Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom

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 9	Archive 10	Archive 11 >	12 >>

(untitled)

Why everytime I try to add this under "Religion" : "Most of the Rastafari Movement recognize her as Whore of Babylon. This is due to fact of Jamaica colonization by British. Pauperized black inhabitants of Jamaica associated all evils of slavery and white regime with the person of Queen Elizabeth II." It is then erased? See Rastafarian vocabulary —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.55.119.98 (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Introduction

John, are you now going against what was agreed to at Talk:Commonwealth Realm, namely that all the Realms are equal, and the UK is itself a Commonwealth realm? I do not deny what was also mentioned there about the UK sometimes being considered a "first amongst equals," but your latest edits to the opening paragraphs and infobox of this article continue to pull the UK out as being completely separate and superior to the other Realms, going to acrobatic lengths (poor wording, footnotes for clarification) to achieve your ends, with the justification being simply because the Queen lives there. First off, the opening paragraphs sat undisturbed for months with no contest until you asserted that the UK is not a Commonwealth Realm. Secondly, your version has the UK mentioned eight times within the space at the top two inches of the article. As it has been established that the UK is a Commonwealth Realm, it should not be singled out as though it is not, and six mentions of the UK, including in the title of the article, as the country where she lives, the one where she personally exercises the most power, etc., demonstrates well enough that she lives there and is more personally involved in the day to day running of that country. --gbambino 16:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I am returning to my original position, that the fact that all the realms are technically equal in a legal sense is not the only issue of importance. And the issue is not simply "because the Queen lives there" as has been explained at great length. There are both historical issues - the queen's title in all the other commonwealth realms arises, in reality if not in theory, out of her role as Queen of the UK (the only one of her titles to have any historical existence before her reign began); and practical issues - the UK is the only one of her realms in which she functions as de facto as well as de jure head of state. Nonsense like "Elizabeth II is queen of 16 sovereign states, known as the commonwealth realms" is a ridiculous opening sentence. I would personally prefer something like "Elizabeth II is the Queen of the United Kingdom. She is also the queen of 15 other countries, all formerly part of the British Empire, although the role of effective head of state in these countries is held by a Governor-General." This would be the sensible position, but of course you are ridiculous and we can't have that, so we have to have nonsense. john k 16:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, of course, that is your personal opinion; one grounded in the past, and on misinterpretation, not in modern reality. It's also poor form for you to rescind your previous agreement. --gbambino 16:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

What on earth did I supposedly agree to? Your opinion is no less personal opinion than mine. You believe that the technical legal equality of the queen's titles trumps all other factors. I disagree. And the "modern reality," as you put it, is that there is only one state over which Elizabeth II acts as de facto head of state, and that is the United Kingdom. For almost all practical purposes, in your country Michaëlle Jean performs the functions that a head of state performs in most other countries around the world. You can wish this away however you like, but it remains true. It is not wikipedia's job to report on technical legal fictions to the detriment of its description of how the world actually works. john k 18:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

1) You agreed that the Commonwealth Realms are equal and that the UK is a Commonwealth Realm.

Indeed. I don't see how it follows from that that I must agree to any particular composition of the introduction. I have not changed the part of the introduction which states that all 16 realms are considered legally equal. john k 02:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

2) Titles are but one small part of the case against your argument. The decisive moves towards equality made by Westminster and all the other realm governments from the late 1920s onwards is another part, including the 1926 Balfour Declaration, the 1927 Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act, the 1931 Statute of Westminster, the associated alteration in the role of the governors general, the abdication of Edward VIII in 1936, the renaming of the "British Commonwealth" to the "Commonwealth of Nations" after 1949, the eradication of the term "Dominion" in favour of "Realm" for all countries under the Crown, EIIR's 1952 Proclamation of Accession, and the 1953 Royal Style and Titles Act passed separately in each Realm. The result of all that development is that the Queen is now de facto (in fact) and de jure (by law) queen (head of state) of all her realms, separately and equally, and by the indigenous laws of each realm, not by automatic default because EIIR is Queen of the UK.

This is all irrelevant. The issue is not de jure equality. I am not, and I never have, argued against de jure equality (although, it should be noted, some of the commonwealth realms still have relationships to the Privy Council, and for most of them their full independence from all UK institutions besides the Crown only dates to a later period than either 1931 or 1949).

As the Dominions Office stated as early as 1939: "[George VI] is King in Canada in precisely the same manner in which he is King in the United Kingdom... It is one kingship, but the King is in a position to act independently in respect of each or any part of his dominions." Ontario Superior Court Justice Rouleau calls the relationship of the countries under the Crown "symmetrical," stating: "As a result of the Statute of Westminster it was recognized that any alterations in the rules of succession would no longer be imposed by Great Britain and, if symmetry [italics mine] among commonwealth countries were to be maintained, any changes to the rules of succession would have to be agreed to by all members of the Commonwealth. This arrangement can be compared to a treaty among the Commonwealth countries to share the monarchy under the existing rules and not to change the rules without the agreement of all signatories." Patrick Gordon Walker stated: "We in this country [the UK] have to abandon... any sense of property in the Crown. The Queen, now, clearly, explicitly and according to title, belongs equally to all her realms and to the Commonwealth as a whole."

Again, all this is irrelevant. The technical legal situation is not the only thing that matters. john k 02:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

3) The Governor General of Canada derives her powers from, and performs her duties on behalf of, the constantly reigning (de facto and de jure) Queen of Canada, not as a stand alone head of state. The Office of the Governor General of Canada asserts that Queen Elizabeth II is Canada's Head of State, as does the Office of the Prime Minister.

Again, so what? Your definition of "de facto" has become so attenuated as to be ridiculous. There are a few contexts in which the Queen acts as de facto head of state of Canada. But in nearly all contexts, this role is held by the Governor General. That the Queen is Canada's de jure head of state is not disputed, so statements to that effect by the Governor General are irrelevant. Most of the functions of a head of state are performed by the Governor-General. john k 02:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The only difference between the UK and the other Realms is that the Monarchy is resident in the UK, and therefore there is no Governor General (though there are Counsellors of State), and the Queen has a more "hands on" relationship with her government there. The article already makes both those points clear. Any further elevation of the UK above the other Realms is simply POV on your part, and, worse, a POV which is grounded on circumstances which existed about thirty years before Elizabeth II's reign even began. --gbambino 19:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

That is not the "only difference" and to claim otherwise is ridiculous. There is no provision for the existence of a Governor-General in the UK. In all the other commonwealth realms, most of the powers of the Queen are explicitly vested in a Governor-General by law. This is not the case in the UK. There are also, of course, obvious historical reasons why the UK is the more important, which Tharkun has outlined below. john k 02:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of the introduction is to provide a short summary of what the article is going to be about, not a pointless rant on the various titles the woman has, or had in the past. I would agree with JK- in that the main thing is that she is Queen of the UK. This has to be mentioned first, and only then include the other states to which she is Queen. Astrotrain 19:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The introduction speaks nothing about her titles. There's no substantial evidence that the "main thing" is that she is Queen of the UK. Despite that, the UK is included in the article title, is first on the list of countries of which she is queen, and is specifically pointed out as the country of her residence. --gbambino 19:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course there is you completely ridiculous person. She performs the day to day functions of head of state of the UK. She does not do this for any other country. This is not POV - this is a fact. And this is not simply some sort of random coincidence of the completely random fact that the Queen lives in the UK. The Queen lives in the UK because the crown she inherited was originally a crown for the UK only. Her involvement in the government of the UK is because this is the government her family has held for centuries, and it has developed in that way. The forms of government of the other 15 realms were created in direct imitation of the British model, and were codified as such, but on the understanding that there would not be a resident monarch. The residence of the monarch in the UK is a central feature not only of the government of the UK itself, but of the governments of the other 15 realms as well. The permanent absence of the Queen would force considerable changes in the constitution of the UK, just as the permanent presence of the Queen in any of the Commonwealth Realms would force changes in their constitutions. It is not POV to state basic issues like this that just about any reasonable person would agree with. You have reified a legal fiction into the only important fact about the Queen's role, and that is the only manifest instance of POV that I have seen in this discussion. john k 02:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

But you seem to be suggesting that the difference in her functions between the UK and the Commonwealth Realms is simply because she just happens to live there. But why does she live there? Because it is where she and her ancestors have reigned as monarchs for some 1500 years. In short, the UK is the queen's homeland, and whatever legal citizenships she may or may not hold (does she even hold any?), she is, unquestionably, a British person - by culture, upbringing, sentiment, and residence. She lives in the UK because she is British and because it is therefore her ancestral home. The fact that a number of former colonies have chosen to keep her as their head of state is all well and good, but it must surely be seen for what it is - merely a passing (if indefinitely prolonged) phase in the long drawn-out process of the dismantling of the British Empire. TharkunColl 19:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The fact that a number of former colonies have chosen to keep her as their head of state is all well and good, but it must surely be seen for what it is - merely a passing (if indefinitely prolonged) phase in the long drawn-out process of the dismantling of the British Empire. Tharkun - this gets to the heart of it, because this is exactly what Gbambino is not willing to see it as. He is apparently ideologically committed to Canadian monarchy, and views any attempts to "denigrate" it by suggesting that it is not quite the same as the monarchy in the UK as being POV attacks on his political beliefs. This is why we never get anywhere. john k 02:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The difference in her functions are indeed linked only to where she physically exists. Barring that circumstance, her role is identical in each realm. Because of the circumstance of her geographic location she has delegated a representative to exercise all those powers and duties belonging to her on her behalf in the realms where she does not live. The powers of the Governor General are hers; that does not make EIIR any less queen of those countries.

This is a legal fiction. The de facto situation is not as you describe it. Your unwillingness to recognize that polite legal fictions are not the only way to describe political systems is what constantly and repeatedly causes all these arguments. john k 02:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Her ancestry has nothing to do with the modern reality that each country under the Crown is now equal. The Queen herself has also publicly stated that she is (at least in part) Canadian, as is her family, and that Canada is a "home" (I only use those examples as they're the only ones I'm personally aware of).

Why is the UK being in the article title, mentioned first in every list, specifically pointed out as her country of residence, and the detailed relationship between the Queen and the UK outlined here, seemingly not enough? Apparently nobody will be happy (least of all John) until we've eradicated the past 80 years of history. --gbambino 19:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

No, that is simply not true, and is a gross misrepresentation of why the current situation exists. If the queen decided (or was even allowed) to go and live in Canada, would they simply sack the governor general and appoint no replacement? Obviously not, because the Canadian constitution would not allow it. The queen could live there as much as she liked but her role in Canadian government would never, or could never be the same as it currently is in the UK. It is not simply a question of physical location. Her role is absolutely not identical in each realm, and is fundamentally different in that realm that is her own ancestral homeland.

I think it's possible that you are not fully aware of the role of the queen over here in the UK, and perhaps are envisioning her as some remote figurehead as she must seem in countries such as yours. The fact is that the queen or members of her family are in the media quite literally every single day, saying something, doing something, or making arses of themselves. Her social influence is still paramount, for those who care about such status, and she is still the fount of the honours system. These are all constitutional roles that exist in an unwritten constitution, and are argued to be an essential ingredient in social stability. She speaks to the prime minister every week, offering advice or just a chat, and when she's on holiday in Canada or somewhere this task is most usually delegated to her son and heir on a purely ad hoc basis. Prince Charles, in turn, is noted for infuriating government ministers by constantly bombarding them with suggestions and comments. Can you imagine what the reaction of the Canadians would be if he tried that with them? TharkunColl 22:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Social affairs and the amount of media gossip has literally nothing to do with this discussion (I'm sure the Queen is covered more in the media here than in her South Pacific atolls, but that doesn't make her more Queen of Canada than Queen of Tuvalu). As well, the Queen's position as Sovereign is the same in each country, regardless of the Governor General. There may be a GG in Canada, but all the powers s/he exercises belong explicitly to the Queen - as specifically stated in the Constiution, and reaffirmed in the Letters Patent which permit the GG to exercise the Queen's powers on her behalf. That means EIIR is, in law and practice, fully Queen of the separate kingdom known as Canada, and as equally as she is Queen of the United Kingdom (see Patrick Walker's quote above).

This is simply a matter of recognizing the provision of equality amongst the Realms set up before the Queen's reign began. Please refer to my above post where I outline all the historical events which have led to the presently recognized situation where the Sovereign (currently Elizabeth II) is equally and symmetrically shared amongst the Commonwealth Realms; not merely an opinion of mine, but asserted by numerous constitutional scholars as well as judges.

