Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Talk archives for Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom (current talk page)
<< 1 < Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 > 12 >>

Contents

Photo

Does anyone think this new photo is superior to the one which was there previously? I certainly don't, but I won't revert it till I hear other opinions. Adam 03:20, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I preferred the old one Rexworth 10:43, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Her Majesty

no article referes to the queen(articles like queen beatrix) as "her majesty". It is title used in Britain but she is just the queen to the rest of the world she does not reign. Encyclopedias like Britannica and Encarta also don`t call her her majesty. In NPOV style she shall stay only queen. [[User:Avala|Avala★Talk]] 08:51, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't know what articles on contemporary queens (beside Beatrix) you have read. I have found seven such articles (except this one). Rania of Jordan, Silvia Sommerlath and Sofía of Spain all have HM in the introduction, while Beatrix of the Netherlands, Margrethe II of Denmark, Paola Ruffo di Calabria and Sonja, Queen of Norway have no HM. I don't see how three out of seven is "no article". I also think the correct manner of address is an important piece of information. -- Jao 13:39, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

First of all, editors of Britannica and Encarta don`t use HM! We are, IMO, not better of them. Then I found these articles- Harald V of Norway, Hamad ibn Isa Al Khalifah, Albert II of Belgium, Jigme Singye Wangchuk, Hassanal Bolkiah, Norodom Sihanouk, Akihito, Jabir al-Ahmad al-Jabir al-Sabah, Letsie III of Lesotho, Mohammed VI of Morocco, Rainier III of Monaco, Qaboos of Oman, Hamad bin Khalifa, Fahd of Saudi Arabia, Taufa'ahau Tupou IV and Mswati III of Swaziland all don`t use His Majesty! Abdullah II of Jordan is using it, Juan of Spain too and Bhumibol Adulyadej. So more articles are without HM than with it, not to talk about late kings and queens! [[User:Avala|Avala★Talk]] 16:03, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I PROPOSE A PEACEFUL SOLUTION

We shall use Her Brittish Majesty instead of just Her Majesty to keep foreigners happy by adding Brittish and her people with Her Majesty

[[User:Avala|Avala★Talk]] 16:17, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That would be utterly absurd, and in fact worse than not having 'Her Majesty' at all. Nobody calls her that at all. 'Her Majesty' is part of her formal title - 'Her Brittish Majesty' [sic]' is not. Morwen - Talk 16:23, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • The correct style of address is Her Majesty The Queen - usually abbreviated to HM The Queen. Whether or not any other publication uses the correct form is irrelevant, no matter how many examples are cited. --Martin TB 16:24, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
If they don't have it and it's part of their of their official styles, then they should be added to the articles. Get to work! "Her Brittish Majesty" is just plain idiotic. --Jiang 16:26, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for calling my idea idiotic!!! We shouldn`t keep that HM anyways !!!!! She is majesty of brittish people but far away from being anybody elses MAJESTY! I am offended that she is called majesty in enciclopedia becuase she is just Queen of Britain for me. Kim Jong-il's article is not calling him dear in first sentence because of NPOV! Don`t be stubber and respect rest of the world and the people that don`t adore Elizabeth II. [[User:Avala|Avala★Talk]] 16:46, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Avala, she's not just The Queen of Britain, but of many other nations too. "By the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of her other Realms and Territories, Queen, &c." Further, this is supposed to be NPOV. Whether or not she is 'adored' or disliked is irrelevant - we should stick to the FACTS. Her Majesty The Queen is a fact - not something imagined. I also agree with Jiang - if other royals have official styles of address, then their pages should be editted to reflect that. --Martin TB 16:57, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

so i should put the word dear in first sentence in article about Kim Jong-il cause he is using it?????? [[User:Avala|Avala★Talk]] 17:04, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's a style. Stating it is just indicating its official status, not necessarily believing in what it means. Kim Jong-il is not styled "dear". "Dear Leader" is a title, just like "Queen". --Jiang 17:10, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It would be best not to get hung up about the words used in styles. When you call someone "Reverend Jones" you are not commenting on how reverent he is. When someone is styled "Her Majesty", you are not relaying your judgment on her degree of majesticness by using that style. Nor is nationaity really an issue here. Similarly when you say "Serene Highness" you are not claiming someone is particularly serene. Nor does acknowledging "His Holiness" mean you think someone is particularly holy. I believe the standard Wikipedia practice is [1] don't include styles in the title of the article [2] do use the style the first time the name is mentioned (but in the standard "plain" typeface; only the name and/or title is in boldfaced type) [3] use the name or title but not the style in the rest of the article. With regard to Kim Jong-il, if "Dear Leader" is his official style, then by all means it belongs in his article (but not in bold print); if it is merely a way he is popularly (or unpopularly) referred to, as the article seems to imply, rather than an official style or title, it doesn't. - Nunh-huh 17:24, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Avala: As has been explained to you, Her Majesty is the honorary accorded by the title. Just as one refers to Bush as President Bush regardless of nation, and to Kerry as Senator Kerry regardless of state, the form of address for the position Queen is "Her Majesty," and so long as she legitimately holds the title and one recognizes the title's legitimacy (Which one ought do, unless one believes the British government to be illegitimate), "Her Majesty" is a reasonable form of address.

