Edward IV - Elizabeth of York - Margaret Tudor (8 generations)
  2. Edward III - John of Gaunt - John Beaufort, 1st Earl of Somerset - John Beaufort, 1st Duke of Somerset - Margaret Beaufort - Henry VII - Margaret Tudor (6 generations)
  3. Edward III - Edmund of Langley - Richard, Earl of Cambridge - Richard, Duke of York - Edward IV - Elizabeth of York - Margaret Tudor (6 generations)

I would suggest that this "fact" be removed. john k 16:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Queen of Pakistan

Queen Elizebeth was the Queen of Pakistan until 1956, when Pakistan became a republic. Sara Khan - 13 Sep 2005

The same sort of thing applies to many other countries. It would be ridiculous to list them all at the beginning of the article. JPD 10:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
It would not be ridiculous! Pakistan is the largest country she was the Queen off...150 million people! It should be mentioned in the article. Sara Khan - 13 Sep 2005.

She was not Queen of Pakistan. Before it became a republic Pakistan was a Dominion, not a Kingdom. She was of course Sovereign of all the Dominions, but she was not "Queen of" any of them until they became separate Realms as they now are. And the last time I looked India was larger than Pakistan. Adam 15:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

She became Queen 5 years after India and Pakistan gained Independence. India became a republic before she ascended to the thrown and Pakistan became a republic 4 years after; so she NEVER was a Queen, sovereign or head of state of India, so India being larger than Pakistan is IMMATERIAL, but I am glad that you know that India is larger than Pakistan, good for you. She IS the queen of Canada and it’s STILL a dominion not a Kingdom.
She WAS the Queen of Pakistan and Pakistan is the largest country she was the Queen off...150 million people! It should be mentioned in the article. Sara Khan - 14 Sep 2005
Queen Elizabeth II was also the Queen of Ghana, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Tanganyika, Uganda, Kenya, Malawi, Mauritius, South Africa, The Gambia, Ceylon, Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana, Malta, and Fiji, but those aren't mentioned in the introduction. I believe the point here is that the introduction is supposed to be just that--an introduction. Elizabeth II does not currently reign over any of the above countries (including Pakistan), so they really shouldn't be listed in the introduction as all it would do is bloat up the article. Currently, information on the realms that the Queen previously reigned over can be found at List of Titles and Honours of Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. 青い(Aoi) 09:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
I quote myself "It would not be ridiculous! Pakistan is the largest country she was the Queen off...150 million people! IT SHOULD BE MENTIONED IN THE ARTICLE." I did not say that it should be in the begining. It should be mentioned somewhere in the article though, because it is a very interesting fact. Sara Khan - 14 Sep 2005
I said it would be ridiculous to list them all at the beginning of the article. You replied that it would not be ridiculous. I still say it would be ridiculous, but agree that since she definitely did reign as Queen over Pakistan, it could be mentioned in the article, but not at the beginning, and only if the others are listed as well. We're not in the habit of ignoring coutnries simply because they are smaller. JPD 10:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Saying something is ridiculous is too strong a reaction, if you do not agree just say so in a polite manner. Who said that you should ignore smaller countries? Do not assume things. Small and poor countries get ignored everywhere, I for one do not ignore them. All countries she ruled over may be mentioned; it would be very interesting for the readers. Have a great day. Sara Khan - 14 Sep 2005
Sara, please assume good faith. JPD was just noting that other countries should be mentioned as well. Both of you (as well as most of the other contributors to this article) seem to be acting in good faith so please don't take content disputes personally. Thanks! 青い(Aoi) 08:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not realise that "ridiculous" would cause offence, especially since you say you are not advocating what I said was ridiculous. I don't think anyone has said that the former dominions should not be listed somewhere in the article, so go ahead and do that. The only things I object to are: having another long list in the introduction; and listing only Pakistan but not the others. JPD 10:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Good, I am glad that you get my point. And if someone labels as "ridiculous" something that involves my country or someone else's country it is bound to cause offence. Sara Khan - 16 Sep 2005 - 10:17 (PST)