I haven't edited the article in a fashion that denies the Queen's more "hands on" role in the UK over her other realms, so if nobody can contest that it's enough to have the singular presence of the UK in the article title, the UK being positioned as first in the list of the Queen's realms, specific mention of the UK as the Queen's home country, the insinuation that the Queen exercises power more directly in the UK, and all the other references to the United Kingdom in the top area of the article (adding up now to a total of six), then I don't know why this debate is continuing. --gbambino 22:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The queen's role at the apex of the social pyramid (and the media gossip that is parasitic upon it) is very much part of her constitutional role - as part of the UK's unwritten constitution. It is arguably her most important role, and is certainly one in which she can still exercise a large amount of personal discretion. These roles are not even covered or mentioned by the written constitutions and laws that purported to make the queen's role equal in the other realms. My point is really quite simple - just because the law says something, doesn't mean it's so. Legislators are not omnipotent. I think the article is fine as it is though. TharkunColl 23:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with gbambino; all realms are equal; the UK is a realm, personally I dislike the title of this article as it is entirely misleading. The UK is not "separate and superior to the other Realms". I would very much like to see the opening paragraphs back along to the lines it was; its crap with your changes Brian | (Talk) 23:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The basic problem here is that Gbambino defines the scope of what is "significant" in this question as solely being the technical legal equality of the 16 commonwealth realms. Nobody disagrees that this is the official position, but there is no particular reason that we should accept that this is the only distinction of importance. As far as I can tell, Gbambino believes that his repeated assertions that other issues don't matter amount to arguments that they don't. There is a corollary issue by which Gbambino appears to believe that "the 16 commonwealth realms have legal equality, and the Queen is legally Queen of each independently and equally" means "the Queen's role in the 16 commonwealth realms is identical, save for the completely random and insignificant fact that she lives in one of the countries." This is emphatically not the case. I'm sick of this, though. Unless somebody else wants to join me in actually pushing for change, I'm not going to bother with this anymore. Unless overwhelming numbers are against him, Gbambino will always be more assertive in making sure that wikipedia doesn't crush his fragile world view than any other individual is in making the article more useful.

Final point: the first sentence of an article should indicate the most basic information about the subject of the article. In this case, the most important information about QEII is that she's queen of the UK, because it's why she's famous throughout the world, it's the job in which she is most visible, and it's the job in which she is the successor to a thousand years or so of tradition. But, whatever, I am not alone sufficient to destroy your Canadian monarchist fantasy reality. I give up. You win, for now. john k 02:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference between stating that the equality of the Queen's position as sovereign of each realm is not the only distinction of importance and attempting to subvert the fact all-together. The current structure of the article actually still favours the UK over the other Realms, but it just simply doesn't seem good enough to you, John. You insist on elevating and distinguishing her position as Queen of the UK over and above any other position at every possible opportunity, somehow believing that when she isn't physically present in a country she becomes less of a Monarch of that country.

Three people so far have explicitly stated that the way it sat was acceptable (and it rested stable through hundreds of edits over months and months), but I've made a slight modification to the opening sentence so that it now, I hope, puts forward the most basic information about what we both think is important about the subject of the article. --gbambino 04:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

No - you still seem to think that the queen is most directly involved with the UK simply because she happens to reside there, and that she resides there just because it happens to be her oldest realm. You have misunderstood the nature of British monarchy if you truly believe this to be the case. TharkunColl 08:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It is a biographical article about Elizabeth, not a discussion board for theories on the legal standing of her realms. As she lives in the UK, is British by birth, and actually performs a role in the UK- it is obvious that the article will focus on her UK role over her other realms. Astrotrain 08:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It should be obvious to everyone here that arguing with gbambino is utterly pointless, as he doesn't seem to know what an argument is. Could we, in that case, stop this pointless discussion and put it to a poll, to gather the opinion of those who don't have the time and energy to waste attempting to engage him in debate? Proteus (Talk) 09:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Astrotrain 09:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Having had a closer read of the current first paragraph, I actually think it's awful. It diminishes the role of the queen in her own homeland to that of a mere functionary or legal figurehead. I propose the following re-write:

Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor; born 21 April 1926) is Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. She is also recognised as titular monarch by 15 other sovereign states, collectively known as the Commonwealth Realms, all of which were formerly part of the British Empire.

TharkunColl 11:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

That seems reasonable, with the possible exception of the word "titular." There's also the issue that the UK seems to be technically a commonwealth realm itself, although the term is also often used in a way where only the 15 other monarchies are commonwealth realms. john k 11:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "titular" in this context normally means "would be had the monarchy not been abolished". How about something like:

Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor) (born 21 April 1926) is Queen of the United Kingdom. She is also the monarch of 15 other sovereign states, collectively known as the Commonwealth Realms, all of which were formerly part of the British Empire, but is represented in those states by Governors-General who perform all her functions on her behalf.

Proteus (Talk) 12:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the current paragraph is awful, but don't see how it suggests the Queen is a mere functionary or legal figurehead. However, both of these alternatives incorrectly imply that the UK is not one of the Commonwealth Realms, and the second focuses too much on the constitutional arrangements of the realms for the first sentence of what is actually a biographical article. As I have commented in regard to several articles, the first sentence doesn't have to give the whole picture in itself; it is quite appropriate for the distinction between the UK and other realms to be made later in the introduction. JPD (talk) 13:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that the term "Commonwealth realm" is the aspect that makes more sense to leave to a later paragraph than specifying the fact that she is queen of the UK. How about:

Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor) (born 21 April 1926) is Queen of the United Kingdom. She is also recognized as monarch by 15 other sovereign states, all of which were formerly part of the British Empire.

The term "commonwealth realm" is a term of art, and not particularly important to an article about the queen. It can be mentioned later. The paragraph above seems to supply the basic information. john k 13:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the term "commonwealth realm" is not needed. Saying "recognized as monarch" is playing down her role a bit too much, though, and it would acceptable (although not necessary) to leave the British Empire explanation until the part where the time of her reign in various realms is discussed. This would allow the first sentence to lead straight onto the list of nations, while your suggestion in my opinion does not fit naturally with the next paragraph. JPD (talk) 13:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Alternately:

Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor (born 21 April 1926) is Queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other sovereign states, all of which were formerly part of the British Empire.

These are Canada, Australia, New Zealand...She is the world's only monarch who is simultaneously Head of State of more than one independent nation; in legal theory she is the most powerful head of state in the world, although in practice she personally exercises very little political executive power (especially outside the United Kingdom).

?? john k 15:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I like that version. Astrotrain 15:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should also point out that she has, at other times, been monarch of 16 others - this would help to highlight the transitory and ephemeral nature of the whole arrangement. TharkunColl 15:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I like your version, John. I'm not going to bother arguing against gbambino's version below: since the object of this exercise seems to be to bypass his "arguments" and find something the rest of us agree on that we can put to the vote it would appear to be a rather pointless endeavour. Proteus (Talk) 18:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, this isn't accuracy by democracy; because you and two other people believe something to be untrue, or at least insignificant, doesn't mean it actually is. --gbambino 19:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

How does accuracy come into this? My version is perfectly accurate. john k 20:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, it is accurate in one sense, but in the same way that "Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor (born 21 April 1926) is Queen of Jamaica and 15 other sovereign states, all of which were formerly part of the British Empire" is accurate. But, of course, both versions are inaccurate in that they give a false superior standing to one of Elizabeth's positions as Monarch over the others. I know you argue that she lives in the UK, etc., etc., therefore one is superior, and yes, (believe it or not) I do see what you're trying to say, but it really just isn't that simple. I'm working (good thing it's a slow Friday here at the job) on some way to come to an end where both truths are accurately and appropriately recognized. --gbambino 20:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

While Proteus, TharkunColl, and john k may well believe themselves to have an intimate understanding of EIIR's role as Queen of the UK, they are still, and I fear always will be, because of a persistent gross oversimplification of the situation, completely clueless when it comes to grasping her relationship to the other realms of which she is sovereign. The Realms beyond the UK are not mere ex-colonies in some kind of transition phase between Dominion and republic, nor are they somehow pseudo-kingdoms because a governor general performs, in the monarch's absence, the powers which still explicitly belong to the Queen. Given that each of the Commonwealth Realms is fully an independent, sovereign state which has freely chosen to make EIIR, by that nation's constitution, queen of that country, and given the firmly established principal of equality amongst these countries that has been explained more than sufficiently here, Queen Elizabeth II reigns as Queen of New Zealand as equally as she reigns as Queen of the UK. Raising the UK above any other ignores the equal and symmetrical relationship Elizabeth has, as Queen, with her realms; it is simply wrong.

I will not, and have not, disputed that the Elizabeth is more directly involved in the daily life and government of the UK, or that the UK is, amongst the Realms, considered a first amongst equals. Thus I suggest now:

Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor; born 21 April 1926) is Queen of 16 sovereign states in personal union.

Her oldest, and principal, realm is the United Kingdom, where she resides and has the most direct day-to-day involvement with the nation and her government. The other nations of which Elizabeth II is queen are Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, and Saint Kitts and Nevis. Collectively, these countries, including the UK, are known as the Commonwealth Realms, and through the Statute of Westminster 1931, she holds all her positions equally; no one nation takes precedence over any other. She is the world's only monarch who is simultaneously Head of State of more than one independent nation; in legal theory she is the most powerful head of state in the world, although in practice she personally exercises very little political executive power.

That reduces the opening sentence to the most strict facts - if mention of the Commonwealth Realms isn't necessary, then nor is their ex-British Empire status - leaving the detail to be explained in the second paragraph, including the equality of her positions as set up through the Statute of Westminster. Perhaps the personal union part isn't even necessary in the first sentence. --gbambino 15:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

"The Realms beyond the UK are not mere ex-colonies in some kind of transition phase between Dominion and republic". But this, surely, is precisely what they are. 16 have already done so! It so happens that because of historical sentiment, etc., the oldest such dominions will almost certainly be the last to become republics. But can anybody doubt that one day they will? TharkunColl 15:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

No sir, they are not; no more than the UK is a country in transition to becoming a republic. The Realms, including the UK, are kingdoms in a personal union, period. Whether or not they remain as they are, become republics, or cease to share a monarch (two ex-Realms continue to be monarchies) is completely up to them. --gbambino 15:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the monarchy is quite tenuous in all the commonwealth realms save Canada and New Zealand... john k 15:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Canada and New Zealand are most likely to be the last to go, but for different reasons. I have been to the former many times, and no one gives a shit about the queen there and only retain her to make them seem different to the Americans. Canada will scrap the monarchy when it becomes part of the USA. As for New Zealand, perhaps eventually they will appoint a Maori monarch - I don't know about that one so much. TharkunColl 16:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a republican movement in the UK as well, just as there is in Canada and NZ, which goes to show that the UK's status as a kingdom is no more certain that that of any other Realms. --gbambino 16:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

There's a big difference though. If the UK abolished the monarchy (which it might, of course), then it couldn't possibly survive in any of the other realms. TharkunColl 16:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, perhaps not, but it's really irrelevant to the point that the Realms beyond the UK are not in some kind of pre-republican limbo, and to the discussion about the opening sentences of this article. --gbambino 16:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The whole argument is senseless since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Fishhead64 08:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

This is stupid. TharkunColl and john k your version sucks; Her Majesty IS queen of NZ etc and there is NO proof that NZ and the other realms will ever come a Republic. gbambino has the only version that makes sense for this article. If you guys don't like the fact that Her Majesty is Queen of other countries, and that these countries want her as there Head of State, Grow Up! Brian | (Talk) 20:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

What on Earth are you arguing about? Her title is

Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page4676.asp

The Realms and Territories should of course be mentioned specifically as quickly as possible, but her official title seems to be the most obvious place to start the article. Also, please note that it is not the job of an encyclopedia to attempt to predict the future: all consideration of some of these Realms becoming republics is not relevant in the Introduction to the article. (The possibilty of course may be discussed later on.) Macguba 22:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

That's only but one of 16 titles she holds, equally. But this debate is long closed. --gbambino 23:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

gbambio, the debate is not closed, it is open. Your implication that I'm not welcome to contribute to wikipedia is offensive. The first sentence of the article is materially misleading, not least because it completely ignores the other places of which she is Queen. Macguba 09:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

In Canada, her title 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." So she does have many titles. Fishhead64 08:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I think Macguba is trying to suggest that the British title (or the Canadian one, I guess) is more NPOV than the current first sentence, because it includes a reference to "other territories" such as the Channel Islands, etc. JPD (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. I'm no expert, but by comparing all the titles and consulting the appropriate authorities a "correct" order could be constructed. The first two paragraphs of the article are currently most certainly not NPOV, not least because they ignore the non-sovereign territories. I would suggest something along the lines of 'Queen of UK, Canada, Australia ... '(whatever the order is) 'and also the territories of xyz' We don't need to say 16, we can just go straight into them which is much more informative. Nobody cares that it's 16. macguba 18:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