Please don't turn this into a repeat of Janez Drnovsek. Snowspinner 17:28, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

Her Majesty was bolded , Dear Leader will be bolded too. All you say is going on the other side of NPOV! You will say President of USA GWB not just president! [[User:Avala|Avala★Talk]] 17:34, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Her Majesty is not bolded and should not be. Dear Leader should be bolded. Nor is she "officially Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II" (and hence my last revert). --Jiang 18:21, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Jiangs opinion-only opinion! [[User:Avala|Avala★Talk]]

Avala: You just don't get it do you - so I am going to have to spell it out. She is:- HM The Queen of Antigua & Barbuda, HM The Queen of Australia, HM The Queen of The Bahamas, HM The Queen of Barbados, HM The Queen of Belize, HM The Queen of Canada, HM The Queen of Grenada, HM The Queen of Jamaica, HM The Queen of New Zealand, HM The Queen of Papua New Guinea, HM The Queen of St. Kitts & Nevis, HM The Queen of The Solomon Islands, HM The Queen of Tuvalu HM The Queen of Northern Ireland and HM The Queen of Great Britain.

She is also the former Queen of Burma, Cyprus, Dominica, Fiji, Gambia, Ghana, Guyana, India, Ireland, Kenya, Malawi, Malta, Mauritius, Nauru, Nigeria, Tanzania, Pakistan, The Seychelles, Singapore, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, Vanuatu, Zambia and Zimbabwe, and in each of those territories she is still HM The Queen.

I have remove your latest edit on the main page as, although it is correct, it doesn't reflect the complete picture. --Martin TB 21:04, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Um, no - she's not Queen of Northern Ireland; or Queen of Great Britain - she is Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - one country. Morwen - Talk 21:50, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Avala, can you grasp the difference between a style and a title? No, it is not like Kim Jong-il. "Dear Leader" is a title, just like Queen. Comprehend? --Jiang 21:48, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Avala's being ridiculous. BTW, she was never the Queen of Burma, Cyprus, Dominica, India, Ireland, or Singapore. India became a republic in 1950. Burma was a republic from independence in 1948. Ireland became a republic in 1949, although the monarch continued to use "King of Ireland" as a style until Elizabeth's coronation in 1953. Dominica, Cyprus, and Singapore also became Republics on their independence during Elizabeth's reign, so while she may have been their head of state when they were colonies, She was never "Queen of" these places. I'm fairly certain this is true of Vanuatu, as well, which was a Franco-British condominium. And I'm not sure about Seychelles. john k 21:54, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OK, I was wrong with some of my expamples - sorry. What's the situation with dependencies - is she queen of those territories? Falklands, Anguilla, Bermuda, Diego Garcia, Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Gibraltar, Pitcairn Islands, Monserrat, St. Helena, Tristan da Cuhna &c. I think in the case of the Channel Islands it's through her title Duke of Normandy that she's the head of state, but I am not sure. --Martin TB 09:00, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
She's not the Duke of Normandy: that's just a belief arising from the traditional Jersey toast to "Our Queen, the Duke". It's the alcohol speaking, and what it's saying has no relation to reality. The Channel Islands are not the Duchy of Normandy, to which Elizabeth would in any case have no claim; she governs them as Crown Dependencies, as Queen. -- Nunh-huh 09:12, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
She rules the Isle of Man as "Lord of Man," I believe. I'm not sure exactly the status of the Channel Islands. The others she rules in her capacity as Queen of the UK - they are colonies/dependencies. john k 09:22, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The Offical Guernsey site history and govt. page states that "The islands are an 'appenage' or possession of the Crown and allegiance is given to our Sovereign and Duke of Normandy, Queen Elizabeth the Second." link and the royal.Gov.uk Page (which I think is the offical page of the Royal Family) states "However, the Channel Islands, part of the lost Duchy, remained a self-governing possession of the English Crown; while the Islands today retain autonomy in government, they owe allegiance to The Queen in her role as Duke of Normandy. The Islands' links to their Sovereign and their independence are shown in the Islands' Loyal Toast to 'The Duke of Normandy, our Queen'." Link --Martin TB
Regarding the Isle of Man: The Tynwald site (Isle of Man Govt.) States "For many centuries the Stanley family (the Earls of Derby) were feudal Kings or Lords of Mann, but in 1765 the Island was purchased by the British Crown. Her Majesty The Queen is therefore Lord Proprietor of the Island and is formally referred to on the Island as "The Queen, Lord of Mann"." Please note the double nn in Mann! link Then click the Tynwald of Today link on the left frame. --Martin TB 10:38, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Yeah, the royal website is notable for its frequent errors. The right of English monarchs to the title of "Duke of Normandy" was given up by a treaty between Henry III of England and Louis IX of France in 1259. Although the Channel Islands had been part of the Duchy of Normandy, the Queen does not reign over them as "Duke of Normandy", since she has no right to this title, nor have any of her predecessors since 1259. There's much discussion of this question in the alt.talk.royalty archives, if you're interested. john k 10:37, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Removal of text not referenced in talk

This text:

Two of the Queen's grandchildren, Peter and Zara Phillips, have no titles — probably a unique circumstance in British history. This is because British titles are, with rare exceptions, inherited through the male line. Since Mark Phillips is a commoner and has never accepted a peerage, his children are commoners also.

Was not discussed here as mentioned in the summary. I will revert it pending discussion. Is the claim that it is untrue or that it is unneeded? I would argue that it is relevent if true. - Tεxτurε 14:48, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't know why it was reverted: it's more-or-less true. The "less" part is that by the strictest definition of "peer", children of a peer are commoners, even if they are styled by courtesy titles that make it appear otherwise, and even though this is ignored by the general public... so that even if Mark Phillips had become a peer, his children would be commoners (but with courtesy titles). The "Mr" and "Mrs" just makes this more obvious.
There's a (not-fully-vetted) list of the recent "top 10" in the succession to the British throne Top 10 and while there are no "Mr" or "Mrs" occurring before Peter and Zara, there are commoners bearing courtesy titles (1900: Lady Alexandra Duff (she was later made a princess in 1905 and became a duchess on her father's death), Lady Maud Duff (courtesy style of the daughter of a peer); 1930 & 1940: George Lachelles styled Viscount Lachelles, and his brother Gerald Lachelles bearing a courtesy title of "Hon" only (as the younger son of a peer). The excised portion could be made unobjectionable by changing the last sentence to "Since Mark Phillips is a commoner and has never accepted a peerage, his children have no courtesy titles." - Nunh-huh 15:31, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have an eye appointment August 12th. I don't plan on saying anything further until I get my eyes checked... :) - Tεxτurε 15:33, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As the author of the paragraph in question, I take Nunh-huh's point about the definition of commoner. But I think the reference to courtesy titles will only confuse matters. The simpler solution is to say ""Since Mark Phillips is a commoner and has never accepted a peerage, his children have no titles." Adam 16:46, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, that has the advantage of not requiring a paragraph of explanation, and can only be caviled at by those who insist Mr and Mrs are titles... - Nunh-huh 17:08, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

...as "subjects" of Queen Elizabeth

Those former colonies which have chosen to retain the Queen as their head of state have, at the date of their independence, thereby assumed a similar status to the original Dominions in relation to the Crown, even though under the Statute of Westminster they do not have the power to independently regulate the succession. When the Queen dies her heir will be accepted as head of state in the Commonwealth Realms by virtue of the constitutional law of each of them, rather than by hereditary right. It is therefore not correct to refer to Canadians, Australians etc as "subjects" of Queen Elizabeth. Rather they are citizens of countries of which she is head of state.

I find this paragraph difficult to follow. Firstly, if her heir will definitely be accepted as head of state in each realm, how is that different from hereditary right? Secondly, why does this mean that their citizens are not subjects? (I'm not saying it's wrong, just that I myself, as someone who-- despite having some understanding of what the Statute of Westminster is-- is no expert on constitutional law, have difficulty following the argument. Marnanel 04:14, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The paragraph is a hybrid between what I originally wrote and what someone else (I think it was User:Emsworth) interposed into my text. I don't know what "even though under the Statute of Westminster they do not have the power to independently regulate the succession" really means, and I don't necessarily agree that "When the Queen dies her heir will be accepted as head of state in the Commonwealth Realms." This paragraph really needs attention from a constitutional lawyer. Adam 08:52, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Although I am not a constitutional lawyer, I can say with certainty that the portion of the above paragraph relating to the Statute of Westminster is not accurate. The relevant part of the Statute appears in the preamble, and is consequently not binding. It is intended only as a guideline. Also, how can we prognosticate about whether or not Elizabeth II's heir will be accepted? I have accordingly removed this statement as well. Finally, I think that the statement about HM's subjects may be incorrect, but I may perhaps be mistaken. Strictly speaking, if British people are HM's subjects, then so are Australians. Why are they treated any differently? Her Majesty may be primarily associated with the UK, but theoretically the Crowns of all the Commonwealth Realms are equal. -- Emsworth 23:26, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The British Nationality Act abolished the status of 'British subject' for UK citizens. 80.229.39.194 08:16, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Do you mean the 1948 or the 1981 Act?
The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 alters the latter, including the term:
SCHEDULE 1
Section 3
1. 42
(5) A person of full age shall not be registered under this Act as a British Overseas citizen or a British subject unless he has made the relevant citizenship oath specified in Schedule 5. [My emphasis.]
... which would suggest, to my mind at least, that the term "British subject" still applies to UK citizens (but that "citizenship" does, too). Or am I mis-reading this?
James F. (talk) 14:26, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

shouldn't she be QE I of UK?

She's certainly the first Elizabeth to be monarch of Scotland, and for that matter of the UK - or do you think Scotland should be a republic by now? - dave souza 16:28, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

... and Edward VIII wasn't the eigth Edward to rule over England, but he is Edward VIII what would you have use change that to? Mintguy (T) 16:34, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
She's the first Elizabeth to be monarch of Canada, too, but they still call her Elizabeth II [1]. You might like to read up on the case of MacCormick v. Lord Advocate, where this question was dealt with. Marnanel 17:12, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
from List of British monarchs he sure looks like VIII of England (if not for long), presumably II or III of UK depending if Edward Balliol gets counted - me, I preferred King Edward the cigar. I've not heard of any fuss about these two, but there certainly was (and is) sensitivity about QE I and II, probably related to the rise of Scottish nationalism. I don't know what the official proclamation is about usage in UK terms, bur noted that RMS Queen Elizabeth 2 was pointedly referred to as 2 rather than the second at her launch. dave souza 17:24, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
fair do, the court of session lets her call herself what she wants, and the titles subsection looks fair: The pillarbox monogram was EIIR, will have a look at what they say now - dave souza 18:05, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The QE2 is the sucessor to the QE, and is not named after EIIR. "What they say now" is nowt, mainly because some people thought that it would be a good idea to blow them up.
James F. (talk) 19:00, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The Saxon Edwards i.e. Edward the Elder, Edward the Martyr and Edward the Confessor are not numbered. Mintguy (T) 19:36, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Time to say I'm sorry; apologies to Jdforrester and Mintguy, and thanks for correcting my inadequately researched edits. The titles subsection and linked articles cover this fully - this part of Wikipedia has come together well. A minor quibble is that I'd expect the pillarbox monogram to have read E.II.R rather than E.R.II as described in the titles subsection, but have no proof of this. Modern pillarboxes I've found confirm the article, having only "Post Office" and a crown with no royal monogram: still have a niggling suspicion that there are some with ER, but none found to date. Oddly, there are numerous pillarboxes with GR, as well as others with G.VI.R.
dave souza 22:12, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Are you sure you have seen "Post Office" and not "Royal Mail"? Bobblewik  (talk) 22:35, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
What I've seen is "Post Office" on pillar boxes of various periods - will recheck. dave souza 22:26, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
correction: our local wee modern postbox on a stick says "Royal Mail" with a crown under - all the older ones say "Post Office" (E.VII.R, G.VI.R, GR) dave souza 22:32, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Interesting discussion. I found a web page that mentions both the Elizabeth 1/2 issue and the Post Office/Royal Mail issue. See: http://www.wicks.org/pulp/part2.html There are a few letter box nerds out there on the web. I am surprised that there is not a Wikipedia article on it. Bobblewik  (talk) 08:03, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Her proper title should be Elizabeth II of England,Wales and Northern Ireland and Elizabeth I of Scotland. Most people in Scotland have never accepted her title as EIIR because it is factually inaccurate. Elizabeth I was Queen of England and Ireland. Scotland had Mary who was murdered by Elizabeth who was her full blood cousin. Scotland is one of the few parts of the UK today that have a majority in favour of a republic and I am one of them! There is also not one postbox in Scotland which shows EIIR. Some were put in place in the '50s but they were all removed after some were blown up.

Holden 27

Political functions

I think that the constitutional status & political role sections are much too lengthy. It is appropriate to mention Elizabeth II's reign over multiple realms, and also to mention her role as a constitutional monarch, but the present level of detail is too great. The details should be moved to British monarchy, for they apply not just to her personally, but in general to any person who might reign over the UK and other Commonwealth Realms. -- Emsworth 02:09, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Either there or Politics of the United Kingdom. But, not being familiar with the constitution, I don't know which parts are specific to the present monarch. If you do, have at it. Gazpacho 05:31, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

common practice

In common practice Queen Elizabeth II is referred to simply as "The Queen" or "Her Majesty".

Certainly "The Queen" is common, but I don't think "Her Majesty" is common outside formalities? Perhaps it varies in different places? Martin 22:47, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It must do because I've heard the Queen referred to as Her Majesty plenty of times. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 21:55, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)