I wish people would learn some constitutional history here. Elizabeth has never been Queen of Pakistan, because there has never been a Kingdom of Pakistan for her to be Queen of. Before it became a republic Pakistan was a Dominion, a transitional form between a Colony and a Commonwealth Realm as now exists. The Dominions did not have independent Crowns, and therefore the King or Queen did not have the title "King (or Queen) of Pakistan", or Nigeria, or wherever. As the British Empire evolved into the modern Commonwealth, some Dominions chose to become republics, while others (like Canada and Australia) became independent Commonwealth Realms (that is, Kingdoms), with a common Monarch, Elizabeth. That is why it is correct to call Elizabeth "Queen of Canada, "Queen of Australia", etc, while it is not correct to say that she has ever been "Queen of Pakistan." Adam 14:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Adam, what exactly is the distinction between a dominion and a commonwealth realm? I've never heard such a distinction made. As far as I can tell, in most of the supposed "dominions," like Ghana and Nigeria and the like, the title used was "Queen of Ghana," "Queen of Nigeria," and so forth. Although our current article on the queen's titles says this was true of Pakistan as well, this does not seem actually to be the case, although it might be argued that whether or not the style of Queen of Pakistan was used, she was Queen of Pakistan. john k 14:54, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

A Dominion was a self-governing constituent of the British Empire. The original Dominions were Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Newfoundland and the Irish Free State. They were not independent Realms and the Monarch did not use the title "Queen of Australia" etc, although the term was sometimes used unofficially. Dominion statesmen like Menzies would have emphatically denied that Australia was a separate kingdom. The Statute of Westminster, however, began a process of dissolution which eventually led all the Dominions either to become republics (South Africa, Ireland) or independent Commonwealth Realms (the others), with legally separate Crowns but with the same person as Queen of all of them. In Australia this was formalised in 1973, in Canada somewhat earlier I think. As the former colonies became independent, starting with India, they made similar choices. India, Pakistan and I think Burma were given the dignified title of Dominion but all three chose to become republics. (Some of the more Anglophile colonies such as the Caribbean islands chose to become Commonwealth Realms.) Therefore, there was never a separate Kingdom or Realm of Pakistan. While Pakistan was a Dominion it had a Governor-General and acknowledged the Queen as Sovereign, just as Australia did in the 1920s, but it was not a Realm and the Queen was not Queen of Pakistan. A Monarch cannot be "King of X" or "Queen of X" unless X is an independent monarchy, and Pakistan was never such a thing. Now it's bedtime here in the Antipodes, so we can resume this fascinating discussion tomorrow. Adam 15:16, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I am fairly certain that this is incorect, or garbled at least. The defining thing that changed the status was the Statute of Westminster, which was in 1931. The difference between the name "commonwealth realm" and the name "dominion" is simply one of style, and has no legal meaning (see our Dominion article, for instance). I am uncertain how one can draw the distinction. Was Elizabeth II Queen of Fiji? Was she Queen of Malta? Was she Queen of Mauritius? If so, why wasn't she Queen of Ghana or Queen of Tanganyika? Obviously, she held the latter titles for a much shorter period of time. But I don't think that there's an actual difference in kind. The former British colonies generally gained independence as dominions (but not always - Burma was immediately a republic, Malaysia was a federation of native monarchies, and so forth). They would then have the choice if they wanted to remain dominions or to become republics. Many chose to become republics very quickly (e.g. India, Tanganyika, Ghana), others (e.g. Ceylon, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Sierra Leone) chose to remain dominions. At a certain point, it became unfashionable to use the term "dominion," and "commonwealth realm" came into use instead. Also, later on, some of the dominions/commonwealth realms which had remained as such for some time after independence decided to become republics (e.g. Ceylon, Trinidad and Tobago, Sierra Leone). It is my understanding that usage of separate official titles (e.g. "Queen of Canada," "Queen of Papua New Guinea," etc.) first became customary either with the Statute of Westminster or the accession of the current queen. Now, Pakistan is, I think, a different case, as I don't believe the title of "Queen of Pakistan" was ever used. But this has nothing to do with some fictitious distinction between a dominion and a commonwealth realm - there is no such distinction. The latter is simply a more modern term for the same thing. (Obviously, the precise legal meaning of what a dominion/commonwealth realm is has changed over the past century. But these changes, related to various acts passed in Westminster, simply gave more sovereignty to dominions. They did not create a separate category of "commonwealth realm" which was different from a "dominion".) I will admit that I am not 100% sure of this. But if there is a difference between a commonwealth realm and a dominion, I'd be interested to learn when Jamaica, say, stopped being a dominion and became a commonwealth realm. Until tomorrow, then... john k 16:54, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