A constitutional question for our legal expert

The Statute of Westminster, or some such provision, states that no realm is allowed to unilaterally alter the order of succession, and that any such change must be made by all the realms, correct? In that case, how is it that some of them have been allowed to make the most drastic change of all in the order of succession, by abolishing the monarchy altogether? TharkunColl 08:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It is only mentioned in the preamble to the Statute, saying that all the realms needing to agree would be in accord with the established constitutional position of the realms, so it is not clear how binding it is. Apart from that, it is quite clearly only intended affect how succession to the Crown is determined, not whether any realm decides to break it's allegiance to that "symbol of free association". JPD (talk) 09:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Presumably this is a rather one-sided restriction - the UK must consult with the other realms if it wanted to change the order of succession. I assume that if Canada decided it wanted to make the Duke of York heir to the throne, say, it would not require any consultation with the other realms (not that this is likely to happen). john k 11:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Canada would have to consult the other Realms before making any change (as difficult as any change would be, due to the constitutional amending formula) as the Statute of Westminster is a patriated part of the Canadian Constitution. In a 2003 Ontario Superior Court ruling, the judge affirmed just such a thing, saying that Canada could break from the symmetrical relationship under the Crown, but would be in breach of the convention set out in the preamble to the SoW, which he likened to a treaty amongst the Commonwealth Realms. --gbambino 14:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand exactly what you are saying. What would it mean for Canada to be "in breach of the convention"? john k 15:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the repercussions would be. Conventions, unlike written law, are created and can be broken as new situations present themselves through the course of history, and, as far as I understand it, it's up to the courts to decide whether the government's actions were lawful or not in a certain circumstance. So, the only consequence I could see for Canada breaking the convention and creating a line of succession different to that of the other Realms would be that the Crown would be fractured, and the Supreme Court could possibly rule that the government had acted illegally. It all depends on the conditions, I suppose. --gbambino 15:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Are we saying that in order for the UK to abolish, say, the sexist or anti-Catholic clause in the succession law of its own monarch, it would have to ask the Canadians, Australians, etc. to go through a process of constitutional amendment? Sounds a bit crap to me. TharkunColl 15:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

In essence, yes. The issue was raised in the UK Parliament just a few years ago. --gbambino 15:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to confirm that is true, that's why the BRitish Government along with Her Majesty dealt with Charles re-marriage in a non official way, Prince Charles stating that Camilla would not be titled Queen. However legally she could be as there has been no Parliamentary Act to say otherwise as all Commonwealth realms with the Queen as head of state would have to agree on the change. Such is the issue with personal unions. As for all this "Is the UK more important" legally no, reality yes. Just as England was more important that Scotland in reality before the act of the union. It's just one of these things and although I'm sure the Queen regards all of her realms of equal importance the fact remains taht Canada, NZ etc only have a Queen by grace of the British setting up those countries no other reason. If the British Crown did not exist then these countries would not have a crown either. In saying that, that's not to say her role in the other realms should be ignored or put beneath her role in the UK. Ultimately to be NPV (sorry not good at Wikiu jargon) the author should be presenting her legal role as this is an article about teh Queen not about the history of the Monarchy.

Surely said statute reopens the debate of soverignty that raged during the American revolution; the Empire as it was then, common wealth now, is united only through the monarchy, which has no legislative powers. The statute is enshrined in Canadian law through the Canadian constitution. Refererence in the constitution though is not codification of a previously uncodified element of constitutional law, but in effect the creation of a new law. Acceptance of this arguement though reopens the can of worms of the origins of monarchical power. If, as in Whig political theory, power of the monarchy in a country originates from the people, then said people also have the ability to sever those bonds. The Glorious Revolution and subsequent act of settlement enshrined in law the ability of the people to decide upon the monarchy; however as parliament only exercised soverignty over England, succession was fixed for that country alone.

England included Wales at that point. And much more importantly, by far the most important reason for annexing Scotland was to force them to accept the Act of Settlement, which was for this reason written into the Act of Union. England feared a Scotland dependent on France, and sought to prevent that by incorporating it into the kingdom. TharkunColl 00:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Rhodesia

Why isn't this in the succession box? From its declaration of independence on 11 November 1965 until the establishment of a republic on 2 March 1970, Rhodesia recognised the queen as its head of state. That the queen failed to reciprocate is supremely irrelevant, and highlights the absurdity of claiming that an absentee monarch is just as much a monarch as one who actually lives in the country. Be that as it may, the queen was queen of Rhodesia from 1965 to 1970 whether she liked it or not. TharkunColl 11:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

This seems open to dispute. john k 13:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

"That the queen failed to reciprocate is supremely irrelevant, and highlights the absurdity of claiming that an absentee monarch is just as much a monarch as one who actually lives in the country." I fail to see how it is irrelevant, or what it has to do with being absent. This claim is ridiculous. JPD (talk) 13:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the idea is that the role of the Queen as head of state of Rhodesia, a role which she refused to accept, was actually basically the same as her role as head of state of Canada or Jamaica. john k 13:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The Rhodesians proclaimed Elizabeth II Queen of Rhodesia, but according to the law of the United Kingdom and its Dominions, she held no such title. I would say that it would be endorsing the POV that Rhodesia was independent from 1965 if the title Queen of Rhodesia was to be included. The Southern Rhodesia Act 1965 made it quite clear that no actions taken by the Southern Rhodesia Legislative Assembly and the Ministers after November 11, 1965 had any force in law. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 13:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not POV to claim that Rhodesia was independent from 1965, because it clearly was. The POV would be to express an opinion on whether it should have been independent. TharkunColl 15:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It most certainly is POV to say Southern Rhodesia was independent from 1965. It was run by a rebel régime that had no legal legitimacy and was never accorded diplomatic recognition by anyone. The United Kingdom remained responsible for the activities of Southern Rhodesia until April 1980 according to the United Nations. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

If Rhodesia was not independent, then how come Ian Smith was able to run it without recourse to the British government? TharkunColl 15:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Is North Cyprus an independent state today? de facto states are a tricky issue. john k 15:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Is North Cyprus able to act independently, or is it, in effect, completely dependent on Turkey? TharkunColl 18:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Was not Rhodesia largely dependent on South Africa? john k 20:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Now we are getting into deep politics - they were certainly dependent on South Africa's military aid from 1972 to 1976 (when the South Africans started to withdraw it in circumstances recounted in my featured article P. K. van der Byl. They were also dependent to some extent on Mozambique being friendly, and when it turned hostile in 1975, it wasn't long before the Rhodesians realised that cutting a deal would be a better option than military defeat. Sorry to divert everything but this is one of my favourite subjects. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 23:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I understood that TharkunColl was suggesting that the role as Queen of Rhodesia was basically the same as the role as Queen of Canada, but that is a patently absurd notion. It only makes sense if we assume that the lack of reciprocity is irrelevant. The fact that the Rhodesians were in practical terms able to act as though it was irrelevant may say something about absentee monarchs, but it doesn't make TharkunColl's statement any more reasonable. JPD (talk) 13:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Introduction II

I wanted to start afresh as the earlier section was getting too bogged down in argument and insult.

There seems to be one main problem: a conflict between Elizabeth’s formal legal role (or position) as queen in 16 countries (which I push), and how she physically acts as queen in one country vs. the other 15 (which John pushes).

Perhaps I can break this down into points, then; in order:

What makes Elizabeth notable is that she is a queen.
She holds the position and title of queen because the laws in sixteen countries, independently, state that she does.
These countries are both sovereign and equal in status, existing in a symmetrical relationship.
If we "break" Elizabeth into her different legal personas - into her different "queendoms" - the Queen of New Zealand is not, and cannot, be subordinate to the Queen of Canada, the Queen of the UK, or any other.
The Queen of the UK, however, has a longer and more personal relationship with her nation than the Queen of Australia, for example, has with hers.

If this follows, then the question is: how do we present this information in a manner where the UK is given proper place of standing at the appropriate time - equal in status but prominent in practice?

The first sentence of the article says, in essence: Elizabeth II is Queen of [Nation/s]... This speaks immediately of her legal position/s and title/s, which as stated above, is equal in every realm. Therefore the UK should not be singled out in this particular instance. However, once the article begins to explain more detail about Elizabeth, the positions she fills, etc., it can, and should, be explained that she resides in and is, for various reasons, most closely associated with her oldest realm.

Well technically speaking, her oldest realm is just England, though one could make arguments for Wessex.--Lairor 00:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

As a descendant of the ELctress of Hanover, herself from teh Stuart Dynasty, Scotland would be her oldest realm!

Does this, or does this not, make sense? --gbambino 21:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe it makes no sense, because it implies that the queen's role in those dominions (or whatever you want to call them) is in some way equal or equivalent to her role in the UK. I must emphasise yet again that this is not an article about legal theory, but a bio of Queen Elizabeth II. She might express, or even genuinely feel, sentiment for the former colonies - but at the end of the day those colonies have chosen to become sovereign states, and the amount of sentiment that we, as Britons, can be expected to expend on them is purely a generational thing and is very much dependent on how much we feel they still like us or not. If they want independence then fine, but we should not be expected to hold the umbilical cord for ever more, especially since our status as a world power has been gone for decades or even the best part of a century. We haven't done so badly, but please stop hassling us, okay? You are grown up now and can do your own thing. As a parent, we shall never reject you, but you really need to let go of the apron strings. Look at our earlier errant child, who left home without our permission, the USA - we can be really proud of that one, who has done so well in the world. TharkunColl 23:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe it makes perfect sense; this is a bio of Queen Elizabeth II; who is the Head of State of 16 countries; The UK should not be singled out; as it is only one Realm in 16.

The article should state later about her oldest realm, and how she has more 'hands on' contact with it, but not in the introduction. Brian | (Talk) 00:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The UK is more than just her "oldest realm," and the difference between her roles is not simply that she is more "hands on" in the UK than in the others. There are massive structural differences, as well as massive historical issues involved. john k 02:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to take TharkunColl to task for his blatant paternalism. As a citizen of one of those independent 'former colonies', I do not regard Britain as my 'parent.' We're siblings. Ever heard of the Statute of Westminster? Gbambino has quite properly made it clear than Elizabeth II is equally sovreign in the UK and every other nation in which she is head of state. Well done. Now quit flying the Union Jack (or should I say the Cross of St George?), people.This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for neo-colonialist views.--Gazzster 01:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Just because a child grows up doesn't mean it stops being a sibling. It just becomes an adult and begins to be treated as an equal by it's parent. I'm sure those ex - colonies would be very different places with very different people had the UK never existed. THerefore by grace of building those countries the UK is a parent country. Doesn't mean to say those countries are children, they once were, however now they are adult nations themeselves and are now treated equally as a result

If we were going to follow that line of argument, we would have to say that the parent countries of England are France (the Normans), Norway (the Normans), and in turn, Germany (the Anglo-Saxons, Gaul (the Celts), etc, etc, ad infinitum. So, should the Kingdom of France or Norway be given precedence to the Kingdom of the UK? Please, let's not be silly about this. This article is attempting to present the multiple roles of Elizabeth II in a neutral and objective way as possible. The most sensible way of doing this is to take a legal viewpoint bto her roles, making a point of her special relationship to he UK. No-one is trying to denegrate the UK.--Gazzster 06:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

True, and Tharkun is frequently the worst enemy of his own views, as he manages to offend nearly everyone in the discussion by being tactless. That said, Wikipedia is also not a forum for silly Canadian monarchist views, which is what Gbambino wants to make it. Would anyone deny the following statements:

The first paragraph of a wikipedia article ought to tell the most basic facts about the subject of the article.
Elizabeth II's role as Queen of the UK is, in practice, the most significant of her roles.

There is no need to get into legal technicalities at all. I don't think the second statement is even vaguely debatable. Those two premises are all that should be required to make us have a statement mentioning the UK explicitly and separately from the other commonwealth realms. (It's also worth noting, beyond this, that the only reason that Elizabeth II is Queen of all these other countries is because she's queen of the UK, thus the importance of mentioning that all the other realms were part of the British Empire.) john k 02:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Not true; the title all ready misleads people about the true nature of her roll; why should the intro continual that. The UK should not be mentioned 'explicitly'; The intro by should be containing the most basic facts; It will make it too intricacy if it says the UK in there; this is a encyclopedia, thus we need to mention that Her Majesty IS and HoS of 16 counties, and these counties are ALL equal. Brian | (Talk) 03:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll attempt to address what's more response than I was expecting.

Law plays an extremely large part here. Elizabeth would not hold any position and title of queen without laws, and the laws that create the current Crown, and Elizabeth as queen, state that it, and the Monarch, are shared equally among sixteen countries. Sentiment, EIIR's geographical location, and governors general are irrelevant, and to think otherwise is, as Gazzster implied, to maintain an over 80 year old, paternalistic, "Rule Britannia" mentality. Now, as I stated, there's a difference between Elizabeth's position and title as sovereign, along with the associated powers and duties accorded to her by law, and the actual act of carrying them out. Her position and title as Queen of, say, Australia is patently equal to her position and title as Queen of the UK. But, how she exercises her powers associated with each position is indeed different. So, I agree with John's point 2. However, though it is accurate, it ignores the very real principal of equality of her positions and titles, as set up by the Statute of Westminster, itself one of the laws that creates the Monarchy as it is today.

I also agree with John's point 1; therefore, right off the bat the opening paragraph should outline, in some fashion, her positions, titles, the equality of them, and the inequality of how she acts within them. Breaking it down:

A) Being monarch of 16 kingdoms is more important than being monarch of one, so I think we can agree that it should be stated Elizabeth is more than queen of one country.

B) Elizabeth's positions and titles are only accorded to her by law, and by law all are equal, so, when talking strictly about her positions and titles, the UK should not be elevated above the others.

C) Because the Monarchy is historically indigenous to the UK Elizabeth resides there, and for both those reasons she is therefore more personally involved with that nation and her government there than in the others.

I therefore now propose:

Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor; born 21 April 1926) is Queen of 16 sovereign states, holding each crown equally, though she is more directly involved with the United Kingdom, where the Monarchy is historically indigenous.

Besides the United Kingdom, Elizabeth II is also Queen of Canada, Australia... and Saint Kitts and Nevis, where she is represented by a vice-regal. Collectively, these countries, including the UK, are known as the Commonwealth Realms. She is the world's only monarch who is simultaneously Head of State of more than one independent nation. In legal theory she is the most powerful head of state in the world, although in practice she exercises very little political executive power (especially outside the United Kingdom).

PS- John, it's a tad bit hypocritical to accuse TharunColl of being tactless while you boldly deride me as ridiculous and silly. You're acting in bad faith. Surely you're capable of better behaviour than that. --gbambino 06:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not acting in bad faith. I have always acted in a way by which I intended to improve wikipedia. Acting in bad faith is when one's goal is not to improve wikipedia. I don't believe anyone here is acting in bad faith, least of all me ;-). However, I have repeatedly made personal attacks on you, which is, indeed, not very nice. I will say, in mitigation, that the personal attacks have generally come as a result of intense frustration at your persistence in saying the same thing over and over again, although this does not justify such a conspicuous violation of wikipedia policy. At any rate, I probably shouldn't be taking the effort to personally insult you. You believe what you believe, and harsh personal comments aren't going to convince anyone that I'm right, especially as you've been generally civil (if intractable) throughout. I will try to do better in the future.

As to the substantive issue, your suggested version seems somewhat better to me than your previous suggested versions, although "vice-regal" is an adjective, not a noun. "Vice-regent" would be the correct noun to use. Otherwise, I will reserve judgment for the moment. john k 10:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Point taken re. Vice-regent. --gbambino 18:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I would still much prefer to mention the UK first in the first line, then the fact that there are 15 others, rather than the other way round which to me very much looks like putting the cart before the horse. If it wasn't for the UK then not only wouldn't those other, separate "crowns" exist, but those very countries wouldn't exist either. Incidentally, on a less serious note, I was a little pissed last night, hence my rather off-topic rambling (by pissed, of course, I mean drunk - and definitely not angry as some of our North American cousins might assume upon reading the word). TharkunColl 11:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Going with 'those crowns/countries wouldn't exist' is a bit dangerous to me. Would the United Kingdom exist in its present form if not for the Norman Conquest of 1066? Of course not. Does that mean we should title this page 'Elizabeth Windsor, Duke of Normandy' or whatever it would be? Of course not. Lord Bob 06:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

True, Lord Bob. And we should also recall that it was the former dominions and colonies that helped make the United Kingdom what it is today. Much of its prosperity was due to goods imported from those places (and in many cases, exploited). 'Colonial' troops (I use the term tongue in cheek), particularly the Aussies, Canadians, South Africans and Indians, helped save Britain from defeat in WWI and II. This was precisely the point Billy Hughes, the PM of Australia, made at the Versailles Peace Conference in 1919. One can argue too, that the UK came to a new understanding of its role in the world as a result of divesting itself of its Empire. In the Commonwealth of Nations the UK is not a mistress or even a mother, but a sibling.Of course we in the 'colonies' (tongue in cheek, remember!) should be justly grateful for the Westminster system, the law system, and the rights of the people as set down by Magna Carta and other fine English and British documents. Someone I forget once wrote something like, 'the monarchy is great, not for the power it has, but for the power it prevents others from having.' And I think that's true. And I reckon Liz isn't a bad old girl. She's done a fine job. I say that as a republican. But 'Britannia rules the waves'? Those days have gone. And it's not a bad thing.--Gazzster 06:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure of the point that you and the previous poster are trying to make here. That the empire is gone is precisely the point I was making in my last post but one, and yet despite this the former colonies (or rather, some of them), still attach themselves to the UK by retaining our queen as their own. Well that's okay, but no one can deny that the queen is primarily queen of the UK - she is British by birth and sentiment, she lives here, she has an actual role in government here, she is paid for by British taxpayers... how long do you think the monarchy would last in Canada, Australia, etc. if the British government asked them to contribute a share of the civil list comensurate with their population, prosperity, etc.? And I'm not just talking about them funding her holidays in those countries by providing free hotels and such. Yes, it's absolutely true that the colonies contributed to British prosperity - why bother having them otherwise? - but it is also true that those countries simply wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the UK. And what about 1066? This, like any other event in British history large or small (and they probably don't come much larger than that one), has affected the course of our national development - but it hardly needs pointing out that this particular event happened hundreds and hundreds of years before Canada and Australia etc. were even thought of, and so this event in British history, with all its ramifications, is an integral part of the heritage that we bequeathed to our colonies. In short, whatever else the queen might be, she is primarily queen of the UK. TharkunColl 07:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Today, one could just as easily say the UK still attaches itself to Canada by retaining our queen as its own. Just because she spends more time in your country doesn't mean EIIR "belongs" to you any more than she does to the other states of which she's sovereign. And be clear on this - the Civil List covers the expenses of the British Monarchy. Canadians pay around $35 million a year to support the Canadian Monarchy, including the state duties of the Queen of Canada. The point that we each financially bankroll separate crowns with the same woman wearing them shows that we're in a personal union of equal kingdoms, and not colonial underling to great imperial master. Stating Elizabeth if "primarily Queen of the UK" implies you believe the latter. --gbambino 16:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

TharkunColl, I fear both of us have drifted off the point. You are, of course, right: no UK = no Australia, Canada, etc (though I think in the case of Canada which was formerly a French colony, this might not be necessarily true).However, that does not make your last statement true. How can you qualify the state of being queen? She is either Queen of the UK or not. She cannot be 'primarily' Queen of the UK. In Australia we cannot say that she is secondarily Queen of Australia. She is either Queen of Australia or she is not. Constitutionally she is just as vital to countries like Australia and Canada as she is in the UK. In Australia, the constitution rests upon her sovereignty. To use qualifiers like 'primarily' implies that her sovereignty in other nations depends upon her sovereignty of the UK. This is not the case. If the Parliament of the UK were to depose Elizabeth II, she would remain Queen of Australia, until such as the time as the Parliament of Australia also deposed her, if it chose to do so. --Gazzster 12:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

In practical terms, it is indeed the case that her sovereignty in the other realms is dependent on her sovereignty in the UK - and I'm not just talking about legal theory here. If a republican government was ever elected in the UK (which is possible, if rather unlikely), it would surely consult with the other realms about its plan to abolish the monarchy, and any such abolition would no doubt be carried out simultaneously. In the extremely unlikely scenario that it pushed through a law of abolition as quickly as possible without consulting the other realms, then I agree that legally the monarchy could survive in the other places - possibly by as much as a few months whilst those countries hurredly redrafted their constitutions and pushed through the necessary amendments (which we don't need to do here of course, since we haven't got a written constitution). Even more likely would be a plan to end the monarchy when the current queen dies, rather than straight away. But, in practical terms, there is no conceivable way that any of those countries would, in the long term, retain as head of state a person who would be living out her final years in splendid retirement at Sandringham or whichever of her houses the government decided that she could keep. Some might argue that the ex-monarch would leave England and go and live in a country where he or she was still legally head of state, but that would entail that country providing an establishment for her - i.e. a large house, paid staff, etc. etc. which would come to quite a lot of money. The prospect of this, I contend, would only serve to hasten the end of the monarchy in that particular country, rather than preserve it. Furthermore, any such putative monarch of, say, Canada - who actually lived in Canada in the manner just described - would still have no function in government as there would still be a governor general. Such a monarch would be a mere parasite on public resources. Does anyone really believe that the monarchy could survive in any commonwealth realm if it was abolished in the UK? TharkunColl 15:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

How do your speculative ramblings aid the discussion on the opening sentences of this article? --gbambino 18:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Quite simply. If the queen's status as queen of the other realms is dependent on her status as queen of the UK (which it obviously is), then it is as queen of the UK that she should be primarily identified. I actually find it quite offensive that some people outside the UK should try and dispute this. TharkunColl 17:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Everything you state as being "obvious" is pure conjecture. Others obviously take offence to your notion that sovereign states are somehow still reliant on the UK for who their head of state is. --gbambino 18:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Either way, bizarre speculations hardly help, and definitely don't make something obvious. You are hardly the person to talk about what is offensive, but we really should be able to explain the historical basis of the monarchy in the UK and the relative importance of the Queen's role in the UK today without resorting to hypothetical situations, however well we think we can predict what would happen. 18:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Each of Her Majesty's realms has a Government House all ready filled of "paid staff", the Queen could easily move in, also in counties like New Zealand, under the Constitution Act "Every power conferred on the Governor-General by or under any Act is a royal power which is exercisable by the Governor-General on behalf of the Sovereign, and may accordingly be exercised either by the Sovereign in person or by the Governor-General." All that establishes the GG is the “Letters Patent constituting the office of Governor-General of New Zealand”; which are issued by the Queen of New Zealand.

It’s clear that the UK is not superior than any other of her realms, to say otherwise means that you are spouting fallacies Brian | (Talk) 18:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Whether the UK is superior to Canada, Australia, etc. is purely a moot point. What is uncontestable is that the monarchy is primarily a UK institution. TharkunColl 22:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the above discussion, it seems clear that the crucial point is whether the Queen is Queen of the UK and 15 Realms, or 16 Realms (one of which is the UK). With all due respect to the Statute of Westminster, which puts the UK as first among equals, I think it is clear that the Queen's principal role is as Queen of the UK, where she holds a real and useful position within the government of the nation. With respect to all other members of the British Commonwealth, her role in (say) Jamaica is not one that unduly bothers either the Queen or Jamaica. She is certainly Queen, but she has little more than a ceremonial role to play.

We are not here to make political points. Nor are we here to argue over arcane interpretations. Perhaps we should look to reputable sites for guidance - after all, we are supposed to have sources for everthing we say, and if we are out of step with everything but second or third rate sources, the reader might rightky ask what sort of rubbish are we pushing.

So. Sources for the 15 Realms/16 Realms question, please? --Jumbo 23:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

No that isn't the question, as "UK and 15 other realms" and "16 realms including the UK" are exactly the same thing. The question is which way of wording it is less misleading. Neither statement tells the full story by itself. I feel that it is easier to put "16 realms" in perspective using the following sentences/paragraphs than it is to do the same thing with "UK and 15 other realms" but either way should be possible. Saying the other realms "also recognise her as Queen", however, is completely misleading. JPD (talk) 08:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless, we need a source that isn't an editor. --Jumbo 09:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

A source for what? The fact that one version is more/less misleading than the other? JPD (talk) 14:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I see what Jumbo's asking, but the question has already been answered at Talk:Commonwealth Realm. Though there are some conflicting sources, overall it appears that the UK is itself a Commonwealth Realm, and so, saying "the UK and 15 other Realms," "Tuvalu and 15 other Realms," or "16 Realms including the UK" is indeed all saying the same thing, only never fully explaining the situation. --gbambino 15:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've read that discussion page, and it smacks of how many angels may argue on the head of a pin. The argument appears to be circular in a very real sense, in that Wikipedia itself is seen as a valid source, and every other source obscure and requiring of interpretation. While I don't think that we are yet at the stage where we can determine the constitutional realities of the Commonwealth of Nations or create elephants from thoughtstuff, I can see that asking for a source on this point is essentially meaningless. On reviewing the quality of discussion, I am persuaded that the matter is in safe hands. My own opinion, FWIW, is that the UK is entitled to some special treatment if we are to accept "first among equals" as applying to the UK. --Jumbo 18:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a lot of nonesence being spoken in this discussion. The Queen was proclaimed Queen of each Dominion equally. It would be true to say that Edward VIII became King of Canada because he was King of the UK. But from 1936 onwards each monarch inherited the throne of each dominion equally. So Queen ELizabeth II is monarch of each of her realms equally, having inherited each separate throne from her father. If you are going to deny this then you are rewriting facts to match your opinion. If the UK became a republic today, the other realms would remain a monarchy until they chose to change that. The Queen herself makes it absolutely clear that she is Queen of each state equally, look at her website and listen to her speeches. If you want an article about the Queen's UK role alone then write an article about The Queen of the UK. However such an article would not represent the daily life of the Queen who weaves together many overlapping roles e.g. Head of State 16 independent realms (advised by 16 PMs), head of the commonwealth (advised by Secretary General Commonwealth), supreme governor Church England (advised by Archbishop Canterbury), Queen of about 50 substates including territories such as the Channel Islands and provinces such as British COlumbia. Each of these roles has at least one job a year for her to do with the biggest single one being Queen UK. UK being biggest job does not make it first amongst equals. If it did then Tony Blair would be called Prime Minister of England not UK as ENgland is the biggest part of UK and so 'first amongst equals.'