There is no real difference between the term "dominion" and "realm." However, as all the 16 countries under the Crown are equal, it would seem silly to call the UK a dominion. Commonwealth Realm has become the common term used to describe those independent kingdoms of the Commonwealth of Nations which share the same crown.

As Pakistan adopted the Statute of Westminster in 1947, but became a republic in 1956, Elizabeth II would have been Queen of Pakistan between 1953 and 1956. In fact, at her coronation she was asked: "Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?"

The preamble to the Royal Style and Titles Act makes clear that Pakistan was one of the countries present at discussions in 1952 on the new queen's title: "AND WHEREAS it was agreed between the Prime Ministers and other representatives of Her Majesty's Governments in the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan and Ceylon assembled in London in the month of December, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-two, that the Style and Titles at present appertaining to the Crown are not in accord with current constitutional relationships within the British Commonwealth...". However, it appears that as Pakistan was already expecting to become a republic it never adopted the new Royal Styles and Titles Act. So, Elizabeth II was the Queen of Pakistan in the same way she was Queen of Canada, but never held the title "Queen of Pakistan," instead, I believe, being titled by the old Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927, as amended by a 1948 order in council, "Elizabeth II by the Grace of God of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas Queen, Defender of the Faith." --gbambino 17:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I think there is a certain amount of telescoping of history going on here. The original Dominions (listed in my earlier post) were not fully independent states, although some like Ireland chose to behave as if they were, and thus duly achieved that status. Australia and New Zealand in particular, and Canada to a lesser extent, did not seek full independence. Strange as it may now seem, they wanted to remain part of the British Empire. This was Australia's position down to the retirement of Menzies in 1966, although of course in practice Australia had been independent for decades by then (theory usually ran some way behind practice). That is why I say the status of Dominion was a transitional status between a colony and a fully independent state under the Crown - what we now chose to call a Commonwealth Realm (although I had never heard this term until I came to Wikipedia). "Dominion status" was not originally conceived as equivalent to independence. That is why MacDonald, for example, could offer India Dominion status in 1931 without for a moment suggesting that India was to become independent. So I don't think it is true to say that the African colonies became Dominions on independence. They became fully independent states, passing directly from colonial status to independence. Dominion status was only a useful device for those former (white or white-ruled) colonies such as Australia, which went through a long and reluctant evolution towards independence. I take the various points made above about Pakistan's participation in deliberations about the royal titles etc in the years immediately after independence. But I maintain my view that Pakistan did not become, and did not intend to become, a fully independent monarchy under the Crown - even in the "old Commonwealth" this was not the view at that time of what Dominion status meant. There was no "Queen of Australia" in the modern sense in 1956, so there was certainly no "Queen of Pakistan." Adam 00:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I think we shall have to seek out some sort of source that would say when the title "Queen of Australia" came into common use. Beyond this, I think you are putting too much emphasis on the subjective feelings of Australian politicians like Menzies, and not enough on the practical reality, and legal recognition, of sovereignty. Certainly in 1947, India and Pakistan considered themselves fully sovereign, independent states, even though India would remain a dominion until 1950, and Pakistan one until 1956. Beyond this, I am still going to ask - when did Jamaica move from being a dominion to a commonwealth realm? When did Canada? In what sense can this be considered a formal change, rather than simply a) a series of legal changes in what dominion status meant; and b) a series of perceptual changes in how people in the various dominions viewed what dominion status meant? Obviously, most of the "white dominions" went through a series of changes from the initial grant of dominion status (in 1867 or 1901 or 1910 or 1914) and the present day (or 1961, in the case of the Union of South Africa). And I'd have to do considerably more research to fully figure out what the precise status of each of the former colonies that temporarily became dominions was. But I don't see how this relates to the usage of titles like "Queen of Australia" or "Queen of Ghana." Just because the crown of Australia, or Canada, or Ghana, or Mauritius, or Jamaica, was not viewed as a fully independent crown in the sense that it is today does not mean that the title was not used. john k 04:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