Personal union?

We need to provide a citation from an official source for the appropriateness of the term "personal union". Historically, personal unions have come about through wholly different circumstances than those pertaining to the UK and the other realms. Basically, a personal union occurs between two previously existing sovereign states simply through a process of inheritance. England and Scotland is the obvious example, but later we also have Great Britain and Hanover. Often, personal unions will lead to political union, as with England and Scotland. Sometimes, however, they are simply dissolved, as with Great Britain and Hanover. In themselves, they are always transitory. A special class of personal union is exemplified by that which occured between England and Normandy from 1066 to 1204 - although a result of conquest, it was claimed by William that the motive was dynastic.

The situation between the UK and the other realms is fundamentally different. Those realms were not pre-existing sovereign states with their own monarchs, but rather were colonies of the UK with the British monarch as their sovereign. There never was any independent monarchical tradition in those countries (obviously, I'm not talking about the indigenous peoples here, but the colonists). TharkunColl 11:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

As i understood it, "personal union" is a term concerning consitutional arrangements, not the history behind them. Anyway, since the article doesn't use the term "personal union", we don't need a source (of any sort, let alone official) for the appropriateness. JPD (talk) 13:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This is what the Wikipedia states under the article Personal Union 'A personal union is a relationship of two or more entities that are considered separate, sovereign states, which, through established law, share the same person as their respective head of state. It is not to be confused with a federation, which internationally is considered as a single state.'

It goes on to include Commonwealth nations as examples of countries in personal union, and does not qualify the term as Tharkuncoll does. (I'm not havin a go at you, Tharkuncoll- I respect anyway who cares enough to contribute to the Wikipedia)So it seems to me that if contributors want to dispute the meaning of Personal Union, they need to go to that page, not this one. Gbambino has done a fine job, I reckon--Gazzster 06:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

She is not the world's only monarch to be head of state of more than one nation

One of the monarchs of Andorra is also head of state of France. I'm sure this has been brought up before. TharkunColl 11:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Andorra doesn't have monarchs, as "monarch" means "sole ruler". If anything, they're diarchs. Proteus (Talk) 12:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

They are called monarchs, just like William and Mary in England, even though there were two of them. The etymology of a word does not necessarily correspond to its usage. TharkunColl 13:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyway the article says "She is presently the world's only monarch who is simultaneously Head of State of more than one independent nation," so that does not exclude Andorra's heads of state.Richard75 17:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It says "She is presently the world's only monarch who is simultaneously Head of State of more than one independent nation." Hence, the debate over whether or not the Princes of Andorra are considered monarchs. --gbambino 17:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The UK was NOT part of the British Empire!

Okay, this is starting to get rather silly now. Firstly, the term British Empire did not refer to the home country - it was a name used exclusively for the colonies, dominions, etc. Perhaps citizens of these said dominions might not quite fully realise this. We often hear phrases like: "Britain once had an empire", but never: "Britain was once part of an empire" (unless, perchance, one is talking about the Roman Empire). Secondly, the term "British Empire" had no legal meaning anyway, and was only ever an informal term referring to the territories that Britain ruled. Constitutionally, each of those colonies etc. had its own separate and unique relationship to the British state. Thirdly, if certain people will continue to insist that Britain was part of the British Empire, simply because it was one of the territories that the British state ruled, then under that definition it still is, and therefore the term "formerly" is incorrect in this instance. TharkunColl 15:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This is getting a bit silly. I did not mean to imply that the UK was not part of the empire, and it definitely reads better without that qualifier. While it is conceivable that TharkunColl's meaning of "British Empire" was used to some extent, it does not fit with similar terms such as "Roman Empire". More importantly, as there are obvious differences there, it doesn't fit with the way the term was used in the dominions or by the British government when communicating with the dominions. The intended meaning clearly depended on the context. As TC says, there was no legal meaning of the term, and so we shouldn't be too fussy about how it is used here in a similarly informal sense. The third point is nonsense. Whatever the term British Empire referred to, it is not used to talk about anything that currently exists, as it was the overseas territories that made it in any sense an empire. JPD (talk) 16:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Britain ruled it's own territory. The Imperial government was the government at Westminster. And, you may remember that all those old maps of the world that showed the countries of the Empire in red, included the UK as one of them. It's patently silly to claim that the country where an empire's centre lies is not itself a part of that very empire. Otherwise, as you allude to, Rome was not a part of the Roman Empire. Also Japan was not a part of the Japanese Empire, Akkad was not a part of the Akkadian empire, and so on. If you want to get technical about it, Britain and it's overseas territories are indeed the only parts of the British Empire left. But, as you note, it's not a legal term, purely a descriptive one, and it has fallen out of modern usage. Frankly, I don't think that the detail pertaining to the former Empire is even neccessary in this particular article. --gbambino 16:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

As for the maps, they still exist, and show the Commonwealth in red - yet no one is claiming that the Commonwealth is a state (and in any case, mapmakers are not legislators). That the British Empire was not like the Roman, Akkadian, or what-have-you empires is the whole point - those empires were indeed states, which the British Empire most assuredly was not. Each "state" of the empire was governed separately from its own office in Whitehall, whereas the UK itself was governed by its own government. Yes, London was the centre of the empire in this sense, but in no way was it the capital of a huge state that spanned the globe. The British never consolidated their empire into a unified administration - indeed, all the forces at work within it were always in the opposite direction. But the basic point still remains - the UK was never considered to be part of the empire, rather, it had an empire. Your other point is purely arbitrary. If you choose to include the UK as part of the empire, then it obviously still is - you cannot pick a single year in which the British Empire ceased to exist, because it just gradually faded from everyday conversation. With Canada, Australia, etc. you can pick a year (or years) in which they ceased to be part of the empire, but you cannot do this with the UK because the term British Empire was never enshrined in law. The edit that you made to the article is therefore wholly misleading, and is why I originally wrote "former colonies", to avoid such ambiguity. TharkunColl 18:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Though not an uninteresting topic, perhaps the issue of whether or not the UK was part of its empire is really just an aside here; the main question is: does this point add anything to the article on QEII? The opening sentence is about her positions as queen, in which countries she holds them, and that each position is legally equal. I don't see how the former status of these countries as part of an empire that was, in all senses, dead twenty years before Elizabeth even took the throne, and I'd prefer to add the detail regarding her closer relationship to the UK instead. --gbambino 18:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps readers might be wondering why on earth it is that she is queen of all these widely scattered countries. TharkunColl 18:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it may be a good thing to give some indication of why there is one queen for all these countries. However, TharkunColl is wrong on several points. The "basic point" that the UK was never considered to be part of the empire is simply false. However often the term "the empire" was used in Britain to refer to overseas colonies, it was also used to include Britain, both overseas and by the British government. How administration was handled is irrelevant. The fact that you can't in fact pick a single year in which Australia, etc. left the Empire gives a hint that you shouldn't expect to be able to pinpoint when the Empire ceased to exist. The Empire was a very strong concept in everday speech of people and governments, and the fact that it was never well defined means that we should use it in the same vague manner, rather than trying to pin the meaning down or ignore it. If you are insist on such a narrow understanding of the empire as to find it problematic to suggest that the UK was part of the British Empire, then perhaps you could suggest another way of making the same point that is actually accurate. All the realms were governed by the UK, there weren't each colonies in their own right. JPD (talk) 09:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Gbambino makes the ridiculous claim that the British Empire was in all senses, dead twenty years before Elizabeth even took the throne. That is one of the most utterly absurd claims I have ever heard. India did not become independent until 5 years before Elizabeth took the throne. The Empire at Elizabeth's accession still included Malta, Cyprus, Hong Kong, Gibraltar, Bermuda, the Bahamas, Jamaica, the Leeward Islands, the Windward Islands, Barbados, Trinidad, British Honduras, British Guiana, the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, the Gambia, Sierra Leone, the Gold Coast, Nigeria, British Somaliland, British East Africa, Uganda, Tanganyika, Zanzibar, Nyasaland, Northern Rhodesia, Southern Rhodesia, Bechuanaland, Swaziland, Basutoland, Mauritius, the Seychelles, Malaya, Straits Settlements, North Borneo, Sarawak, the Solomon Islands, Fiji, the Gilbert and Ellice Islands, Tonga, Brunei, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, the Trucial States, Bahrain, South Arabia, and probably some other territories in the Pacific. Could you at least pretend that Canada isn't the only thing you care about? Besides the creation of the four self-governing dominions (plus Ireland, which had fully separated itself in 1949), the independence of India, Pakistan, Ceylon, and Burma in 1947-48, and the giving up of the Middle Eastern Mandates in 1931 (Iraq), 1946 (Transjordan), and 1948 (Palestine) the British Empire was still alive, if not well, in 1952. john k 13:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You know, John, you really need to tone it down with the sarcastic and snide attempts to belittle. Please. I realise that what I stated was incorrect, and should have said that the Empire was beginning to die 20 years before Elizabeth acceded to the throne. I know full well that Britain still had colonies by the time of Elizabeth's accession, but thought that the term "empire" had been dropped after 1931, when there was a conscious effort on the part of Westminster to replace it with "commonwealth." I suppose, now, that it was still thrown around in common usage into the 1950s. Anyway, I'm presently wondering why we're discussing the inclusion of a sentence about the former colonial status of some countries, for the purpose of explaining why EIIR is queen of them, when the third paragraph of the article explains in perfect detail how it came to be (though it does say "as other colonies of the British Commonwealth attained independence...") --gbambino 16:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The term continued to be used into the 1960s, and it wasn't until that decade that most of the African colonies became independent. But by 1970 it belonged to a remote and half-forgotten past. There's actually a rather neat historical symmetry here: The first colonies, and the term British Empire itself, were created under Elizabeth I (it was the occultist John Dee who coined the phrase). That empire finally came to an end under Elizabeth II. TharkunColl 15:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

If the question of when the term Empire died out is under question, it mat be worth noting that Empire Day only changed its name to Commonwealth Day in 1958. Kaid100 11:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

And the OBE - Order of the British Empire - has still not yet changed its name (a 2004 proposal to change it to "Order of British Excellence" has been quietly brushed under the carpet). TharkunColl 11:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Tharkuncoll, I think I speak for lots of editors when I ask you please to drop it. You, and others, are distracting the editors by making a big deal of these unsubstantial technical points. Go to the British Empire page and argue your case there. (I notice that article talks about the 'overseas' British Empire [1.1], implying that the British Isles are included in the Empire). I think most people agree that the Empire is just as much a romantic concept as a real entity, and perhaps more so. Elizabeth II was never referred to as 'empress', although her predecessors were Emperors of India. Strictly speaking, the only imperial government was in India, and even that was subject to the government of the UK, a kingdom. When the BE began or when it ended will depend on cultural and social context, and varied readings of complex political, social, diplomatic and legal developments. Some might hold that the Empire ended with the Statute of Westminster: others; World War II and decolonisation: still others; that is still exists. It ended, if it did, not with a bang, but a whimper. In any case, it is irrelevant. This discussion is about the person of Elizabeth II. Please confine your contributions to the topic or demonstrate how your contributions help the article. --Gazzster 02:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

the british empire and the uk were the same thing. from chris

No, they weren't. The British Empire was the collective (and informal) name of all the territories controlled by the UK. TharkunColl 18:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Current wording is wrong

It seeks to diminish the queen's role in the UK as merely a result of the UK being the historical home of the monarchy. And it unaccountably removes the reason why she is queen of all those other places as well. TharkunColl 22:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I've just changed it. And I would really appreciate it if non-UK citizens would stop trying to dictate to us how we should organise our own monarchy. TharkunColl 23:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Where do you get off, by lying and claiming that its your "own monarchy", its 15 other countries monarchy as well, and wikipedia needs to reflect that. Brian | (Talk) 02:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You'll have to give some substantial evidence that the wording is actually wrong. You'll also have to accept the fact that "your" monarchy is no longer distinctly yours, and that the other countries that share it with "you" aren't subservient colonies. --gbambino 03:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You are incorrect, and I do not appreciate being called a liar (previous poster). The monarchy is completely British - anyone with half a brain can see that - and this is not altered by the fact that a group of former colonies have chosen to retain it. Please provide substantial evidence that my version of the wording is wrong. TharkunColl 07:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I complety agree with User:TharkunColl. I also am getting annoyed at non-UK citizens insisting she's as much your Queen as she is ours, legally she maybe, but practically and in every other sense she is not. She was born here, she lives here, all her family live here, she always opens our Parliament but doesn't always open the other countries's parliaments. In addition, if your ask most foreign people what country Elizabeth II is Queen of and they will say the UK. To have in the infobox "Many differant titles throughout realms" or similar not only is plain stupid, but also makes Wikipedia look riduclous. No other encyclopedia in the World would style her as such, and by doing so ourselves it makes us look pathetically pedantic. --Berks105 10:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Then may I suggest you petition Her Majesty to renounce her sovereignty of those 'non-UK citizens', so you don't have to suffer the indignity of sharing her with us colonials? Until such a time, she is just as much our monarch as yours. Gentlemen, I strongly suggest we end this discussion ourselves. It's degenerating rapidly. --Gazzster 11:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You may suggest we end it now and by doing so we would keep the version you like, wouldn't we? I would be happy keeping the opening line how it is now, but I feel the infobox must be changed (ie "Queen of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth Realms") before this discussion can really end. --Berks105 11:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The trouble is that these people want the queen, but are not prepared to pay for her. I honestly believe that they have no idea just how ubiquitous and all-pervasive she and her family are within British society. They keep citing the queen's legal status in order to back up their position, but legal status and practical reality are two very different things. TharkunColl 13:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I would probably agree in part with some of the points TharkunColl is making, if it weren't for his ridiculous claim that HM non-British subjects (or anyone else) trying to make the article accurate are somehow impinging on the rights of British subjects. JPD (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not a question of "rights", but simple common sense (and courtesy). I would not presume to edit an article about a country that I had never been to or studied. TharkunColl 14:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You directly implied that someone was trying to tell you how to organise your monarchy, which is ridiculous. All that anyone has done is edit and try to influence the editing of this article, which should reflect the real situation. You say you wouldn't edit articles about some countries, but I would not assume that you hadn't been to or studied any country. That isn't even relevant, because the point being made here is that this article isn't only relevant to one country. Clearly it would be going too far to suggest that all the realms are equally relevant in every way, which is why I say I would agree with some of your points if you weren't at the same time claiming that Canadians, Australians and so on, are unable to comment. JPD (talk) 14:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I would encourage anyone to comment, from anywhere - as long as they were in possession of all the facts. Some editors here have proved their lack of knowledge of the true situation by continually claiming that the queen's role is the same in the UK as elsewhere. TharkunColl 14:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen anyone suggesting that her roles are equal in every way, and while some have exaggerated the similarities, this has been no more so that you have exaggerated the differences. Any ignorance of Britain has been matched by your own ignorance of the role of empire and monarch in the colonies/dominions/"overseas realms". Most of this has been shown in discussions which were either largely irrelevant to this biographical article, or like this one, where neither of the versions being discussed is actually "wrong", whichever may be better. JPD (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be simply degenerating into a fight between some spoiled, little English school boys who still believe Britannia rules the waves, and whose mummies told them not to share with the dirty colonials, and those who realise that the object they're arguing over is now inherently shared amongst various sovereign, high-standing nations.

I've thought long and hard about how to sum up in only two or three paragraphs the complex relationship of the Queen to her realms in a succinct, fair, and accurate manner (keeping in mind that this article is about a person, and not a country, Tharunkoll). Thus, it's been narrowed down to three key points about Elizabeth: a) she is a queen of 16 countries, b) she holds her positions as Queen equally, and C) she is more personally associated with the UK because the Monarchy resides there, and it resides there because it is indigenous to that country. The paragraphs following explain how, why and when she became Queen of each country, how many she has been queen of, and how many remain. If anyone can point out in what way the opening paragraphs don't explain this, I'd love to hear it. --gbambino 16:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know who you're referring to, but it can't be me because, as all my posts have made clear, the fact that the empire ended long ago is precisely the whole point of this debate. Your three significant points distort the issue. Here are mine. a) she is queen of the UK. b) she is also retained as queen by 15 other countries. c) this is a hangover from the British Empire. TharkunColl 16:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Your points seem to be derived from your old opinion that the countries other than the UK are simply semi-colonies in transition to becoming republics, and the Queen temporarily fills the void in the executive. That is not fact, it is theory, and one which doesn't even have evidence to support it. It is also a perfect example of your misunderstanding of the role and position of the Queen in the "overseas realms." --gbambino 16:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

There is strong evidence to support it - 16 of 31 overseas realms have already done it. Be that as it may, that is not what I'm arguing here. I am simply stating the salient points as regards the queen's position as a person. TharkunColl 16:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Your points do not address certain realities which must be considered when trying to inform about Elizabeth's positions, and appear to be based on a belief that countries other than the UK are semi-colonies where the Queen's position is subservient to her position in the UK. You still have no evidence that favours this opinion. --gbambino 16:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not so. I have never described those countries as "semi-colonies" - former colonies is a perfectly precise description. Nor have I ever described the queen's role there as "subservient" to that in the UK - qualitively different does not imply subservience. As for evidence that the queen's role is different in the UK then in those other places, I merely have to refer you to any UK newspaper, TV station, or any other type of news medium, almost every day of the year. I must also state, incidentally, that I have no animus against the inhabitants of those countries - quite the reverse - but I strongly feel that in concentrating on the legalistic nature of her roles, you are completely ignoring (or at the very least, diminishing to almost vanishing point) the plain fact that legislation does not and cannot tell the whole story. For all practical purposes her role in the UK is vastly different, and infinitely more important, than her roles in the other countries. TharkunColl 18:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The article currently notes clearly that Elizabeth's role is different in the UK. There is no substance to the claim that her role in the UK is, however, more important. --gbambino 19:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

By "more important" I am not trying to imply superiority. What I mean is that in the UK she has far, far more to do than she does in the other places - because in those other places those jobs are either done by somebody else, or they don't exist. TharkunColl 19:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Fine, but the article as it stands doesn't dispute or inaccurately portray that. --gbambino 19:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

How about a compromise: Elizabeth II's title Is Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. Why not use it in the opening paragraph of this article. The title is undisputable, isn't it? It's verifiable ain't it? It should end this debate.

GoodDay 15:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

See List of titles and honours of Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom#Royal titles. JPD (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I was close: My point is JPD, that list (the one you correctly pointed out), would be better to use in the first paragraph. GoodDay 18:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

Okay, well we're right back to where it all started - the infobox. Looking at other pages on monarchs who were simultaneously sovereign of more than one independent country, all the titles are listed. See: James I of England, George I of Great Britain, George II of Great Britain, George III of Great Britain, and so on. Elizabeth II is sovereign of sixteen independent states, and she holds each of these title equally. Instead of listing all sixteen, which would look unweildly, it seems that "Queen of various states" summs it up accurately and succinctly. --gbambino 16:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No, because you have left it virtually devoid of informative content. TharkunColl 16:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

"Queen of various states" is perfectly informative, it simply doesn't meet your pro-UK standards. However, after reading again through the earlier discussion on this matter, I'll concede to leave the infobox as it is. The royal family thing, however, is another matter. --gbambino 16:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The royal family thing is a completely different matter. It is not about the actual text of the article, but where the link points to. It clearly should link to British Royal Family, because that is the main article on the subject. JPD (talk) 17:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Right, I've reverted the link so it points to the main article, and by far the most informative on the matter, British Royal Family. It, of course, remains piped as Royal Family. The infobox title is now also in an agreeable state.

Now, I strongly recommend this edit war come to an end. This is utterly unhelpful in every way. D B D

The link should link to British Royal Family page not because of the British bit of it, but because it is the best page that lists all the Royals the link is refering to. I totally agree with the above, so let us please end this constant edit war. --Berks105 18:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, to correct my latest edit summary which should have read that User:Gbambino conceded to leave the info, not User:TharkColl as I accidentaly put. Secondly, with User:Gbambino saying "I'll concede to leave the infobox as it is" when it read "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms", can I appeal to User:BrianNewZealand to leave this how it is. His recent changes went without even a word on the TalkPage, and I believe he is now going against agreed consensus. --Berks105 10:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

If we had an infobox for Philip II of Spain, would you want it to say "ruler of various different European territories"? Because not only was Philip sovereign of, well, various different European territories, but he was, in fact, not the King of Spain, as that title didn't exist at the time. He was King of Castile, León, Aragon, both Sicilies, Jerusalem, Portugal, Navarre, Toledo, Valencia, Galicia, Majorca, Seville, Sardinia, Cordoba, Corsica, Murcia, Jaen, the Algarves, Algeciras, Gibraltar, the Canary Islands, the East and West Indies, and the Islands and Mainland of the Ocean Sea, Archduke of Austria, Duke of Burgundy, Lotharingia, Brabant, Limburg, Luxembourg, Gelderland, Milan, Athens, and Neopatras; Count of Habsburg, Flanders, Tyrol, Barcelona, Roussillon, Cerdagne, Artois, Burgundy, Hainaut, Holland, Zeeland, Namur and Zutphen; Lord of Frisia, Salins, Mechelen, Utrecht, Overyssel, and Groningen; Margrave of Oristano; Count of Gociano. Some of these titles are purely titular (Jerusalem, Corsica, Austria, Duchy of Burgundy, Lotharingia, Athens, Neopatras); and some of them don't actually indicate specific kingdoms with their own government (León, Toledo, Galicia, Cordoba, Murcia, Jaen, the Algarves, Algeciras, Gibraltar, the Canary Islands, the East and West Indies, and the Islands and Mainland of the Ocean Sea were all possessions of Castile, more or less); but that still leaves a large number of territories that he ruled - not to mention that he held the titles of King of England, France, and Ireland during his second marriage (and at that time, even "King of France" meant something, since the english still controlled Calais). We don't have an infobox at the moment, but I imagine that if we did, it'd probably just say "King of Spain". john k 13:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Simply out of curiosity, why is it acceptable to have a non-existent title such as "King of Spain" applied to Philip II, but the non-existent title "Queen of the Commonwealth Realms", or something to that effect, is unacceptable here? I don't agree with using such a descriptor, but wonder about the contradictory "rules" between the two articles. --gbambino 20:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Berks105:You are wrong imo, having it like that is completely misleading, If you insist on UK been there, I insist on New Zealand, Canada, Australia... etc been there. You cannot single out one of her roles, that is completely POV and misleading. "Queen of various states" was a more appropriate title Brian | (Talk) 18:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Clearly we will never agree on this matter, so I won't repeat the points myself and others have made recently that singling out the UK is not POV or misleading. However, seeing as everyone bar you has agreed to leave it how it is, I hope you will also agree to this, even if you are not happy with it. After all, we have to comprise and I hope that we can leave it like this and stop wasting all our times. Thank you. --Berks105 20:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I dislike it been like that, why should UK be there? Why not "Queen of New Zealand and the other Commonwealth Realms" what makes UK so special? The title already misleads readers; the infobox should not do the same. Just because you think 'your right, I’m wrong'. Another user recently corrected this error, only to find that you guys can't accept the truth. Brian | (Talk) 23:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

"What makes UK so special?" I am simply astounded at the sheer bloody-mindedness of this particular query. Allow me to humour you, good sir. What makes the UK so special is that it is the seat of the Queen, her Office, her royal ancestors for hundreds upon hundred of years. The House of Windsor is a house in the British monarchy. The 15 other realms simply would not have HM as queen were it not for the fact that the British Empire marched in and colonised them! Now, for pity's sake, see reason, quit your excessive whining, and allow the (even if begrudging) consensus to remain. - D B D^R 23:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

“Queen of various states” sums it up truthfully and concisely, I see no point in specifically saying UK. Brian | (Talk) 00:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest if you really don't know why the UK is specified then I don't believe you ever will. As User:Danbarnesdavies said, for the sake of Wikipedia please stop arguing and just accept the consensus that has been reached, even if you don't like it personally. We all have things in Wikipedia we don't like, but we just have to accept, we can't always have what we want can we? --Berks105 10:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

My tuppence worth - it seems to me that the page title "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" is inappropriate, given that she is also queen of other countries, including Canada, Australia and New Zealand which are not part of the UK and have become as much sovereign states in their own right as the UK. I vote for an move to "Queen Elizabeth II". Viewfinder 03:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree the page should be moved to a more fitting title like Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth --Barry

^talk 21:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Definitely not. The page should stay where it is. This is in keeping with the Wikipedia policy of identifying monarchs by their most well-known title and/or country. Try typing in "James VI of Scotland" and see what you get. TharkunColl 23:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Its stupid if you ask me Brian | (Talk) 05:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