The issue is not when titles came into common use. The issue is what the constitutional status of various entities within the British Empire and Commonwealth was at various points in time. The fact that titles were in common use doesn't justify our use of them in an encyclopaedia. The term "Queen of England" is still in common use, even though constitutionally it is as dead as Queen Anne. The term "Queen of Australia" had no constitutional validity before 1973. It acquired validity because the Australian Parliament legislated to make Australia an independent constitutional monarchy. Did the Pakistan Parliament do the same? I don't think so. I agree it is a little difficult to say exactly what Pakistan was, constitutionally speaking, between 1947 and 1956, but it is clear what it was not - it was not an independent monarchy. It was partly because of the ambiguity of its position that it chose to become a republic. Adam 06:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry - not "common use," but "official use." Just because Australia only did it in 1973 doesn't mean that it didn't happen elsewhere earlier. john k 06:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Can someone remind me why we are discussing this? Perhaps it is time to stop. My concluding comment, therefore, is that the term "Queen of Pakistan" was never in either official use or common use, for the very good reason that there was no Kingdom of Pakistan for her to be Queen of - and if there was it would probably not have allowed women to occupy its throne. Adam 07:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I take strong exception to Adam's remarks "...and if there was it would probably not have allowed women to occupy its throne". Adam THINKS he knows too much about history, but sadly he is mistaken and is severely prejudiced.
Pakistan was the first Muslim country to be ruled by a woman, Benazir Bhutto; she was elected as Prime Minister twice. Pakistan is the ONLY COUNTRY in the world to have a Female Major-General in the army, Major-General Shahida Malik; Pakistan is the only Muslim country to have women fighter pilots in its Air Force/Military; Pakistan fares much better then all its neighbors, "Australia" and many Western European countries and the USA, when it comes to women's representation in the Parliament and local governments; by constitutional law a minimum of 33% of seats have to be occupied by women, and there is no upper limit to that, so men would never be able to compose 100% of the Pakistani parliament and Local governments, but women may. Pakistani women have always played a very important part in our society; it’s sad that the media has not focused on that. After all, Asma Jehangir, the human rights activist is a great Pakistani woman. Nowadays, you see Pakistani women excelling in all facets of life; they are in the police, in the Commando unit of the police and security forces, they lead corporations (e.g. Unilever Pakistan,) they are respected journalists etc. I think Pakistani women are doing great, so DO NOT assume Adam. Sara Khan - 15 Sep 2005 - 12:51 (PST)

And I'm sure they love having acid thrown in their faces and being pack raped on the orders of Islamic courts. Adam 09:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

That's in very bad taste. Think what you may! I suppose in Australia women are not raped and battered by their male companions...No rape or gang-rape in Australia...May be I should move there. But sadly more women are raped in Australia because its rape per capita is 0.77 per 1000 people, 21,300 rapes per year.
Also, those courts are in no way Islamic, they are village courts which are in India as well; they have been there for centuries, anyways the courts are illegal under Pakistani Law, crminal and are abhorrent. If you choose to focus on a few incidents then I feel sorry for you. Pakistani women like me are happy here...we do not need your sympathy. We have been doing great and can and will fend for ourselves. Just like that I can say that Australian women are oppressed because they have never had a woman Prime Minister. Please relax and stop projecting your hatred on others. Thanks and Have a nice day:) Sara Khan - 15 Sep 2005 - 15:51 (PST)

I'll ignore the completely off-topic unpleasant digressions. Adam, are you seriously saying that the Royal Style and Titles Act 1973 changed the status of the Queen, rather than simply the title she used? At any rate, the title used before that (the 1953 act) stated that she was Queen of Australia without using that wording, in the same way that the current Canadian title does. Anyway, I also can't see why we are discussing this - is there anythign wrong with wording any inclusion of former dominions as something along the lines of: "She reigned over ..... until..."? JPD 10:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

She was the Queen of Pakistan, since Pakistan had Governor-Generals from 1947 till 1956. Governor-Generals by the way are representatives of the Queen in countries she heads. Sara Khan - 16 Sep 2005 - 10:06 (PST)

Constitutionally, a Governor-General is just a fancy title for a Governor. Australia had a Governor-General in 1901, but that didn't make Australia a Kingdom in its own right, and Edward VII was not King of Australia. Likewise, all British colonies had governors, that didn't make them Kingdoms in their own right. Queen Victoria was not Queen of British Somaliland or Queen of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands, even though she was sovereign over those territories and was represented in them by governors. A monarch can only be "King of X" when X is a fully independent sovereign Kingdom in its own right. Australia only attained that status in 1973. Pakistan never did, because it chose to become a republic instead (and I don't blame it, given the apparently unfathomable mystery of monarchy for many people). I really don't see why this is so hard to follow. Adam 05:54, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Victoria was "Empress of India", but India was not an Empire.
Yes it was.

Elizabeth is Queen of Canada and there is no Kingdom of Canada (regardless of our level of independence, which is irrelevant).

Yes there is.

It's absurd to say she can only be Queen of a place that's fully sovereign. Being "Queen of ... " means your a queen, not the place is a Kingdom on it's own.

Yes it does

Whether Elizabeth was "Queen of Pakistan" has no relationship to its level of independence at the time. --rob 06:18, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes it has. Adam 06:54, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't mix my comments with yours, it becomes to difficult in the long term to figure out who said what. I sign my comments, and I don't want anybody thinking I signed anything said by you. --rob 07:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

In the long term this will all be archived and forgotten. Adam 07:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm curious, if "Queen of X" implies X is a sovereign Kingdom does "Prince of Y" imply Y is a sovereign pincipality, or at least some separate jurisdiction? --rob 08:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

The title Prince has two uses: head of state of a principality (of which Monaco and Liechtenstein are the only surviving examples), or (in Britain) as a title for the son of a Monarch (in some other countries other relatives as well). Prince Andrew is not actually prince of anywhere. The title King hs only one meaning: head of state of a Kingdom. And to respond to your earlier point about Canada: Canada is a Kingdom even though it is not called the Kingdom of Canada. Spain is not called the Kingdom of Spain (its official name is just Espana), but it is still a kingdom. Adam 14:37, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Role in government

I find the recent rewrite of the Role in Government section by 69.209.235.81 less informative than the previous version. Should we revert it, or possibly merge the two versions? JPD 09:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted the section. If the older version is missing soemthing, it could be merged, but please try to avoid writing as though trying to justify the system rather than explain it. JPD 14:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

HM distinctions

Her Brittanic Majesty and Her Canadian Majesty: is there a distinction for Austrlalia and New Zealand? Craigy (talk) 09:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Her Bloody Grouse Majesty Adam 10:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Photo added by Hsandy

In reference to the photo added today, showing a bunch of people watching a car coming out of a gate... I do not see what this adds to the article. You can't see the Queen or Princess Anne (or at least I can't; I am sure they are the vague and shadowy figures behind the driver, but if you didn't read the caption you would not know who the passengers were.) It is mostly a photo of a car, albeit a very nice car. I think a similar photo where you could actually see the Queen would add something to the article, but this does not. Zeutron 20:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree, taken a few seconds later and we may have had a near-perfect GFDL image but this one isn't really any help to this article. Perhaps it should be removed? Craigy (talk) 00:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I removed it. It clearly does not belong here in this article, although I could see it in the Buckingham Palace article ? Astrotrain 22:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Ah yes, good idea Astro; with a caption like "Crowds gather at the gates of the palace as Lizzy and Anne embark on one of their many mystical and magical trips to Tesco for the afternoon." - or something like that. :-P Anyway I suppose it is better of at the Buckingham Palace article than here. Craigy (talk) 22:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Why?

Can someone please tell me why when one types in "Brends", don't ask why I was typing in "Brenda", one is redirected to this article! What's the name Brenda have to do with Queen Elizabeth II? -- Anon

"Brenda" is the name that the satirical magazine, Private Eye, uses whenever it discusses Queen Elizabeth. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Overseas Territories

I have twice added to the list that HM is Queen of Gibraltar and Falkland Islands only to have it deleted for no apparent reason. It is a simple statement of fact that she is the Sovereign of those and other Overseas Territories, and there would appear to be no valid reason for excluding their mention. While they may be possessions of the United Kingdom, they do not form part of it, and therefore are excluded from the list.

I fail to see why this is contraversial. I also do not think it right for someone to make a perfectly valid addition to an article, i.e. it is factual, and NPOV, and someone can just come along as delete it willy nilly. If you think a particular fact should not be included, why not say so on the discussion page, and give a valid reason?

WP is indeed a free site, and if I wish to add other territories to the list why should that bother anyone as long as I am factual, and NPOV. I agree that all OT's should be added to the list, and intend to do so. Anyone having a valid reason to object now's your chance.--Gibraltarian 19:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

She isn't Queen of Gibraltar and is not Queen of the Falkland Islands. Neither is a state. They are overseas territories of the UK and it is as queen of the UK that the queen is head of state there. She has no direct titles referring to them. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

  • The UK has 18 overseas territories, and both Australia and New Zealand have several overseas territories as well. It is not necessary to list all of them here. Any explanation of the Queen's role in these territories should be dealt with in the British monarch, Queen of Australia and Queen of New Zealand pages. Astrotrain 20:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

What if Elizabeth II, left Philip a widower?

Hey Astrotrain, if Elizabeth II died before her husband Philip, what would Philip be known as (during Charles's reign) ,King-Father or Prince-Father? (I've also asked this question in Talk: Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh). PS- By the way ,how are the other Descepticons doing? 25 October 2005.

  • He would continue to be known as His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. As a man, he holds these titles in his own right, and will continue to do so until he dies. What do you mean "Desceptions" ? Astrotrain 18:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the clarification Astrotrain. Oh, what I meant by descepticons, the name Astrotrain is the name of one of the Transformers, I was just being a little silly pointing it out. I meant no disrespect. Mightberight/wrong 25 October 2005
Queen Mother means 'the mother of the monarch where the mother herself was once a queen consort'. Contrary to myth it does not mean "mother of the queen". FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Oops! I spelled Decepticon wrong, Perhaps it was more then met my eyes, Mightberight/wrong 25 October 2005.


Unfounded nonsense

This: For example, John Major as prime minister once had difficulty working with a particular Commonwealth leader. The Queen informed Major that he and the leader shared a mutual sporting interest. Major then used that information to establish a personal relationship, which ultimately benefited both countries.

should be removed - it makes no sense, being unjustified, and non-specific.

When Charles acsends to the throne...

Just suppose that Elizabeth II is still alive when the Prince of Wales (Charles) ascends to the throne and becomes King. What would her title be then? 'Dowager Queen Elizabeth??' It's an unlikely situation I know, as the Queen has said herself she will only stop her duties when she dies and won't abdiciate - but just suppose this happens. Anyone out there have at least a small clue at to what she might be called? Thanks. :) ----Lyly-Kim, January 21 2006

If she abdicated, I believe she would revert to Her Royal Highness Princess Elizabeth (as she would be entitled as the daughter of a monarch), just as Edward VIII reverted to HRH Prince Edward. He only became Duke of Windsor because George VI granted him that title. Whether King Charles III (or George VII, as I've heard he would prefer to be known) would grant his mother a title would be up to him. Of course, Princess Elizabeth would still be entitled to be called the Duchess of Edinburgh by virtue of her marriage to Prince Philip the Duke of Edinburgh. So I guess she'd be Her Royal Highess Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh. She would certainly not be known as Dowager anything. That term applies to the widows of title-holders, not to ex-title holders themselves. The Queen Mother was technically a Dowager Queen (consort) after the death of her husband George VI, but she never used the term. JackofOz 06:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Why no HRH for Edward and getting Diana's title correct

I do not understand why certain users delete the reference to The Prince Edward being HRH. Also, The Prince of Wales' first wife's title immediately before marriage was Lady Diana Spencer, not The Lady Diana Spencer. For those who doubt this, please check Debrett's and/or Burke's. 135.196.23.105 18:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Lady is a shortened version of The Lady. Wikipedia uses the formal full version. Wikipedia does not use styles like HRH in articles and deletes those added in. The only place where an HRH, HM or anything else is used is in a list of styles or in the opening paragraph where we say that so and so is styled HM/HRH <name>. Any other styles anywhere else are deleted automatically to confirm with the WP Manual of Style. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

That's not correct. The Lady as a courtesy title is reserved for daughters of royal peers who have no other title. Lady is the correct courtesy title for the daughters of Dukes, Marquesses and Earls. Bbombbardier 12:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I think some confusion was caused due to the fact that the section orginally had HRH's for everyone except Edward, and this user was just trying to correct this anomoly. Of course, now we don't usually use any styles in the main text, so it was proper for all styles to be removed, which I have done. Astrotrain 22:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Photo caption in wrong order.

The photo half way down the page (Queen Elizabeth with Commonwealth Ministers) has wrongly named the ministers in the picture. To the Queen's right (not the viewer's right) is Sir Winston Churchill and not the Prime Minister of New Zealand as stated. Please rectify this as I do not have the time to do so at the moment. BlueKangaroo 02:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Elizabeth II & Philip, longest-lived Monarch-Consort couple?

Just a thought, are Elizabeth II (79) & Philip (84) as of 2005, the longest lived monarch-consort couple (combined age 163) in British History (English & Scottish & Welsh histories as well)? If so, could it be noted or should we wait until one of them dies. Mightberight/wrong 26 October 2005.

The nearest rivals I can think of are George III and Mrs George III, who were 80 and 74 respectively at the time of her death. I'd be fairly certain they were the longest-reigning royal couple. They were Monarch and Consort for 57 years (1761-1818). Elizabeth and Phillip have been married for 57 years, but only Monarch and Consort for 53 years. Adam 11:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Canadian Photo

A while ago I uploaded this photo for Adrienne Clarkson's page; but it could possibly be made use of in this article.

Image:ClarksonandQueen2005.jpg

Dowew 05:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

It is a nice shot. People who know her (I know a couple of people who know her well) say that while in front of a TV camera she can come across as tough and austere, that coolness is to a large measure shyness. When one gets to know her and see her without the reserve she is very funny and warm. (Ireland's President McAleese called her a "dote" once in an interview. — A dote in Hiberno-English means an adorable lovely person.) The picture captures that more relaxed Elizabeth rather than that dour formality that masks her shyness. If it is from the Governor General's site it should be covered by crowncopyright or the Canadian equivalent, and so should be able to be used. Check what legal restrictions apply on the site. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 06:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Who is the other woman? It looks like Imelda Marcos, but I assume it isn't. Adam 11:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Adrienne Clarkson. Pcb21| Pete 11:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
The other woman in the photo is The Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson, the former Governor General of Canada. This photo was taken during the Queens recent visit to Canada when Clarkson was still in Rideau Hall. It is not a very good pic of Clarkson but I think the Queen looks good. It is covered by Canadian Crown Copyright as it was produced by Rideau Hall. Dowew 00:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
I have added to photo to the page, near the section where it mentions her 2005 visit to Canada. If any one wants to change the caption be my guest Dowew 05:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
I've addded that she was the GG of Canada, for those who doesn't know who Clarkson is. --Kvasir 00:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Official Portrait in Canberra

Is this photo: Image:Queen elizabeth the second portrait.jpg usefull here?--Fir0002 07:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC

I think it would be useful I do suggest that someone photoshops it to remove the frame. Perhaps we could creat a page for something like "uses of the effigy of Queen Elizabeth II" or something like that for the various uses of her likeness ? Dowew 23:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Title

I have a problem with the title. Despite having equally important stati as queen of Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc., the article is called QEII of the UNITED KINGDOM. This presents a problem, and also implied superiority of the UK over the other countries of which she is queen, having her other realms included as an almost afterthought. Maybe this should be changed to QEII of Commonwealth realms? User: Lofty

It should stay as Queen Elizabeth of the United Kingdom because she is the Queen of the United Kingdom and is the Queen of other countries because she they are in the Commonwealth. Britain is at the head of the Commonwealth, therefore she is the Queen of the United Kingdom. BlueKangaroo 02:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC).

See Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Archive 4#.28Banging Dead Horse.29 Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth Realms for what I think is the last time this came up. Timrollpickering 10:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
As a compromise solution to this redirections such as Elizabeth II of New Zealand, Elizabeth II of Canada exist and these countries are included these as bolds at the top of the page. -- Greaser 00:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Couldn't it also mean that she was born, or lives, in the United Kingdom, i.e. Leonardo da Vinci? --71.112.165.248 02:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Queen of Pakistan

Queen Elizabeth was also queen of Pakistan from 1952 to 1956 when Pakistan became a republic. I checked with some other wikipedia articles and this seems correct 1. I concluded that there wasn't a succession box present as that would become cumbersome to do one for each of the countries that became republics during her reign - is that the reason?

-- Greaser 00:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Too many succession boxes will make the article too cumbersome. --Terence Ong Talk 04:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Realms

With many other monarch page's, I notice quite often when one monarch rules over multiple realms, this is mentioned at the bottom where in this article it simply says "Queen of the United Kingdom" rather than also listing Queen of Australia, Canada, New Zealand etc.

Although it might be more conveniant and practical to simply say "Queen of the United Kingdom", this is unacknowledgeing of the fact that she is indeed queen of quite a number of countries, and my country along with a number of others is in no way simply sub-ordinate to the UK and therefore shouldn't be included.

In the same vein as this, the introductory paragraph lists the UK first as if it is superior or more important than the other Commonwealth Realms. I have rearranged the order. JSIN 05:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

signature

Can anyone think of a use for this image : image:Victoriacrosscanadapostagestampimage.jpg - it is a Canadian postage stamp which bears Elizabeth's signature approving the creation of Canada's Victoria Cross. Dowew 23:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

How about on the Victoria Cross article. JackofOz 08:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/l/i/Talk%7EElizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom_Archive_5_bbfe.html"