As I have said before, I think we will all have to agree to disagree. The main points for the current version have all been stated, and most people, including User:Gbambino who was previosuly against it, have agreed (even if they're not happy with it) to leave the infobox as it is. So can we agree that we should keep the page as it is now, which means we can get rid of the page protection, and any subsequent changes to that area of the infobox be treated as vandalsim and reverted. I fear if we don't this discussion will go on forever and we will never reach a conclusion. --Berks105 11:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The reason that we 'will never reach a conclusion' is because you are unwilling for one to be reached. This page was incorrectly protected imo, as it came a day after the last correction by 'another user, so its not enforcing a "cool down" period to stop an "edit war," (WP:FULL)that you are causing. I am not the only one with a problem with this article. Brian | (Talk) 19:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

To be honest I do not know why would want to admit to having her as your head of state such a dated tradition but the infobox is wrong she is the Queen of all the States Equally just because she lives in the UK means nothing the box and the title for that matter should be changed to something along the lines of Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth and the UK is a Commonwealth realm it should not be separate in the infobox as for James VI of Scotland he was only king of three countries Lizzy of the other hand has 16. --Barry

^talk 19:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The tradition's no more dated than republicanism, it's merely somewhat "out of fashion" in this U.S. dominated world; but I digress. Your comment re. James I & V being king of only three countries, while Elizabeth II is queen of sixteen, is the crux of the problem. The infobox on James I & V lists clearly, and separately: King of Scotland, King of England, and King of Ireland. However, because Elizabeth has so many countries under her sovereignty we can't fit them all in, and that leads to this silly war over who she belongs to most. I've said, and I still say, if she's given each position and title equally then we should treat it as such, and not be children spitting over how she's more mine than yours. But, it seems such a compromise just can't be reached. --gbambino 20:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I also don't think a comprise can ever be reached because everyone has such definate views on it. But as the page can't remain protected forever, what shall we do? We need to come to some form of conclusion. --Berks105 21:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok even if the title does not get changed the infobox should read Queen of the Commonwealth realms it seems pretty obvious. --Barry

^talk 22:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

But this is the problem, to me it seems pretty obvious that the UK should be mentioned in the infobox, regardless of the legality of the situation. Could we have some form of poll to settle this once and for all. Hopefully we could get more that just those currently discussing it to vote in the poll. --Berks105 22:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that I'm Canadian and I wish we could get her ugly effigy off of our coins and 20's. I was brought up being told that she was the Queen of England, the UK or GB, which to someone people are all the same thing but that's a whole other that I don't even support, so let's not go there. Hereditary monarch is dumb to begin with, hereditary monarchs who just sit there and smile and don't have any real power are just a waste of money. Go read Common Sense. But yeah, I think the whole "most commonly known as" thing comes into play here and honestly, how often has she even been here?--Lairor 00:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, seriously guys. Here's a hypothetical...if England became a republic, and completely dissolved its monarchy, how many Commonwealth nations would continue to have the Queen as their head of state? None, most likely. The monarchy of the commonwealths ORIGINATES in UK, the royal family LIVES in the UK, it is where it is situated, it is where it has most influence. As an Australian, I have absolutely no problem with it reading "Lizzy is Queen of the UK and the Commonwealth Nations" with Commonwealth Nations linked so everyone can see a pretty map with New Zealand and Canada and Australia and all them other little states in red. Nobody is going to miss the point, and everyone reading through about the British monarchy will understand that it was adopted by the commonwealth nations because they were historically colonised by the brits. *Slaps all you little children* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.238.8.164 (talk) 13:04, 1 November 2006

Right, mate. There's been a lot of fuss over very little. --Gazzster 22:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The title should be Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth Realms. Not Commonwealth because she is only the head of the Commonwealth, she only rules in the Commonwealth Realms. Each Realm is equal to all the others. I live in Australia and she is just as much my Queen as she is as someone from the UK. :)YourPTR! 11:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The page should remain as it is if no resolution can be made. Elizabeth is technically not Queen of the Commonwealth realms, merely Head of State, however, she is Queen of the UK. I do agree that EII of the UK is slightly misleading, but Elizabeth of the Commonwealth Realms is more misleading, as the UK is not technically part of the Commonwealth. She is as much Queen of the UK as Head of State of Australia, NZ, Canada etc, so perhaps a title of just Elizabeth II is the best all round solution, even though it is quite vague and not exact.

The UK is a Commonwealth Realm along with all the other former colonies the Statute of Westminster made her queen of all the countires equally--Barry

^talk 22:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

That was probably the most ill-informed comment on here. She IS Queen of those Commonwealth realm individually (i.e. she "wears" 16 or so crowns, not one unified crown), she IS Queen of Australia and Queen of New Zealand, and Queen of Canada etc. And the UK is part of the Commonwealth. Rob.derosa 09:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Second longest served head of state?

On the list of longest-serving monarchs, the Queen is fifth, not second. Samoa has the longest served (Malietoa Tanumafili II of Samoa), Thailand the second (Bhumibol Adulyadej, even though that article claims he is the first), and then there is Saqr bin Mohammad al-Qassimi and Tenzin Gyatso, who I'm not sure are Heads of State of sovereign countries. What's the real situation then? --El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 13:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

She is considered second, after the King fo Thailand. Tanumafili II is only counted from when Samoa became independent in 1962; the Dalai Lama certainly doesn't count, as no country recognizes Tibet as a sovereign state; Ras al Khaimah is a subnational division, not a sovereign country. john k 13:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

1st live TV

The Personality and Image section tells us "Elizabeth's first appearance on live television was in Prescott, Ontario in 1959..." Wasn't the coronation in 1953 broadcast live?217.154.66.11 12:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

That's what I'd thought too, but the source, from the Department of Canadian Heritage, says all HM's previous appearances on television were filmed. It says: "The first live appearance was part of coverage of the official opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway on June 26 near Prescott. All Her Majesty's previous appearances had been filmed." --gbambino 14:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's wrong. It was famously the event which really kickstarted the massive uptake of (very expensive) television sets in the UK. This site [[1]] for instance talks of an outside broadcast. Admittedly it does not explicitly say it was a live broadcast but it's the only possible interpretation. It does point out that the United States (which I guess includes Canada, sorry Canadians) watched telefilms flown across the atlantic (no transatlantic simulcast in those days.) Do you think this is referring to the first live broadcast in Canada?217.154.66.11 17:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The BBC news website states it was live with the following line "The ceremony was watched by millions more around the world as the BBC set up their biggest ever outside broadcast to provide live coverage of the event on radio and television." http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/2/newsid_2654000/2654501.stm

Maybe due to time differences the broadcast was recorded and shown later on but in the UK it was live.

Also, to further prove there were live appearances before 1959, made in New Zeland at Christmas, the following links states the above in more detail http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/15/newsid_2906000/2906955.stm

--PrincessBrat 22:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Free content image

should replace the crown-copyrighted image on the article, when protection is taken down. Borisblue 01:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest that a different image of Queen Elizabeth II be chosen than the one currently in use. The current image is grainy and not very formal, which in my opinion is not appropriate for the biography of a head of state.

The Canadian one was fine, I doubt the Crown minds :) Rob.derosa 09:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Change is ASAP...it's terrible quality!

Well, the official Canadian portrait is up for deletion, pending a debate over its fair-use rationale. Even if it stays it may not be suitable to use in this article. --gbambino 20:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Its the copyright police gone made. These people surely have something more constructive they can be doing. Astrotrain 21:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This photo is absolutely atrocious. Jammy simpson 22:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Please change the photo for one which does not look like a poor tabloid picture! This is hardly appropriate for a monarch.

It's not the copyright police gone mad. It's the "free content" ideologues gone mad. Go look at Wikipedia talk:Fair use. If you ask them, they'll admit freely that there's no chance of wikipedia getting into actual legal difficulties over the Canadian image. The problem is that the Canadian image is a crutch which will keep us from taking our own free content photographs of the Queen, or using wikipedia's massive clout to get the Palace to release a photo under GNU. john k 12:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It appears the official Canadian portrait is to remain. However, I'm not sure if the "free content ideologues" will allow it's use here. --gbambino 21:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

She looks like she's suffered a stroke. Please change it. Biofoundationsoflanguage 20:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Aha! New image is slightly better. Biofoundationsoflanguage 11:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it looks better, but she's still wearing her British honours, and the image isn't free. --gbambino 16:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I found a free image, it is of good quality and she even appears to be smiling. --Oden 15:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

That image is quite good for this article, though I might suggest cropping it slightly. --gbambino 04:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the image isn't too bad, however, I still think that a more formal image would be the most appropriate. Could someone provide an explanation as to why it is unacceptable to use an image in which she is wearing her British honors? I understand that she is the head of state of multiple nations, but the article title does identify her as being "of the United Kingdom." ClixTrek 00:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about creating a free encyclopedia, so if a free image can depict the same information as a a fair use image, it should always be replaced. (Fair use criteria #1)
A fair use image is never allowed in the infobox, since this is a biographical article of a living person. In a biographical artice the image in the infobox serves only to illustrate what a the person looks like (there are a few exceptions regarding living people who are very reclusive).
The image in question was cropped from Image:Queen of canada wob.jpg. That image depicts Queen Elizabeth II of Canada. Of course, I don't mean to imply that any other fair use image would be acceptable. --Oden 09:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Coronation

I came here looking for a wikilink direct to QEII's coronation. To my surprise there's no such article. Surely there's enough material to make a nice article? --kingboyk 14:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

If you go to coronation you'll find a number of links to subjects related to the Queen's coronation. I agree, the coronation was a significant event. I believe it was the first British coronation to be televised; it was a morale booster for the British after the horrors of the war, and it captivated the attention of the world. It must have had a significant cultural effect. I'm not interested enough in it to make an article. But you could write it yourself, or go to 'request it', after you search Coronation of Elizabeth II.--Gazzster 04:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Mind you it will set off all the arguments again as it was not just a British coronation but a British, Pakistani, South Afircan, Canadian, New Zealaner and Sri Lankan one! :)

O lordy! Not gettin' into that one, mate!--Gazzster 22:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

See Coronation of the British monarch, which has some details on QEII's coronation.Richard75 16:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Manner of dress during the VE day celebrations

At present the article says: "During the VE Day celebrations in London, she and her sister dressed in ordinary clothing and slipped into the crowd secretly to celebrate with everyone." If it were not for the fact that the article is locked, I would mark this as needing a citation. I have heard, but cannot cite, that at one point when the then Princess Elizabeth was in the midst of the crowd, she found herself standing next to a Guards officer. In order to keep from being recognized, Princess Elizabeth had pulled ATS service cap forward. The Guards officer remarked that she was improperly dressed and that when Princess Elizabeth did not adjust her headdress he stated that he could not remain in the company of a fellow officer who was not properly dressed. I would not describe an ATS officer's uniform as "ordinary clothing" and so this story is at odds with the article. It may be that the above account is pure fiction, but I would at least like a citation for the "ordinary clothing" remark. Greenshed 17:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

from IMDB article on recent film

Here is a comment from the IMDB article about the recent film:

From what I've read, JR, Elizabeth was eager to "join up" from the time she turned 18 (April 1944) but had an uphill battle with her parents and their courtiers about it. Wasn't the Thing To Do for the heir -- if she was female, that is. Elizabeth felt patriotically that all her peers were doing war work and she wanted to do the same -- very much in the spirit of the times.

She finally won and was allowed to sign on with the Auxiliary Territorial Service (the women's branch of the Army Reserve) and go through a mechanic's course at Aldershot, a base near Windsor, although she didn't sleep in barracks but was chauffered back to the Castle every night. By this time it was early '45 and the threat of a German invasion of England was pretty much over. Apparently they hand-picked qualified drivers to "take" the course with her, young women whose behavior was deemed beyond reproach and who could be trusted to behave properly around the Heiress Presumptive to the Throne. These other students had to fake that they were learning the material they had already mastered and were even assigned questions to ask at appropriate points (even though they already knew the answers). Nevertheless, Elizabeth wasn't allowed to mingle with them much and was not told about the deception.

She was reportedly fascinated, both with the work ("we've had sparking plugs all last night at dinner" her mother said) and with the exposure to ordinary people, albeit limited. At one point her Aunt Mary (the Princess Royal) visited her unit on an inspection and she got a glimpse of the frantic spit-and-polish that goes on before such an event, "something I shall never forget".

In the end she qualified as a mechanic and driver not long before the war ended, so she didn't get much chance to do practical service. Undoubtedly the main benefit from the experience was the PR value of photographs of the Heiress to the Throne in a khaki overall, bending earnestly over the engine of a truck with a spanner in her hand.

(posted by lynettecon 2 days ago (Thu Nov 9 2006 06:16:30 in the thread "Your favorite tiny detail?").

Any comments on this? How true is it?--Filll 15:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was well known that she was in the ATS during the war and I'm sure I have seen newsreel footage on television of her in uniform more than once. No idea if the King and Queen were for or against it though.217.154.66.11 13:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Ask the Queen

Such a fervent discussion is rarely seen nowadays and seems to be overshadowing articles which tackle such issues as global warming and extreme poverty. If in any doubt, please check out relevant pages on Wikipedia and accompanying discussions. For all I can see, this whole "discussion", which has already led to the article being locked several times, is a produce of few obdurate inhabitants of the United Kingdom and Ireland, who seem to be trying to present their royalist-antiroyalist struggle in terms of life and death. There is no point, however, in everyone else bearing witness to this insular matter. If one is not sure on whether someone is queen of 16 or 15 realms, one should just ask the queen, for goodness sake. The address is simple enough: Buckingham Palace, London, UK. And move on with your lives please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.216.181.66 (talk • contribs) .

We could of course ask the crown to update the wikipedia article themselves. :) --Filll 01:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well, it may sound hilarious, however it is true that the real question is what kind of truth one is trying to reach in this article. A formal truth, which says that the queen is head of state of 16 independent countries, a de facto truth which says that the queen is not head of any state, or an in-between-truth which says that she is head of state of 3.5 states? (Obviously, therefore, if one wants to get the right answer, one has to ask the right question.) Or, alternatively, is the point of this discussion to launch rebellion against monarchy in the UK? Which may be quite an noble goal. But am not so sure that Wikipedia is a means that guarantees success. And thus am inclined to bet against its success. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.216.181.66 (talk • contribs) .

The point is to create a verifiable encyclopedia article. Gwernol 02:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Naturally. But verifiable by whom? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.216.181.66 (talk • contribs) .

By a reader of the article. You cite reliable sources that show your statements to be true. Readers can then find those sources via your citation and verify that what you wrote in the article accurately reflects the source. Oh, and please sign your comments left on talk pages - it makes it much easier to follow the conversations. Thanks, Gwernol 02:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

But what happens when there are two readers of th e same article, one of whom thinks there's a queen of 15 countries, the other of whom she's queen of 16 realms? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.216.181.66 (talk • contribs) .

This is about how the article is constructed. If you want to include information that the queen is head of 15 states, you have to cite a reliable source that shows this is true - this is what verifiability means. And please sign your comments. Thanks, Gwernol 02:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, it's such a great feeling to be understood! (I would wink at you were it not for the Big Brother who would say you were gay)

The "ask the Queen" suggestion isn't as ridiculous as it might seem. Personally, I like the current wording. However, the biography on the official web site describes her as the "Head of State of the UK and 15 other Commonwealth realms". Given this site is written and managed by the Royal Household at Buckingham Palace and aims to provide "an authoritative resource of information about the Monarchy and the Royal Family", that sounds pretty conclusive. Having said all of that, my vote would be to stick with the current wording. prh47bridge 15:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

There ya go! Good work, prh47bridge! SHE has spoken. Case closed.(I wish!)--Gazzster 23:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I phoned Buckingham Palace about six months ago to ask a question of the press office. I was stunned at how unhelpful they were, and how unwilling to try to understand a query. Good luck though! – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Reside or Resides

I believe that since family is singular, it is resides. What do you think?--Filll 11:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Since a family is a group rather than an individual it could be said to be plural, so it should really be "reside" but it is a debatable point. Green Giant 04:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it really shouldn't. 66.87.91.36 01:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Bone Cancer?

The Sunday Times (UK), claimed the Queen may have bone-cancer. Although it's been denied, it's still could be mentioned. Can I have some suggestions? Should this be added to the article? Source on Royalty News website. GoodDay 01:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably not. I'd suggest rumours are only noteworthy for an encyclopedia article about a person when they impact significantly upon the life of that person. Is that the case? I would doubt it. And besides, if rumours are admitted then the floodgates are open to anyone and everything. And such as person as Elizabeth II is a magnet for rumour.--Gazzster 02:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be dangerous if such rumours started being put about. Keep in mind that the Times is little more than a glorified tabloid these days, which loathes the monarchy. Biofoundationsoflanguage 20:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Sex Pistols lyrics

While I am far from a Royalist, these lyrics are offensive iin this article and should be removed. 203.220.216.128 01:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC) That was quick!203.220.216.128 02:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Ambiguous sentence

In the introduction,the sixth sentence states:

" In legal theory she is the most powerful head of state in the world, although in practice she personally exercises very little political executive power."

Is there any supporting evidence for this claim of being the most powerful head of state? I've heard the term being used about the President of the USA, mainly because of the economic and military prowess of the USA, but never about any other office or individual. If there is little or no evidence to back up such a claim the sentence should be modified or removed. Green Giant 02:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It depend what we mean by power. As the article qualifies, she exercises very little real power. However, her reserve powers give her the right to dismiss governments, declare war, make treaties, etc. And as I understand it, the monarchy has never renounced the right to rule personally. She is under no legal obligation to delegate the exercise of her powers to a prime minister. So her theoretical powers are enormous, limited only by convention in the UK and by constitution in many of her other realms. She has, in theory, more power in the UK than the US President is allowed by the Constitution of the United States.I don't think the reference in the article need be changed. --Gazzster 11:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Surley dictators have more personal power- the Royal reserve powers are not unlimited. Astrotrain 17:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest "one of the most" rather than "the most" - also, often dictators' theoretical powers are less extensive than the Queen's, even if their practical powers are greater than the queen's theoretical ones. If that makes any sense. But I can't imagine that the Queen has notably more theoretical powers than the King of Saudi Arabia or the Sultan of Oman, for instance. john k 17:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Changing it to "one of the most powerful" would be a better statement but it would still need some evidence to show that it isn't just the editor's POV. If the sentence refers to the reserve powers it should make that clear. Now that I come to think of it, the words "In legal theory" present the same problem unless there is a reliable source somewhere. Green Giant 20:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

In theory, the power of the monarch is extensive. She appoints ministers, public officials, military officers, judges, ambassadors, bishops and other senior public officials. She summons and dissolves Parliaments, assents to bills, issues orders, charters, patents and other official instruments, declares war, and is the authority by which many other acts of state are performed. She is the head of the executive and judiciary, part of the legislature, and head of the armed forces. In theory, she is more powerful in her realm than the President of the United States is in his republic. Also remember that the Queen is not just head of state of 1 country, she is the monarch is 15 other countries: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, and Saint Kitts and Nevis. In Her Realms she may be represented by a governor-general, but the powers are still "hers". So her powers in theory are vast, limited only by convention and as Gazzster says the constitutions of some of her other realms. Brian | (Talk) 04:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

"His Britannic Majesty"& "Her Britannic Majesty"

These are important diplomatic terms used in treaties.

For example, in the "Mandate for Palestine" of the League of Nations.

However, the feminine term sends one straight to the current Queen Elizabeth.

Can someone DISAMBIGUATE the term? I do not know how.

My point is that these terms, or titles, need to be explained--one should not click on the term and just get the article on the particular queen--long live Queen Elizabeth the Second!

Yours truly, Ludvikus 20:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The top Photo

The top photo looks great, but it's misleading. The Queen is 80, therefore the top photo should reflect this. GoodDay 18:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Should it? Biofoundationsoflanguage 18:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why; it's not as though it makes her look very young anyway. And should we constantly update the photos of all monarchs on Wikipedia? There's been enough argument about her regalia. Let's be satisfied with a picture which shows her in later adult life, regardless of precise age. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the top photo is very regal and reflects her position as Queen, it was very well chosen and should remain in my opinion. TJ

It reflects her position as Queen of the UK, but not as Queen of any of the other countries. It's also been tagged as being not usable under fair-use criteria, and may be deleted in six days.

As a side note, the painted portrait that was here earlier, of a younger Elizabeth, is actually a portrait of her as Queen of Australia, signified by the sprig of Acacia she wears (there were no distinctly Australian honours back then). --gbambino 18:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I notice that the "image war" is on again. Personally, I think that as the Queen is a modern monarch, a photo is more desirable than a portrait.--Joshua C hi e w 23:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The previous photograph may have been tagged under the fair use thing, but I assure you it certainly does represent other commonwealth countries, we cant just use a portrait of the Queen from ages ago because in reality she is an 80 year old woman. And as i said before it does make her look regal and does reflect her position as Queen, and that of the other 15 commonwealth realms. The Imperial state crown being in the background does reflect the rest of the commonwealth realms, because alot of the arms of the other realms include a picture of the crown, fair do's its not the crown of St Edward that she is sitting beside, but I do fail to see a Union Flag next to her, so I believe it was a good choice and not at all exclusive to any one realm in the commonwealth. TJ

It seems that she's wearing her chain of the Sovereign of the Order of the Garter, which, according to Wikipedia, is an award particular only to England. However, beyond that, the issue of fair use is still pending. --gbambino 00:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The order of the Garter was awared to Sir Edmund Hilary who is Australian so i dont belive it is just an award for englishmen.

Well, as a personal gift of the Monarch I understood it to be a non-national award, however, the Order of the Garter article states that it is an award that pertains only to England. If the Wikipedia article is wrong, then the only real issue with the current image is it's free use status, and copyright. --gbambino 00:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that the point about "Englishness" of the Order of the Garter is made because in Scotland it doesn't apply (the equivalent is the Order of the Thistle.) – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hillary is a Kiwi, not Australian, but whoever may have been awarded it, the Garter is an English institution. Having said that, I think the decorations worn by the Queen in the pictures are irrelevant. What we need for a biographical article is a decent picture. However, at the moment it seems our policy is to use free images even if better unfree images can legally be used. If you don't agree with that, you'll need to discuss it somewhere else. (I also find it hard to believe that a photo of a portrait in which copyright presumably still exists is any more free than the publicity photos.) JPD (talk) 13:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

That last point is exactly right. As I understand it, a photograph of a painting is still subject to the original copyright unless there is "significant new creativity" in the photo. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The orders worn are somewhat important, as they are each relate to a specific nation, and the attempt has been made here to recognise that Elizabeth II is a person who is sovereign of more than one country; ie. the respective nationalized portraits are appropriate at British Monarchy, Monarchy in Australia, Monarchy in Canada, etc., but a non-specific one would be preferable here. Of course, finding one simply isn't that easy.

As for the painted portrait, isn't it a free image as it's now more than 50 years old? --gbambino 21:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, the orders will be a factor when we have two free images of similarly quality. You would be right about the copyright if it were commissioned by the Government, but this doesn't appear to be the case [2], and since the artist died in 2003, I'd say copyright runs out in 2073 by current Australian law. Then again, the painting was done in England... JPD (talk) 20:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

This seems to indicate that this portrait was commisioned by the government. Anyway, I've already raised this discussion in an IFD in commons, and it seems that it's free status will be upheld. Please go to that image's IFD discussion if you still feel there is a problemBorisblue 16:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't suggest anything of the sort - it simply says that the painting was the official portrait at one point. I have replied at the IfD discussion. JPD (talk) 12:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Current photo in my opinion is not good and does not reflect her status as Queen Jamandell (d69) 23:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur - I doubt this image would feature in any other encyclopedia (Britainnica, Encarta etc)! Jhamez84 15:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

But then again, this isn't Britannica or Encarta, this is Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia. A fair use image is not allowed in the infobox of a biography of a living person (except under special circumstances regarding very reclusive people). The choice that is to be made here is between a free image or no image at all (I am not really concerned which image is used, as long as it is not a fair use image).

For more images to choose from, see Commons:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. (Note: fair use images are permitted elsewhere in the article, provided that they meet the fair use criteria). --Oden 15:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction Canada National Unity

In the Canada national unity section the prank where a DJ called the Queen pretending to be Prime Minister is referenced. It says "Her tactful handling of the call won plaudits from the DJ" and cites a source.(http://www.monarchist.ca/mc/queenpr.htm) THat source however says nothing about the DJs views on the prank. It does praise the Queens handling of the situation but it is a piece from the group Manrchy Canada so that should be expected. In the articel it mentions numerous people including then PRime Minister Jean Chretien approved of Her Majesties handling of the interview. However it doesnt mention the DJ's views at all. THis should be fixed no?

Someone else put in the comment re. the DJ before the info from the article was added. I don't know where that person got the information, though the prank was covered somewhat in the media at the time. --gbambino 22:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Empress

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure there will be an expert with the relevant technical literature who will!), but surely Elizabeth II is an Empress rather than a Queen?

If she is/is not, (an again I'm presuming this has been disscussed before now) I think it would be helpful to explain this in the article, perhaps in the Constitutional role section. Jhamez84 15:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Elizabeth II isn't an Empress, see Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. GoodDay 20:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Elizabeth II is Queen of 16 sovereign states, holding each crown and title equally. See also British_empire#Decolonisation_and_decline. --Oden 20:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives