Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Archive 4

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 3	Archive 4	Archive 5 >	12 >>

Prefixed Styles

There exists no consensus for the use of prefixed styles in Wikipedia. The use of "Her Majesty" in the initial introduction has been opposed by a majority of those participating in a recent survey as improper POV. NPOV trumps consensus, and the repeated uses of her formal style and others of the royal family are similarly improper POV and unencyclopedic. I am therefore disputing the neutrality of this article. Whig 08:18, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

So you're saying that the whole article is biased because we make reference to the undeniable fact that she is styled "Her Majesty"? Please stop politicking, Whig, jguk 08:42, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

It's not the perfectly fine reference to the style, it is the use/endorsement of the style that introduces POV. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 09:09, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

"Her Majesty" is not a title, nor part of a title, but rather a style (as is Royal Highness). Think of "HM" as a term of address, like Mr. or Ms., and you will see why it is unnecessary. (We do not see articles referring to "Ms." Britney Spears...)

That said, however, "Her Majesty" is a proper form of address, and not improper POV. Elizabeth II is recognized as Her Majesty the Queen throughout the world.

--ScottyFLL 00:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

That's rather a bugger for an encyclopaedia if by using words and phrases that exist in real life it will be interpreted as endorsing them. Along these lines WP was irretrievably pro-Bush, but also irretrievably anti-Bush too. We condone the use of words like nigger, because we choose to have an article on the subject. By having a picci of Tony Blair on Politics of the United Kingdom, we endorse his government. Je pense que vous habitez un monde des nuages. Kind regards, jguk 09:41, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I want that {{NPOVNPOV}} tag gone ASAP. That tag is an abomination that shouldn't exist, but since it does, we should do our utmost to remove it. This does not benefit our readers, which is the primary concern. Jguk, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that Whig and Lulu have no business to question the neutrality of the article? I remind you that the question is not whether these titles introduce bias, but whether you agree that Whig and Lulu believe it does. There is a dispute. Whether you consider that valid is another matter.

That said, what is the point of fighting it out over this article? For goodness sake, can we take this to another page? There has to be central discussion on this somewhere—you'd know that better than I. Are we going to dispute the neutrality of every article in which a style currently appears? That doesn't seem productive. I suggest removing all tags while this discussion is still going on, and going to a centralized place. This is the wrong battlefield. JRM · Talk 09:59, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

(after two edit conflicts)

Whig is perfectly right to say that there's no standard yet, and that the current vote on the issue is heavily against any policy of using the prefix in the first mention of the name (though it looks as though it will accept mentioning – not using – it in the first paragraph).

On the other hand, I don't really see the problem here as regard NPoV. Is the claim that there are pretenders to the throne, so we shouldn't prejudge the issue? I can see that use of the prefix can be seen as bad style for an encyclopædia (and I'm inclined to agree), but that it's PoV is more difficult to argue.

On the third hand(!), the article does read skin-crawlingly like the gushings of an obsequious journalist hoping for a gong, and I'd second the NPoV template for that reason. As there seems to be an impasse, I'll post this to RfC, and try to get some other opinions.

I've just read jguk's comment; you're confusing mention and use. We don't call Martin Luther King a nigger — we have an article that talks about the word. A photograph of a politician can't by any stretch of the imagination be said to endorse his government. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:06, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

The use of the style may be against policy, but that doesn't make the article NPOV. Maltaran 10:31, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed; the problem is a policy one, not an article one. Also, these actions are far too premature.

James F. (talk) 10:42, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that "Her Majesty" is simply a job title, implying a claim of leadership in the same way "President" or even "CEO" does. No-one is calling for George Bush to be referred to as "mister". The situation is the same here. --81.178.161.218 14:30, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the "job title" would be Queen. "Her Majesty" is simply a form of address or a way to reference the queen.

--ScottyFLL 01:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Other featured articles such as Queen Victoria's begin: "Her Majesty Queen Victoria (Alexandrina Victoria) (24 May 1819 – 22 January 1901) was Queen of the United Kingdom from 20 June 1837, and Empress of India from 1876 until her death." So why shouldn't Elizabeth II be styled the same? All other queen regnants have the title of HM. It's standard protocol... just like Rt. Hon. or President. - jal14 22 May 2005 ... actually 18:24, 2005 May 22 by 70.241.94.99

Yes, all queens should be treated the same way as each other. But the "need" (?) to refer to them as majesties is different from the need to refer to presidents as presidents: newspapers, etc., routinely speak of "President Tweedledum" (or just "Mrs Tweedledum", "Jemima Tweedledum" or plain "Tweedledum") but virtually never speak of "Her Majesty Queen Tweedledee" -- it's usually "Queen Tweedledee", or when particularly awestricken (?), plain "Tweedledee". -- Hoary 02:18, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

I agree. The title Queen is important in identifying same, just as the term President is important. Consider this: The President of the United States is also referred to as "Mr. President". "Mr." is simply a style, not a title, and not a part of a title, but we say "Mr. President" when addressing the President. We do not include "Mr." in encyclopedic references to a president. The same should apply to imperial (His/Her Imperial Majesty), majestic (His/Her Majesty), princely (H/H Royal Highness, H/H Serene Highness) and noble (e.g., His Grace the Duke of Marlborough) styles (where the title, here "Duke", should appear in the header, but the style, "His Grace", should not.).

--ScottyFLL 01:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Do we really need to this right now?

We've hardly survived two weeks of voting, so please, everybody, give it a couple of days of rest. Whig and Lulu, please do something else for a while, there's lots of articles that need to be improved, and we're doing all this to improve the articles.

Jguk, please read the poll again carefully. Disregard "first choice", "second choice" and stuff like that, just read people's comments. I'm sure you can see that there is no general agreement for having articles start with styles. And please remember that the use of styles was bitterly contested from the very start.

As I suggested elsewhere, I think that the misunderstanding we have is that you think that Wikipedia articles should be written in formal tone, i.e. that the introduction of the article is somehow a formal introduction of the person and should be written like the person is formally introduced. As you say, styles definitely exist in the real world and with good arguments I may be persuaded that using them is not POV per se. But the formality of the introduction I find to be completely unencyclopedic. Zocky 10:11, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm puzzled at the discussion over the use of Her Majesty at the start of the article, given that whenever there is (for example) a member of the privy council we are happy to use Rt Hon, or if someone hsa been knighted Sir prefixed in front of their name. Use of "Her Majesty" is just a continuation of this custom and practice and to omit it is clearly POV. --Vamp:Willow 14:12, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Errr... we're not talking just about Her Majesty in this article. Rt Hons and Sirs should go, too. Zocky 17:41, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Will anyone who agrees with the current (15:02, 2005 May 15 (UTC)) NPOV tag on the article please concisely state their views below? This will hopefully prevent it from continuously being removed and reinserted because everyone thinks they know exactly what is or isn't disputed. Revert warring over a dispute tag is incredibly lame. JRM · Talk 15:02, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

If someone thinks there is an NPOV problem and tags an article then it should not be removed by someone who disagrees with the tag, because if they are disagreeing there is indeed a dispute, and until the dispute gets resolved the article should stay. Only those who think the article needs the tag should later remove it when they think the POV has been sorted (and if someone else disagrees they can replace it themselves. The fact that someone wants the POV is enough reason to have it. I will replace it myself under such circumstances regardless of my own feeelings about the neutrality of the article. The only way to sort out the POV tag is to address the issues of the person who put it there, --SqueakBox 15:12, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. So it's not unreasonable to ask the person who put it there to state what issues they have, if necessary again to humor those who think the tag is spurious. I care not either way, I do care about people playing tug-of-war over it, regardless of who is "correct" in these matters. JRM · Talk 15:07, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

Here is why I placed the NPOV tag on the top of the article. The article started with words "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary)..." The problem is with "Her Majesty". When it is in the beginning of the text, it states that it is the most important thing or the most descriptive thing about her. But I think the most important thing is that she is a queen. If she wasn't a queen, she wouldn't be Her Majesty. Period. Also, Her Majesty is somewhat value-laden word to start an article. I hope I don't have to analyse that nuance any more, but it is a reason, why I chose NPOV tag and not a cleanup tag, for example. And there has been a poll, which shows that I don't represent a tiny number of contributors. The issue was discussed in the poll pages, so people probably didn't bother to write it here again. -Hapsiainen 15:24, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the claims about the use of the title. I personally don't like its use in this (or any) article, but I don't see that that's a question of PoV. Nevertheless I support the placing of the NPoV template, for the following reasons (which I've copied from a reply I made on JRM's Talk page):

The article is wholy laudatory in content, much of it written in language that wouldn't disgrace Hello! magazine. It's difficult to see what could be less NPoV really. It's not the use of the title, which gets other editors so incensed (I agree with them about usage, but not that it's PoV), it's the article as a whole. (I've just gone through the Talk page, and I notice that my complaint has not only been made by other editors, but even with a reference to Hello!.)

I hope that that's clear now. (I've just checked, and the other person to spon the Hello! style was Refdoc .) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:46, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

"Her Majesty" being first doesn't imply that it's the most important thing about Elizabeth II, any more than "Stephen" is the most important thing about Grover Cleveland. john k 15:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I'll point you to my note in the section above re use in text. We prefix names with "Sir", "Rt Hon", "Lady" etc so no reason whatsoever to *not* use "Her Majesty" here; it is accurate and NPOV! Omitting it though *is* POV. --Vamp:Willow 15:37, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Having had to deal with the issue of noble and royal titles in my genealogical research, I offer the following--

First, "Her Majesty" is a proper and accepted form of address. There is nothing offensive or incorrect about it. The problem here lies in the misinformation some people might have about titles and styles.

"Queen" is a title; "Her Majesty" is a style, something like a form of address.

Elizabeth II's title is Queen (indeed, I have her as Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). "Your Majesty" is a style used to address her directly on greeting (after which, "Ma'am" is used). "Her Majesty" is the style frequently used to refer to her and is used in addressing mail to her (simply: "Her Majesty The Queen" on the first line of the envelope).

If we were to be consistent with the styles used by titled personages, then, with respect to articles at Wikipedia, we should preface each duke with "His Grace"; each emperor with "His Imperial Majesty"; and each male adult without such a style as "Mr.".

I have no problem with styles being used elsewhere in an article, but not in the heading, and not at the head of the article.

--ScottyFLL 02:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll repeat my points. First, the business of the title isn't my reason for saying that the article is NPoV. Secondly, I don't like the use of honorifics in any article. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:56, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I'll accept that may not be the only cause for discussing NPOV issues, but whether *you* like or dislike something isn't a valid issue when WP use and practice is clear. --Vamp:Willow 16:44, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

We don't actually consistently prefix names in that manner. For example, Kim Jong Il is Dear Leader Kim Jong Il, but the article mentions his style later, not as part of the initial use of his name. --Delirium 16:49, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

We shouldn't be consistent. Styles matter more in some cultures than other. It's silly to treat those differences as if they didn't exist. - Nunh-huh 17:12, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

(1) Some people see having the style prefixes as POV, others see not having them as POV. Clearly it is not a good idea to have NPOV templates on every article which begins or might begin with a style - so can we just agree not to go there on that.

Clearly, slapping NPOV templates on articles over matters so trivial is a waste of everyone's time, and really should be discouraged in some way. - Nunh-huh 23:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

(2) Mel, could you be more specific about what you see as being the problem with what you call the Hello! style - what is it that you want changed and what do you suggest changing it to? jguk 16:51, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

It's not really a matter of individual sentences (though stuff like "She has a strong sense of religious duty and takes seriously her Coronation Oath." makes the neutral reader wonder how we're supposed to know that, and "Although she remains reserved in public, she has been seen laughing and smiling much more than in years past, and to the shock of many she has been seen to shed tears during emotional occasions such as the memorial service at St Paul's Cathedral for those killed in the 11 September terrorist attacks and in Normandy, France for the 60th anniversary of D-Day, where, for the first time, she addressed the Canadian troops" is a bit Sylvia Krin-ish). The point is, as I've said above, that the article gives little or no indication that anyone has ever been genuinely critical of the Queen, yet many editors will know that that's extremely misleading. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:03, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, the Queen certainly has a strong Christian faith and attends Church every Sunday - though we could just say that rather than "She has a strong sense of religious duty". I presume the point is relevant as she is Head of the Church of England. I don't think anyone disputes that she takes her Coronation Oath seriously, do they? I suppose the point here is that it shows that she will not abdicate, as well as showing her strong liking for the Commonwealth. Again, no doubt it could be better worded.

I must admit I don't see a need at all for the longer quotation you give - I'm not sure what it's trying to say other than that she is human, which I don't think anyone has any doubts about either.

On criticisms, we need to be careful though. She is bound to accept the advice of her prime ministers, and so she should not be faulted for so doing. Also, republican movements tend not to make many comments about her personally (and when they do, they tend to be complementary) - we should not allow a discussion of republican politics (or indeed any politics) to seep in. That does not mean that we should not, for example, mention that she attracted some criticism in the wake of Diana's death.

In summary, I'm sure there are improvements that can be made, and that we can act constructively in improving the article - we just need to put this HM argument to one side. Kind regards, jguk 17:26, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Is the claim that she has a strong religious faith because she goes to church every Sunday, or is there some other evidence? As to taking her oath seriously, I have no idea. Is she ever in a position where there's a genuine temptation to break it, or where breaking it could be done without repercussions? You see, in another article (say Fidel Castro or Oliver North) all this would be immediately (and rightly) jumped on as assumption and speculation.

I certainly agree that, in the context of the question of NPoV, the question of the title is something of a distraction (though I still hold fairly strong views about it). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:56, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

So do I. But we ought to impart the info of her style somewhere - maybe if it appears right at the very beginning of the article we could eliminate it from the picture captions?

There's plenty of evidence about her faith - maybe you don't listen to her Christmas Messages (the only time she speaks her own mind), but they alone are evidence enough for that, and for how seriously she takes her Coronation Oath. So it's not speculation, it's from her own mouth. Kind regards, jguk 18:25, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

A lot of sensible stuff is written above; I suppose that my own opinion is close to Mel's. I (usually far removed from Britain and its royal-obsessed news media) don't know much about the Queen and it's possible that my scepticism about some of what I read results from the combination of hasty writing and my own ignorance. However, aspects of this article calling for attention seem to go far beyond the narrow one of precisely how WP refers to Mrs Windsor. Consider the various (and mostly monarchy-unrelated) oddities within, say, the single sentence: As nations have developed economically and in literacy, Queen Elizabeth has happily witnessed over the past fifty years, a gradual transformation of the British Empire into its modern successor, the Commonwealth — to me this suggests a writer curiously unaware of or uninterested in any but the first third or so of the, er, "reign". -- Hoary 03:00, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

The NPOV tag belongs here if the use of styles (as opposed to their mention) is continued. A survey has already been taken and completed, and a majority participating expressed opposition to the prefixed use of style, in all cases. The selective use of styles was defeated by every other option, except for the alternative to disregard the survey. Styles are not used for many biographical entries, and there is general opposition to adding them in the cases where they are not presently prefixed.

I am in favor of including the style of formal address in an appropriate and NPOV way — by mentioning it in the body of the article, for instance, although this is actually a compromise position, as the style could as reasonably be included in the article on the office rather than the biographical entry on the present holder of that office. In any case, including the style in the biographical entry does not rise to a NPOV dispute.

Wikipedia should above all try not to impart value judgments in its articles. We should not say or imply that Queen Elizabeth II is majestic, and while the proponents of prefixed style have argued that using the style does not actually mean she is, the average reader is not going to appreciate such fine points of definition as that "Her Majesty is merely a style appertaining to the Queen, having no other particular meaning." Moreover, this definition is clearly unreasonable, because the style does have a meaning in common usage. I am not saying that Elizabeth is or is not majestic. She may be very majestic indeed! But it is not for the Wikipedia to say so directly, rather, it is established and unalterable policy that such value-laden statements be properly attributed or rephrased neutrally, viz., "Queen Elizabeth II is formally styled Her Majesty." This latter is a statement of formal usage, it clearly and unambiguously gives the style without asserting or seeming to assert that Elizabeth is majestic.

Such prefixed styles are no less inappropriate when used throughout the body of the article. Using "His Royal Highness" to refer to Prince Charles, or other members of the royal family, etc., should be omitted. Those styles can be provided in the relevant biographical entries but not here. Moreover, this article even internally uses styles selectively, referring to non-UK heads of state and royal families, etc., without prefixed styles, and this inconsistency is further demonstration of POV bias.

Finally, and joining with the comments of many others who have stated so above, the current article is full of gushing praise for Elizabeth's humanity, the fact that she has been known to shed tears for instance is completely unencyclopedic. No one questions that she is a human being, well, at least, I hope no one would be claiming otherwise. She presumably laughs, cries, eats, sleeps and performs other bodily functions much like the rest of us. This is not necessary or appropriate for inclusion. Whig 02:51, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Whig, quit it with the survey. The survey on styles did not have to do directly with POV issues, and it was not conclusive anyway. I will say that I basically agree that the article is a bit gushing. john k 15:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

The article could definitely do with more balance. For better examples, it's worth looking at the articles on Elizabeth in various other languages. Most are shorter, but they are much more neutral. MacRusgail 13:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Page protection

It's a mistake that I've made myself, so I'm not going to get too righteous about it, but would Neutrality not edit the article while it's protected? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:08, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I take it back and apologise; Neutrality was the victim of an edit conflict. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:22, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that it's rather frustrating to see people are making edits to this article when it's protected, when people like me can't (regardless of how minor the edits are) and I'm not even involved in the edit wars or NPOV stuff. :-( ♪ Craigy ♫ 04:01, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

You are quite right to be upset. No one should be editing a protected article like this one unless those edits have been agreed on the discussion page. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:48, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Of the United Kingdom?

HM Queen Elizabeth II is the Queen of the United Kingdom, but she is also Queen of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, and many other countries. Perhaps it would be more NPOV if the title of this article was "Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth Realms". I don't want to change it though without some more input, so what do you think?

"Queen of the Commonwealth" is not her title, so it should not be used. Her official titles are official and governmentally approved. Let's PLEASE not presume to create titles for people!! Let's stick to only official and recognized titles. If we start presuming that people should have a title that WE decide they should have, we will have "George Bush, President of the United States of America, and of Puerto Rico, and of Guam, and...".

Of interest is that Canada by proclamation in 1953 recognized Elizabeth II as "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas Queen, Defender of the Faith." http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/fr-rf/titre_e.cfm

If Canada and her other realms have no problem with it, why should we?

--ScottyFLL 02:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

That's already been suggested and rejected, I'm afraid. The discussion will be in one of the archives of this talk page. Proteus (Talk) 20:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

There's nothing to stop it being discussed again. It's odd that such a fuss should be made about including the fact that she's known formally as "HM", yet the inaccurate title be accepted calmly. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:28, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Inaccurate? You mean she's not Queen of the United Kingdom? Proteus (Talk) 22:43, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Do we have to go through this again? Every wikipedia article about a monarch lists only the first of several titles that that monarch held. Charles I of England, Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, &c. &c. &c. john k 23:09, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Why is Queen of the United Kingdom her first title? She became Queen of Canada or Australia, for instance, at the same time.--Ibagli 01:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I strongly agree. She's not only Queen of the United Kingdom. She's the queen of the entire Commonwealth.--User:SNIyer12

(Because she's a Pom and most Australians don't want her to be Q of A. Adam 16:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC))

She became head of the whole Commonwealth at the same time, though she isn't Queen of every country in the Commonwealth. Jonathunder 01:50, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

Well, she lives in the UK, she is most associated with the UK, it is the oldest title (dating back to 1801, and being the successor to the Great British crown going back to 1707, which was the successor to the English crown going back to the 10th century)... john k 03:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

And of course there's the fact that she's also Queen of the United Kingdom by default when visiting a non-Commonwealth country. Proteus (Talk) 07:27, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

That's not a hard and fast rule. For instance, when in France last year, she addressed Canadian veterans as the Queen of Canada, and she has conducted duties in America as Queen of Canada too, jguk 07:41, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

That's what I meant by "by default". There has to be a special reason for her not to be Queen of the United Kingdom. Proteus (Talk) 08:36, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Any Commonwealth realm can advise Her Majesty to undertake a visit abroad as Queen of their respective nation, and she will do it. She travelled to the United States, for example, as Queen of Canada at least once, if not more. --Ibagli 02:05, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

We should really be using plain [[Elizabeth II]. Pcb21| Pete 08:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

The serious answer to this question is that in practice (whatever the constitutional theory) Elizabeth is only Queen of Canada, Australia etc by virtue of being Queen of the UK. Her claim to the throne is based on British law and flows from events in British history (the Glorious Revolution etc). There is no doubt that her status as a native, resident Queen of the UK should take precedence over the polite fictions that she is Queen of various other countries. Adam 03:11, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

She's only Queen of the U.K. by a similar polite fiction (incidentally, if I were Australian, I'd vote the republican way, but I hope I'd not do it out of the pettiest of petty nationalism). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Despite her rather insulting lack of attention to the rest of the Commonwealth realms it is plain and simple that may we like it or not she IS the queen of every country in the group. Notwithstanding the fact that her attentions are mostly in the UK she should be referred as the Queen of the Commonwealth and not of the United Kingdom. It is an insult to the other monarchies to say otherwise. Plain and simply it reads "Your form of government is superfluous and fictional". Whether she likes it or not she?s the queen of each single one of those nations and therefore she should be addressed equally. In real time politics this is mostly overlooked due to her being so deeply associated with the UK (It?s a wonder really that there haven?t been more active attempts of republicanism by the whole Commonwealth) . If Wikipedia wants to keep its NPOV and respectful approach the fair equal recognition of her rights as supreme monarch of each Commonwealth nation should be recognized. Even when the world doesn?t there is no reason why an encyclopaedia, an enlightened source one might say, would follow the same shameful path of irreverent snubs. It leaves a lot to say about it.Anonymous 22:49, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, the point of Wikipedia is not to choose which nation is more superior than another. The problem with "Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth" is that she isn't Queen of every Commonwealth nation. "Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth Realms might work. The fact that some people in Australia do not wish her to be Queen of Australia does not mean that she is not the Queen of Australia, although the chance exists that she may cease to be in the future. Wikipedia would, of course, be updated to reflect that change when, and not before, it occurs. Wikipedia is not a fortune teller. --Ibagli 02:05, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

It seems that it must be made clear that there is a difference between the Commonwealth of Nations and the Commonwealth Realms.

The Commonwealth of Nations is a free association of ex-British Empire colonies/dominions. Though Queen Elizabeth is the nominal head of this organization, as it was created during her reign, most Commonwealth nations have a different head of state, whether president or monarch. Upon the death of Elizabeth II, Prince Charles will not neccesarily become the next head. Who will fill that post will be decided by the Commonwealth nations. Thus, to say "Queen Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth" would be factually incorrect.

Commonwealth Realms are independent kingdoms, all part of the Commonwealth of Nations, who happen to share Elizabeth II as their sovereign. There are 16 of these, including the United Kingdom. Contrary to what was stated above, by modern constitutional law Elizabeth II is not Queen of these countries because she is Queen of the UK, but rather because the constitutions of each realm dictate that she is queen, and her heirs and successors will be the future monarchs. If any of these Realms becomes a republic, or installs a new monarchy, it will in no way affect the Queen's status in the other Realms. In essence, Elizabeth II has claim to the throne of Canada because the Canadian constitution dictates that she has this right, not the UK constitution! Even if the UK became a republic, Elizabeth II would remain Queen of Canada, Queen of Australia, Queen of Tuvalu, etc.

It is because of this that, while it is factually correct that Elizabeth II is Queen of the UK, calling her "Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" is misleading. By the Statute of Westminster, the Crown, and thus the Sovereign, is shared absolutely equally amongst the 16 Realms, making no one Realm is more important than any other, and meaning the Crown has transcended even the UK. Even though the world's media most often, and many times incorrectly, refer to her as "Britain's Queen Elizabeth", this does not alter the fact that Elizabeth II is indeed Queen equally of every Commonwealth Realm.

This fact is made clear when it is considered that in her Coronation Oath Elizabeth II swore to govern not only the People of the UK, but "the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan and Ceylon, and [her] Possessions and other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs." As well, in every Commonwealth Realm her title calls her Queen of Canada, Queen of New Zealand, etc., but also includes the words "...and Her other Realms and Territories."

Now, I can see Wikipedia's problem in giving her page a title-- all 16 Realm names can't be listed after her's! But, as the term "Commonwealth Realms" is a real one, and this name is given to all those countries who have Elizabeth II as their queen, I can't see why "Queen Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth Realms" would be an inaccurate or out of place title. She has been Queen of the Commonwealth Realms since her ascention, and is most certainly now the only one of the world's monarchs to hold this position. gbambino

She's not "Queen of the Commonwealth Realms", because no such position exists. If Tony Blair were to be elected Prime Minister of every country in Europe (the ones without Prime Ministers creating the office specially for him), he'd be "Prime Minister of the United Kingdom", "Prime Minister of France", "Prime Minister of Germany", "Prime Minister of Spain", "Prime Minister of Norway", etc., but he certainly would not be "Prime Minister of Europe". Proteus (Talk) 20:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, there is one key difference between the Crown over the Commonwealth Realms and the hypothetical situation you describe; namely, there is only one Crown over all 16 Realms, but no one prime ministership over every country in the EU. While the Crown, and therefore the Queen, may operate as "The Queen in Right of Canada," or "The Queen in Right of the UK," there is still only one Crown shared equally amongst the Realms. Thus, Queen Elizabeth II is indeed the one Queen of all the Commonwealth Realms.

Secondly, the term "Queen of Her Realms and Territories" does exist: in each of her Realm titles. As I pointed out above, in each country she is known as "Queen of [insert country], and Her other Realms and Territories..."

If "Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" is misleading, "Queen Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth" is incorrect, and "Queen Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth Realms" is unacceptable, then the only way Wikipedia can resolve this issue while maintaining accuracy is to create a seperate page for her in each of her roles. Thus, there would have to be a page for "Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" which would deal only with her role and history in the UK, another page for "Queen Elizabeth II of Canada" which deals only with her history and role in Canada, etc. There may even be ways to avoid repetition; for instance, the section "Early Life," "Education," etc., on the Canada page, or Australia page, could simply be a link to the same part of the UK page.

As it stands now, to have solely "Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" is incorrect, and clearly shows that the Wikipedia editors/contributors are deciding which Realm they see as more important than any other -- hence, POV -- when legal reality makes it clear that none of Elizabeth II's Realms is more dominant or important than any other. Wikipedia needs to address this undoubtable fact. gbambino

Why do Britons insist on having a Non-British Monarch?

Why does England except that a German family is the figure head of their country? Could someone explain this please? I think it should be note din this article that the Queen of Britain isn't even British by birth! 24.141.214.87

Not only was she born in England, of two British citizens, but she is Head of State of the United Kingdom. Of course she is British!

While her recent descents have included a lot of royals and nobles of what is now Germany, she also descends directly from kings of Norway, Denmark, Scotland, Navarre, Portugal, León, Ireland, France... She is descended from William the Conqueror, Henry I, and others. I am descended from many of the same people, but I was born in the U.S. and claim to be nothing but American.

--ScottyFLL 03:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

She was born in Britain, as were both her parents and all four of her grandparents. I fail to see how she could conceivably not be British. Proteus (Talk) 21:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

The briefest of looks at European history will show that royal families formed an interlinked stratum more-or-less independent of national borders. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

You might just as well ask why the USA has so many senators, etc. who call themselves "Irish" (or any number of other nationalities). Clearly there are, in reality, no "americans" because go back more than a few generations and they were all born in another country. The present Queen was born here (in London - check the article!) and so were her parents, her children, etc, etc. ps. If you are going to troll on WP you should still post your IP so that threading is clear - it is listed in the edit history anyway, so it isn't as though we don't know. --Vamp:Willow 22:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

The issue of the Queen's nationality is a vague one. While she was indeed born in Britain, she has a diverse heritage, indeed far more than just Germanic.

What also complicates matters is that she is the Sovereign of 16 countries. While she is a citizen of none of them, as their head of state, and the living symbol of the institution which grants all people in those countries their citizenship, she is a part of each of those nations-- thereby making her partly Australian, partly Jamaican, partly Canadian, etc.

I believe it is sufficient to say that, as such a pan-national figure, her nationality is unimportant. gbambino

We don't insist on it - it's just that sometimes, every couple of hundred years or so, we run out of royal blood and have to ship some in from abroad. Pcb21| Pete 02:05, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I think it's time to ship in some more. I volunteer to be the first American-born monarch of the United Kingdom. *dead-pan* - UtherSRG 11:49, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

You can't volunteer to be a monarch you have to be of royal blood and of the right kind British people might kill you or force you to abdicate Let us not forget that English/British are decended from Saxons(a type of German). You will find that most royals have a big mix of nationalities. Dudtz 7/21/05 2:58 PM EST

The thing is, most of the people who live in the British isles are from germany anyway, and the Queen is hardly German anyway!

Interestingly enough if 489 particular individuals (including Her Majesty) all suddenly died at once the Duke of Edinburgh would inherit the throne to become King Philip... Check Line of succession to the British throne -- Francs2000 | Talk

22:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Sure, because she married her third cousin, a fellow great-great-granchild of Queen Victoria, and like all living descendants of Queen Victoria (other than those who have disqualified themselves and their offspring by marrying the wrong kind of person, or in other ways) he is in the line of succession. Interestingly, though, if you look at that same line of succession article, the first 503 people listed are descendants of Queen Victoria, so the Duke of Edinburgh is almost at the bottom of that part of the list. After that point, are listed those who are in the line of succession by means descent from one of Queen Victoria's cousins. It's all an academic exercise of course, but somewhat interesting. Zeutron 16:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Huh?

Are you people actually fighting over whether to include the words "Her Majesty" in this article? ...This probing question was posed at 00:07, 2005 May 19 by 69.54.132.216

No, we're arguing about whether we should say that people call the queen "Her Majesty" or we should call her that ourselves. Zocky 15:37, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

By default of being queen she is "Her Majesty", and depending on which commonwealth country you live in, it states so in government documents (look in your passport), that of "Her Brittanic Majesty" or "Her Canadian Majesty" it a title of the head of state, which is inseparable from being queen. It is proper politic for her to be addressed as such. If the President of the USA can refer to her as "Your Majesty" surely it is acceptable for an online encyclopedia to do so. [1]

Yes

Pathetic, isn't it.

This new section with its three-word comment was brought to you at 15:13, 2005 May 21 by 212.158.205.43

Protection

Why is this article protected? What issue is in dispute? Adam 09:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I think (I hope) that edit-warring is over, so I've removed the protection, and the two templates. With any luck they won't have to be replaced. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:19, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

~~Might want to reprotect. Whig 11:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)~~

We seem to be working together constructively at the moment, I'll leave the NPOV in place while we see if we can clean things up to everyone's satisfaction, but protection doesn't seem necessary right now. Whig 12:09, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

What exactly needs to be "cleaned up," in your opinion? Adam 12:13, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Please see discussion above. Irrespective of the placement of the style at first instance, there is absolutely no call to keep referring to Elizabeth II as "Her Majesty" throughout the article or use prefixed styles selectively within the entry regarding other (British) royalty (but not other royalty). This is all being addressed, and it doesn't need to be cleaned up instantaneously, I don't see cause for protection at this time but the NPOV tag should remain while things are still in process. There have been numerous other comments above regarding the general bias in favor of Elizabeth II, with reference to her "humanity" in shedding tears on occasion, etc. Again, I could try to rehash the whole litany but it is better just to read the discussion above. Whig 12:29, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I invite people on this page to resolve their differences on the talk page rather than on the article. It would be particularly ridiculous if this article had to be protected twice in a row over a three-letter dispute, would it not ? Rama 12:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

At the moment, there doesn't seem to be a reason to reprotect, as said above. I still maintain the prefixed style should be contextualized, but I'm leaving that be at least for the moment, and while there is still an ongoing vote to ratify a new convention (that will almost certainly fail of ratification, but leaving the foregoing survey itself as being majority opposed to prefixed styles). The fact of an NPOV dispute does not mean that we need to engage in continuous edit wars, and I'm hoping we can all continue to give that a rest for at least the next few days. At that point, I'll try to see if contextualization will be accepted or continually reverted, and if we are no closer to resolution, see what we can do to get some firm guidance from Wikipedia on the matter. Whig 13:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I hope we don't see a need for further protection. Whig has removed a large number prefixed styles - and that's probably right. We should recognise them, but not make a big deal of them - and deliberately using them on every occasion is as unnatural and as wrong as never using them on WP. The quickest and best way of disposing of the issue is to mention it right up the front when we give the formal name - it imparts knowledge, whilst not drawing undue attention to them. I think it is right that Whig has removed most of the others - but I would not want a rule that none ever go back. The Queen is often referred to as "Her Majesty", with "Her Majesty" replacing the shorter "she". We should reflect normal usage - which as I say is neither to insist upon it, nor to forbid it.

For now I hope we come to a reasonable compromise of putting the style right at the front of the article and nowhere else in it. I would not, however, support a move to ban or edit out further instances of styles creeping into the article, provided they did not go too far. Kind regards, jguk 18:57, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I am in agreement with putting the style in the introductory paragraph, although I continue to believe it should be contextualized, but I am trying to lay off the initial reference while we try to straighten out the rest of the article itself, and I'm glad that jguk has expressed general support for my efforts thus far. Unfortunately, as may not be obvious to those seeing the discussion here, Template protection has been unilaterally asserted by User:Rdsmith4 for the transcluded table of the British royal family. No protection was requested at all, nor was there discussion leading to such an action. Please see Template:British Royal Family and the relevant Talk page for discussion. Whig 03:43, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I think I agree with Whig and jguk on the use of styles in the text of the article. I think they should be used in lists (like the bulleted section with HM's children), but their use in running text just makes it hard to read. (We also need less bold.) Proteus (Talk) 20:58, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree, however, they should be used in the first mention of a person, so as to signify their status. eg mentioning the Duke of Edinburgh without the HRH in the first instance would indicate he was not a royal. Astrotrain 21:59, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate what Astrotrain is saying, really, but it is a distinctly British POV that is being conveyed by this approach, because the same "signification of status" is not given to other leaders (royal or otherwise) even within this particular article. For example take the following paragraph:

Queen Elizabeth is a descendant of the German principal house of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (Sachsen-Coburg-Gotha), which inherited the British throne after Queen Victoria (of the House of Hanover) died in 1901. She is also descended from English monarchs extending back to the House of Wessex in the 7th century, and from the Scottish royal house, the House of Stuart, which can be traced back to the 9th century. Through her great-grandmother Queen Alexandra she is descended from the Danish royal house Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, a line of the North German house of Oldenburg, one of the oldest in Europe. As a great-great-granddaughter of Queen Victoria, Queen Elizabeth is related to the heads of most other European royal houses. She is a cousin of Albert II of Belgium, Harald V of Norway, Juan Carlos I of Spain and Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden, as well as former kings Constantine II of Greece and Michael of Romania, and is more distantly related to the former royal houses of Germany and Russia.

Note that the various stylistic flourishes are not given to Albert II of Belgium, Harald V of Norway, Juan Carlos I of Spain, Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden and others. So basically, the idea here seems to be that we ought to give "HM" and "HRH" to British royals, and deny similar styles to non-British royals. Nor are royals the only political/religious/tribal leaders having traditional styles, and we are right back into the whole "use them for everyone or no one" debate—selective use being almost uncontrovertibly POV here. It really isn't possible to use them for everyone, because many editors will revert styles on sight for numerous (i.e., American) political leaders, so we should not be using them at all, rather we should provide them contextually where and when appropriate.

In any case, and with respect to the present selective usage of styles, abbreviated or otherwise, I'm going to have to maintain the NPOV flag on the article unless this is fixed. Whig 13:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Would an alternate solution to the problem – preserving the informative value of the styles, without giving the appearance of endorsing them, or for using them for one country and not another – be to use them at first mention of any royal person, rather than removing them from the British ones? — Dan | Talk 14:18, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Your suggestion parallels a compromise I offered during the style survey discussion to use prefixed styles for royals but not religious/political/tribal/other leaders, and it was pretty much opposed by everyone. The problem here is still selectivity, and a pro-royalist selectivity is still not NPOV. Plus there are many styles-advocates who want to use them for religious leaders (like "His Holiness" for Pope Benedict XVI) and for political leaders (like "The Right Honourable" for Prime Minister Tony Blair) while on the other hand editors on American political figures have generally rejected styles (like "The Honorable" for Senator Hillary Clinton). A universal convention to use them is just impracticable, and it is opposed by a majority. So then we have this selective usage going on, and it's virtually impossible to make it NPOV this way. Whig 19:09, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm not looking to create a universal convention, only to resolve the dispute on this article and get rid of the irritating NPOV tag. Royal vs. non-royal styles are not the issue here. My suggestion – that the abbreviated style be given for all royalty, but only the first time the name is mentioned – addresses Astrotrain's complaint about informative value, and your complaint about being unfair to royalty of other countries; therefore, it should be acceptable to all involved, right? — Dan | Talk 19:25, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Agree with using styles on first mention, and for lists and templates. Astrotrain 20:28, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Astrotrain's desire to use prefixed styles notwithstanding, there remain many issues of content that have been discussed under the NPOV-dispute heading above, such as, "Elizabeth's public image has noticeably softened in recent years, particularly since the death of the Queen Mother. Although she remains reserved in public, she has been seen laughing and smiling much more than in years past, and to the shock of many she has been seen to shed tears during emotional occasions..." This whole article is still a POV mess at the moment. Whig 20:56, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Agree to an extent, see below Astrotrain 21:35, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Mess in the article

The following are a list of statements in the article, which seem to be based on gossip and speculation. I suggest these phrases are removed, or modified. As the Q never gives interviews, any idea of what she thinks is pure speculation, and best left to the tabloids.

"she dislikes Buckingham Palace"
"Queen Elizabeth has happily witnessed over the past fifty years, a gradual transformation of the British Empire into its modern successor, the Commonwealth" ^[2]
"Like her mother, she never forgave Edward VIII for, as she saw it, abandoning his duty, and forcing her father to become King, which she believed shortened his life by many years" ^[3]
Elizabeth's political views are supposed to be less clear-cut (she has never said or done anything in public to reveal what they might be). She preserves cordial relations with politicians of all parties. It is believed that her favourite Prime Ministers have been Winston Churchill, Harold Macmillan and Harold Wilson. Her least favourite was undoubtedly Margaret Thatcher, whom she has said to "cordially dislike". She was thought to have very good relations with her current Prime Minister, Tony Blair, during the first years of his term in office; however, there has been mounting evidence in recent months that her relationship with Blair has hardened. She reportedly feels that he does not keep her informed well enough on affairs of state."^[4]
"It is widely believed that Elizabeth held negative feelings towards Diana and thought that she had done immense damage to the monarchy"
"She is particularly close to her daughter-in-law Sophie, Countess of Wessex."
"Elizabeth has developed friendships with many foreign leaders, including Nelson Mandela, Mary Robinson and George H. W. Bush,"^[5]
"Similarly she took the initiative when Irish President Mary Robinson began visiting Britain, by suggesting that she invite Robinson to visit her at the Palace" ^[6]
"Since becoming Queen, she spends an average of three hours every day "doing the boxes" — reading state papers sent to her from her various departments, embassies, and government offices" ^[7] '

It would perhaps be better if the article covered the Queen's life as Queen in a chronological fashion. For instance it barley mentions the Silver and Golden Jubilees, the shooting during the Trooping of the Colour, the break in at the Palace, Windsor Castle fire, "annus horribilis", births of Anne, Andrew and Edward, role in the Paul Burrel trial, republicanism in Australia. Any other suggested changes? Astrotrain 21:35, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Sources for the above-

^ all biographies of her
^ Philip & Elizabeth: Portrait of a Marriage - biography with partipication of Philip by Gyles Brandreth
^ BBC
^ BBC, people who know both the Queen and Robinson.
^ very senior source who is a friend of the Queen. Information used in the media - both print (The Irish Times, the Sunday Times & broadcast (Sky News, BBC, CNN), but at personal request of the source, I cannot reveal their name. - They do have an article on Wikipedia and they current hold a very senior constitutional office, which is they can't be named right now. (They gave a lot of colour about the Queen - how though appearing very shy and reserved, when relaxed with friends she is a pleasure to be with, very funny, an excellent minic - with a great ability to 'do' regional accents, and far more intelligent than people give her credit for.)
^ Statement by senior royal aide to Parliamentary Committee investigating the monarchy in early 1970s. FearÉIREANN\^(talk) 19:34, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Good work, James. :-) OK, well, that still leaves the disliking of Buck. P.^[8] and closeness to Diana and Sophie. I agree, however, with Astrotrain that the article should focus slightly more than it currently does on events rather than an overview (we might want to spin out the article); births of children, shooting, break-in, Windsor Castle fire, Australian republicanism would need be dealt with, "annus horribilis" would be included in the fire; Burrel is utterly insignificant, merely recent.

James F. (talk) 20:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

^ Brandreth, p.298. In Churchill's words, "to the Palace they must go." FearÉIREANN\^(talk) 21:45, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I am confused as to which sources you are attributing to which statement. In any case:
- the Queen has never authorised/participated in any biography, therefore any statement of her likes/dislikes can only come from a third party

Brandreth quoting members of Elizabeth's family and staff and comments by Winston Churchill.FearÉIREANN

\^(talk) 21:29, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

- this senior person you mention, what information did he provide, and how did he provide it? If it is so top secret, how can it be verified if we don't know his identity?

He or she provided it to me in the course of a long interview. Because of the sensitivity of their post they asked me not to quote them as the source, but they are in a position to know the Queen well, is a friend who dines with her regularly and speaks very warmly about her. I have used the information in media reports for a wide variety of media sources. If you knew who the source was you would realise how trustworthy they are as a source. Their comments reflect comments made to others who also know it. It is interesting to hear the personal opinions of very senior figures - prime ministers, politicians, presidents, royalty, etc - about the Queen. They all describe her in an almost identical manner. Even though the source I was interviewing is sufficiently credible, everything they said matches exactly comments by everyone else.FearÉIREANN

\^(talk) 21:29, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

- how can the Queen be "friends" with people like Robertson or Mandella? She has only met them on a handful of occassions at most.

Actually she is a very close friend of Mandela, who was seen on a BBC programme calling her 'his good friend' and who calls her 'Elizabeth', a degree of familarity that only close friends of hers use with her - she has an ability to show if she finds your treatment of her uncomfortable. The warmth of the Nelson-Elizabeth relationship has been noted by all who see them together, and contrary to your claims they meet regularly. John Major was astonished when he became prime minister at her close relationships with world leaders. On one occasion when he was finding a particular Commonwealth leader 'difficult' the Queen noted this and pointed out that both men shared a passion for cricket and suggested building a rapport based on that. Major did so and the two men hit it off fabulously. Irish president Mary McAleese and Taoiseach Bertie Ahern speak very warmly of her also, having been guests at her informal lunches; McAleese first met the Queen when she was a radical nationalist Pro Vice-Chancellor of Queens University in Belfast. In one Irish media interview she spoke of the Queen as a 'dote' (a Hiberno-English term meaning in effect 'a really lovable person who charms you').

Mary Robinson, her precedessor, makes no secret for her admiration of the Queen, and indeed senior Irish politicians who have meet her and her family all universally say, off the record (when they don't have to be worried about being quoted and so can be more honest), they have been pleasantly surprised by the lot of them. They find the Queen extraordinarily well briefed on Irish affairs - better than most British politicians - and is warm and funny. They found Philip "a howl" (meaning brilliant fun to be with), charles 'intense and committed to doing the right thing', Anne 'serious and very very impressive. If she was an ordinary woman, she would by ability alone get to the top of any organisation', Edward 'genuine' and Andrew 'surprisingly good at his job, with a sense of fun'. (Comments all made by politician to me.) Indeed one theme that constantly comes up is a high degree of sympathy over how they are treated by the media, because, to a man and woman, everyone said that the 'real people' are so totally different to the media characture. British politicians too speak very highly of them. John Smith was impressed by the Prince of Wales. Blair, like all her prime ministers, takes her views seriously. In one case her subtle advice on Rhodesia changed the policy of a Labour government. Ministers judged her interpretation better than their's in analysing a report by Lord Grenville. She was proved correct and they were very thankful for her help. Jim Prior spoke of the "intoxicating mix" of the Queen and Lord Carrington changing the stance of Thatcher on the issue. Peter Hains, formerly a radical republican, has openly praised her, saying that when as a minister he "attended" her on foreign visits he was stuck by how good she was on state visits. FearÉIREANN

\^(talk) 21:29, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

- - Also the Burrel case is significant to be mentioned here. It caused a massive political and public reaction, with calls for the soveriegn to be removed as the font of justice, it also wiped out the royal family's popularity built up during the jubilee year. Astrotrain 20:35, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Oh please. That is cobblers, a superficial and inaccurate overhyping. In any case Burrell's credibility was damaged subsequently. FearÉIREANN

\^(talk) 21:29, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Did it, really? I remember it as a vaguely ridiculous parading of pointlessness in the tabloids that the proper newspapers ignored, ending in a farce after it turned out that the CPS hadn't in fact ascertained the whether or not Burrel's claims were true. I certainly don't recall it "wiping out the royal family's popularity", I must say.

James F. (talk) 20:39, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

The Royals do ride the storm well, however the Burrel trial did bring into question the Queen's role as the font of justice, and weakened her credibility, as well as calls for her to pay the costs of the trial. Afterall, suddenly rememembering a conversation with Burrel conveinently before he took the stand....... Astrotrain 19:06, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Also, politicans, world leaders will always say nice things about the Queen, afterall a knighthood may be at stake. Astrotrain 19:06, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Wrong. Firstly, as I presume you know, knighthoods are decided by Blair, not the Queen. So there would be no need to be nice about the Queen. (If you really want one, it is Blair you have to be nice to.) Secondly, there is little point in that case of saying nice things if you then ask that you not be named, so that she never knows you said the things. Thirdly, none of people I spoke to are likely to receive knighthoods. Fourthly, some of those I spoke to are constitutionally prohibited from accepting them. Fifthly, some of them are opposed on principle to knighthoods, with some of them republicans. They were expressing their professional opinions. Nothing more. FearÉIREANN

\^(talk) 19:50, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I fail to understand what completely unverifiable information (like a private conversation with a Wikipedia editor on the condition of anonymity) has to do with anything here. Zocky 20:15, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

<Grin>, You are Richard Nixon, and I claim my 10 pounds. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:52, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

The Queen can give out Royal Victorian Order, Order of the Garter/Thistle at her own discretion. Astrotrain 21:45, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

True, but not to people who can't accept them or don't want them. Any names will have been sifted and selected for her (as they are for Blair). If she were to start awarding the most senior level honours indiscreetly then she would lose a lot of respect.

As for the "anonymous comments" - some of them ring true for me (professionally), but I would agree that they are POV and perhaps ought to be placed somewhere where it is clear that they are personal opinions (however highly you rate the source). Wiki-Ed 13:21, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Paramount Chief of FIJI

She is also the Paramount Chief of Fiji and has a Fijian title, as well as membership in the Council of Chiefs

Lilybet versus Lilibet

I notice some users are convinced that the Queen's childhood nickname was spelt with a y. I checked with a friend of the Queen and she is adamant that it is written with an i, not a y. That was shown directly at the Queen Mother's funeral when the Queen signed her message on her wreath to her mother Lilibet. (I thought the image might be somewhere on the net but I can't find it, but anyone can will see it clearly - the image was photographed and filmed by the media. And I guess if anyone knows how her nickname should be spelt, it is the Queen herself. FearÉIREANN\^(talk) 19:04, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea how the actual nickname was spelled; I was simply observing that it is spelled "Lilybet" on the magazine cover. Even if this is Time's error, both spellings should be acknowleged (noting which is the more correct or more widely used), or else people will continue to change it back. — Dan | Talk 19:19, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

I can see why this might be worth mentioning in the "Time" article under some sort of "Cluelessness" section but it's surely too trivial to be worth mentioning in this article. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:57, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth II of Canada

I know there's been a lot of debate about this page being titled as "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom," centering mostly around the fact that she is also, separately, Queen of Canada, New Zealand, Jamaica, etc.

As there has been no resolution to this issue here, I'd like to resuscitate the page "Elizabeth II of Canada", and have it deal solely with Elizabeth II and her relationship to Canada -- ie. a history of her tours there, PMs during her reign, important Canadian documents she has signed, state visits undertaken as Queen of Canada, etc. This information is not covered on Monarchy in Canada (and rightly so). There will be nothing on her early life, marriage, etc., as that is already covered on this page.

As there is already a Queen of Australia page, as well as a Queen of New Zealand page, I think it's logical and fair to have a valid page "called Elizabeth II of Canada," but wanted to discuss the proposal first. gbambino

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to have it at Queen of Canada, in analogy to Queen of Australia and Queen of New Zealand? john k 18:54, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

An article title Elizabeth II of Canada would suggest a full biographical article, which would only duplicate what is in this article. Queen of Australia is not a biographical article, but a history of the title "Queen of Australia" and an explanation of E2's role in Australia. Queen of Canada should do the same for Canada. Adam 01:04, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, the current duplication is very odd and confusing. I'd suggest merging back and possibly creating an article on the actions of E2 as queen of canada. --W(t) 15:38, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)

If you have a look at the article Elizabeth II of Canada you'll see it covers only the Queen's personal role and relationship to Canada, and I'm also sure you'll note that there is very little to no duplication to the Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom page.

There used to be a "Queen of Canada" article, but this was changed by someone at some point to become Monarchy in Canada as it is that page which focuses more on the istitution of the Crown in Right of Canada, and not on individual Canadian Sovereigns.

As one page for Monarchy in Canada and another page for Elizabeth II of Canada seems to work okay, I can't see why the same can't happen for Australia, New Zealand, et al -- if someone wanted to take the time to compose an article on the Australian Crown, and one on Elizabeth II's personal connection to/history in Australia, etc. gbambino

Huh? You created the Elizabeth II of Canada article two days ago. You can't use that as an argument for changing the way we do other articles, when this article itself is still under dispute for people. john k 17:15, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It was only a suggestion, not a command. gbambino

It was a misleading claim. You were suggesting that "one page for Monarchy in Canada and another page for Elizabeth II of Canada seems to work okay." How is that so? The very question at issue is that people were saying that "one page for Monarchy in Canada and another page for Elizabeth II of Canada" is a bad idea, and using the different way that articles on the monarchy in other commonwealth realms are organized as an example of why your way is problematic. You are then tautologically bringing up your preferred solution as an example to support...your preferred solution. john k 21:20, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Doubly misleading now that Elizabeth II of Canada is on VfD and currently has, in addition to the nomination, 4 votes for redirecting to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and no other explicit votes (though user:gbambino's comments should probably be taken as a lone voice for keeping as-is). -- Jonel 04:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the main problem seems to be that the current Elizabeth II of Canada has the appearance of a bio article, which it isn't. It should be moved to a more appropriate title and the bio-ey stuff (birth date, Ac.thequeen.jpg, etc) should be replaced by the link to the main article about her. --W(t) 16:33, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)

I'd say the Elizabeth II of Canada article is a bio article-- only it specifically covers the Queen's biographical information related to Canada. None of that information is covered on the U.K. page.

Though I had the links higher up on the article (and someone has since lowered them to the 'See also' section), there are indeed links to the U.K. page for other "bio stuff" such as information on her early life, marriage, family, etc. As well, the Ac.thequeen.jpg image so happens to be an official portrait of her as none other than Elizabeth II of Canada (look at the honours she's wearing, and the uncropped original shows a Canadian flag by her side)! gbambino

Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is the biographical article on the woman who is currently Queen of Canada. If you want to have more biographical information pertaining to her role as Queen of Canada, it should be added there. Monarchy in Canada or Queen of Canada should deal with the role of the monarchy in Canada. I cannot think of a single article on a monarch which gives them separate biographical articles based around the different countries they were monarchs of. There is no separate Victoria of India or Charles I of Spain or Frederick I of Sicily or Christian VII of Norway or Pedro IV of Portugal or James VI of Scotland or William III, Prince of Orange or Francis Stephen, Grand Duke of Tuscany. john k 17:15, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Herein lies the problem that has been discussed ad nauseum above, but nobody at Wikipedia seems to want to address: By legal reality the Queen of Canada and the Queen of the UK are separate but completely equal bodies in one person -- Elizabeth II. To say "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" implies that the one person is Queen of the UK above all other Realms, a supposition by Wikipedia which is factually untrue.

As has been mentioned above, there are other Monarchs who present a similar problem. James VI of Scotland & I of England is one -- and one has to ask: why, when James was King of Scotland first, is his English realm made more important in his page title "James I of England"? It is complete POV as Scots would claim his role as King of Scotland was more important, English perhaps stating his role as King of England was superior.

I have always seen the issue that Wikipedia faces with Monarchs who reign or reigned over multiple realms, but still see that to single out one realm as the "main" one is nothing more than an opinion on one being more important than the others. Elizabeth II does not "play favorites" with her Realms, so I can't see why Wikipedia should.

Monarchy in Canada has become the page dedicated to the institution of the Canadian Crown, rather than on any specific sovereign. As well, "Queen of Canada" doesn't work as no person is attached to the role. Charles may become King of Canada, but a Wikipedia page titled only as "King of Canada" wouldn't differentiate between George VI, King of Canada, or Charles III, King of Canada.

Can the countries be separated from the monarch's article title? The main biographical information about the person would be on a page titled "Elizabeth II"; and the information about her role as each distinct sovereign would be found on separate pages linked prominently on the bio page? Thus, the "Elizabeth II" biography article would then have links to pages on "Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom," "Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia," "Elizabeth II, Queen of Jamaica," etc., etc.

The way it stands now is not only unfair, but inaccurate -- something I'm sure Wikipedia does not want to be. gbambino

Why, when James was King of Scotland first, is his English realm more important in his page title?

Because, well, England was a more important and prestigious kingdom, and because James lived in London after 1603. And because this is the usual historical convention. As to the other stuff - just because one person holds many offices does not mean they are many people. An individual should only have one biographical article about them. That this article is at Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom rather than Elizabeth II of Canada is dictated by our normal naming conventions, which have widespread support. As to Elizabeth II "not playing favorites," that is absurd - she has lived in the United Kingdom for her entire life. That the crowns are constitutionally equal does not mean we have to pretend that they are all equally associated with the queen. (It should also perhaps be noted that the crown of the United Kingdom is the oldest of the commonwealth crowns, dating to 1801, and being the direct descendant of the Great Britain crown of 1707 and from there of the English and Scottish crowns going back to the 1st millennium AD, while none of the commonwealth realms dates to earlier than the twentieth century; that the United Kingdom has the largest population of any of the Commonwealth Realms; that the next largest, Canada, specifically recognizes the queen as being first "queen of the United Kingdom" in her official Canadian style... Just because you're a Canadian monarchist and don't like it when republicans (such as they are in Canada) say that the queen isn't Canadian (which, by any reasonable standard, is true), doesn't mean you get to impose your silly position on wikipedia. john k 21:17, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"that is absurd - she has lived in the United Kingdom for her entire life"

Certainly the 1% of her reign she's spent in Canada counts for something! AndyL 21:48, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is it really that much? That would be more than half a year, in total. john k 22:05, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I never claimed that because one person holds many offices they are separate people, please read my words more carefully. I most certainly said there could be one page covering personal biographical information, and a number of pages which cover the information specifically attached to their roles in the separate offices. I'm also aware that "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" suits Wikipedia naming standards, however I think the issues that have been raised numerous times on this discussion page show that the naming standards aren't up to par.

Your arguments to justify the elevation of the U.K. above every other Realm are only arguments to support your opinion, and are ones which are not wholly accurate or relevant. For instance, that The Queen's title in Canada contains the words "United Kingdom" holds no ground as in all but 3 of her realms there is no reference to the U.K. in her title. Population is irrelevant -- if Canada were to have 100 million inhabitants would that justify "Elizabeth II of Canada"? You confuse the Queen's personal opinion about which Realm may be her favorite with the fact that as Sovereign she holds no Realm above any other. And the "Crown of the United Kingdom" and the "Crown of Canada" are the same age as they are one and the same thing -- what was once specifically the Crown of Great Britain and N. Ireland has, with the passing of the Statute of Westminster, transcended even the U.K. to become one Crown over all the Realms which operates distinctly and equally in each. So the "Crowns" of the Realms are equally associated with The Queen because they are one Crown -- but not specifically the British Crown. Even your assertion that The Queen is not Canadian is only an opinion for which you have no real base.

You also did not address the fact that "Queen of Canada" or "King of Canada" does not work as it cannot differentiate between the kings or queens of Canada. How will the future King Charles III of Canada be sepatated from the past King George VI of Canada?

In the article text. -- Jonel 04:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Contrary to your ill-mannered comments, I am not shooting this stuff out of my ass -- this is legal fact, and has been explained to me in depth by a well credited constitutional expert, Mr. Richard Toporoski, both through articles of his which I've read as well as direct communication with him. If what is real is contrary to your beliefs then I am sorry for you, but please don't lash out at me for it. As I've said, I understand the difficulty Wikipedia faces with a complex issue like this, but feel there really must be a completely accurate way to deal with it. Monarchist or republican leanings aside, "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" is limited in both scope and accuracy. gbambino

"Is it really that much? That would be more than half a year, in total."

222 days by my count. At this rate, the Queen will have met the required three year residency requirement for Canadian citizenship around 2204 or so. AndyL 01:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's unfortunate for you that monarchs are not citizens, and never will be.

Not really, as I'm fairly sure the comment was made with tongue firmly set in cheek. -- Jonel 04:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Elizabeth II of Canada AndyL 02:09, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Doctorates

Recipients of honorary doctorates don't use the titles. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:18, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And even if they did, trying to stick "Doctor" before "Her Majesty" is idiotic. Proteus (Talk) 15:48, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since she probably has dozens of honorary doctorates, perhaps we could adopt the German custom and style her "Dr Dr Dr Dr Dr Dr Dr Dr Dr Dr Dr Dr Dr Dr Dr Dr Her Majesty." Adam 02:41, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Golden Jubilee of Elizabeth II

Before there was such an article, there was a short summary of the Jubilee events. I replaced the Golden Jubilee link with a direct link to the 2002 events and deleted the short description, as by now it was merely repetitive of information we already had in another article. Since the Jubilee wasn't its own section in the article, I couldn't very well put a "Main article" heading, so I just piped the Golden Jubilee link to the in-depth article. Mike H 04:20, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Elizabeth II of Canada

An anon closed this vfd discussion as a merge/redirect after only the minimum 5 days discussion. I've reverted the closing. As this was a pretty heated debate, which may not have reached a conclusion yet, and there doesn't even seem to be a consensus as to where it should be redirected, if it indeed should be redirected at all.......then I think it ought to stay open a bit longer. And if it is going to be closed, it should be by a trusted user who has edited more than one page (and that in an edit war). sjorford →•← 22:24, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Consensus "In day-to-day Wikipedia practice, e.g. on VfD, consensus means something closer to supermajority, usually a two-thirds majority". There's a 2/3 majority on the Elizabeth II of Canada VFD after five days so I'm afraid there *is* a consensus. AndyL 03:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Given that you proposed the vfd in the first place, it's doubly improper for you to close it. There is an approximate 2/3 majority for redirect, yes. This is necessary but not sufficient for determining a vfd. I'm re-opening it again, and will keep re-opening it until it is closed by a trusted user who did not participate in the discussion. sjorford →•← 08:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's actually around 70% by my count.AndyL 16:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In this instance, where the consensus is to redirect, rather than to delete, I don't see why we need to keep it open. john k 17:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

70% seems like a pretty solid consensus to me, by Wikipedia's standards. To be fair, I also voted for the redirect, so I might be biased, but it really does seem pretty open-and-shut to me. Lord Bob 17:56, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Not wanting to string this discussion out beyond its natural life, but my main point keeps being missed here:

VFD discussions should not be closed by anons
VFD discussions should not be closed by someone involved in the discussion

What I saw was an apparent attempt, first by an anon, and then by AndyL, to close the discussion at the earliest opportunity, while it fitted their personal views. If the consensus had been another way, would either user have closed it? That's why an impartial user must close the discussion. Whether or not 70% is a good enough consensus in this case, I really don't care. The point is, that's not something for the nominator to decide. sjorford →•← 29 June 2005 11:00 (UTC)

Move Article to Elizabeth II

I believe that this article should be Moved to Elizabeth II. This meets Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Which states:

Convention: Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things.

I challenge anyone to show me any common usage of her name where she is referred to as Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom she is always only referred to as Queen Elizabeth II or just Elizabeth II. Therefore one of these 2 should be used. I think Elizabeth II is distinctive enough and that is the preferred option. It should also be noted that the policy on Historical names in titles specifically states that

"Convention: In general, use the most common form of the name used in English (not necessarily the name translated into English) and disambiguate the names of monarchs of modern countries in the format [[{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}]] (example: Edward I of England).

Queen Elizabeth II or even Elizabeth II are the common names she is known by and as disabiguation is not required those should be used. This would also address the issue that this article is about the person and not about her role as Queen of the UK and also address the issue that this is just one of many countries that she is officially queen of. -- Webgeer June 29, 2005 17:54 (UTC)

Strongly oppose' Wikipedia naming conventions place modern western monarchs in the form <name> <ordinal> of <name of state>. All monarchs are entered that way. She is not simply Queen Elizabeth II. She is Queen of the United Kingdom. It is standard accuracy to refer to her as such in a page about her role as Queen of the United Kingdom. To call her simply Queen Elizabeth II would be anglocentric. Wikipedia is not an British encyclopædia. It cannot simply use names in the form that is used in the UK. And what then we do if some other country has a queen called Elizabeth II. Call that queen Elizabeth II (the other one) lol FearÉIREANN\^(talk) 29 June 2005 18:23 (UTC)

If disambiguation were to be required in the future it can be addressed then. However, as disambiguation is not required, there is no reason to dismbiguate it. We generally don't disambiguate something, just because it could become necessary in the future. This page is not a page about her role as Queen of the UK, this page is about the person. -- Webgeer June 29, 2005 18:42 (UTC)

We actually do pre-emptive things to disambiguate - see the instructions. Knowing the frequency of Elisabeth as name (and as translation of e.g Isabel), I cannot vouch that there never was any other Elisabeth II. For example, check first all medieval French counties etc. And how about certain queens of Bohemia? 217.140.193.123 29 June 2005 22:11 (UTC)
Oppose. This has been talked about before we need consistency, and all our monarchs are named like this. DJ Clayworth 29 June 2005 18:45 (UTC)
Oppose, for the consistency reasons others have so well detailed above. Lord Bob June 29, 2005 18:57 (UTC)
Oppose, and please browse the archives before proposing such moves, because this discussion has occurred at least once before. — Dan | Talk 29 June 2005 19:08 (UTC)

I actually did see that and it was sort of an "what do you think" question without any supporting arguments offered by either side. I felt it was important to make a proper request to move based on the WP policies that I believe are sound and appropriate.

In response to the critism about consistency. If you look at Category:Reigning_monarchs you will see that although this approach is most common, it is far from consistent. I think it is important to note that Elizabeth II is somewhat unique as she is recognized thoughout the English world without any type of qualifier. As for the comment about Anglocentric, it should be noted that I am not from the UK. I am in Canada and have lived in the US. In both of these places the popular media virtually always refers to her as simply "Queen Elizabeth". (Whereas most other monarch will be referred to as Queen xxx of xxx in common media usage). -- Webgeer June 29, 2005 20:06 (UTC)

I think that's simply because she is the most significant monarch in the modern world, and most of the others - Monaco, Luxembourg, Thailand, Bahrain, Netherlands, etc - are neither as influential nor as well known. This provides all the more reason to ensure that we're treating Elizabeth the same as we would any of the other monarchs. — Dan | Talk 29 June 2005 20:12 (UTC)

Though I'm not sure simply titling the article "Elizabeth II" is the answer, I think that to treat "Elizabeth II the same as we would any other monarch" ignores the fact that Elizabeth II is like no other monarch. She is 16 dinstinct and seperate legal entities combined in one person, neither one of which is supreme over any other. Making it seem as though her role as Queen of the UK is superior to her role as, say, Queen of New Zealand is both inaccurate and presumptuous. I personally believe the problem goes beyond simply this one article, and we need to take a lager look at the organization of and relationship between all articles pertaining to Elizabeth II and the Crown in the Commonwealth Realms. --gbambino 4 July 2005 14:47 (UTC)
- "I think that to treat "Elizabeth II the same as we would any other monarch" ignores the fact that Elizabeth II is like no other monarch. She is 16 dinstinct and seperate legal entities combined in one person"

This doesn't make her unique. Rather, it makes her like her father, her uncle and her grandfather, does it not? They were both kings of multiple realms. There are also a number of cases of this happening in history (particularly in the British Royal family where a number of Kings were also Electors of Hanover) Do you suggest we retitle George VI of the United Kingdom and George V of the United Kingdom as well not to mention the articles from George I up to but not including Victoria??67.70.21.67 4 July 2005 21:30 (UTC)

As I've pointed out to you repeatedly, there are literally dozens of monarchs who have ruled over several separate thrones. Go to the appropriate naming policy and argue there about this issue, if you'd like. john k 4 July 2005 15:31 (UTC)
Oppose. Strongly oppose creating a non-standardly named article, as argued above. -- Arwel 29 June 2005 21:32 (UTC)
Oppose. Not this again. john k 29 June 2005 22:48 (UTC)

John, you forgot the *sigh* at the end. lol And yes, I know how you feel. *mega sigh* *groan* FearÉIREANN

\^(talk) 29 June 2005 22:54 (UTC)

Oppose. See John's comments. Berek 30 June 2005 08:06 (UTC)
Oppose twenty zillion million quadrillion times. Deb 30 June 2005 20:54 (UTC)
Oppose as above (twenty million bagillion etc. times too) Craigy (talk) June 30, 2005 20:57 (UTC)
Oppose, not this again. *sighs*. Again. James F. (talk) 1 July 2005 18:07 (UTC)
Oppose for consistency's sake. -Sean Curtin July 2, 2005 21:54 (UTC)
Oppose, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles), consistency. Gdr 4 July 2005 20:44 (UTC)

Oppose the "mystery" of one monarch being several may tantalize those who fantasise about the monarchy but in the real world it's a bit of a bore. 67.70.21.67 4 July 2005 21:32 (UTC)

Clear consensus here to leave it as it is - the result is not moved. Talrias (t | e | c) 11:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Political Role - PMs

This should probably needs to be resolved by a British person, rather than me, but isn't the recent edit to the Political role section a bit misleading? The Queen officially appoints all Prime Ministers, not just the two mentioned. The only remarkable thing about the two mentioned is that the choice of Prime Minister wasn't clearly dictated by convention. JPD 6 July 2005 09:04 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but basically she appointed these Prime ministers during what you would call a political crisis. She would normally appoint Prime ministers through the result of a general election but as they resigned during thier terms of office, they had no immediate replacement, so it was the Queens duty to appoint somebody else in the former Prime ministers position.

Ancestry

I made the changes to the ancestry aspect of this article, because i found it sloppy. I think if your going to mention the fact she is descended kings of England going back to the House of Wessex then you should mention that this is not where her claim comes from and who it does. As well as her claim to the throne of Scotland. Also, I (hopefully for some) clarified the tricky relations she has with her fellow monarchs in Europe. I don't personally think that it is important to her ancestry, but since the consensus it is, I worked on it. I didn't mean to tread on anybody who contributed to this article, but just hoped to clear up some the things I found confusing. Harun77 12 July 2005

Her claim comes from her patrilineal descent, which is why it should come first. Your sentence about her claim to the throne doesn't make sense, and at any rate, there is not a separate claim to England and Scotland any more. If it says she is related to most other ruling monarchs, you don't need to list exceptions. JPD 10:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

(Banging Dead Horse) Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth Realms

Before I get showered with tonnes of sighs and complaints I’ll say that I do realize this particular topic has been discussed time, times and half-time, however I feel there is need for some more discussing. I propose that the name of the article be changed from “Elizabeth II of the UK” to “Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth Realms”. This following Wikipedia’s aforementioned guidelines for naming monarchs in the style of “<name> <ordinal> of <name of state>”. Now it is a point that “Commonwealth Realms” is not a state but the Queen functions her role under several separate interlaced monarchies and should therefore be regarded tending to equal importance to each of her thrones. It is common fact, obviously, that her role in the UK has been far more mentioned both in the media and popular knowledge than her functions as Queen of the other realms. But that does not mean she should be addressed as the UK’s only. The current title of this page is an insult to the thrones of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. How can Wikipedia possibly consider itself neutral if with this usage it is saying that the role of Queen of the UK is the paramount of Elizabeth’s duties and that all other are but mere formalities. If so then it is really a wonder that so many “important laws” in these countries are consigned under her name. I propose this style for neutrality’s sake. It is impossible to put into word just how infuriating it is - for her non-British subjects - to see Queen Elizabeth often assumed only to be the United Kingdom’s. If “Elizabeth II of <insert name of any Commonwealth Realm other than the UK>” can be considered a proper re-direction to the main article; why then can’t “Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom” be considered as a re-direction as well. Is it too sacred to be meddled with that it must be the title of the article forsaking her other styles? It is time Wikipedia stopped the bias and accept all of her roles. (unsigned comment by LJLeBlanc 02:47, July 15, 2005)

There seem to be several confusions within that, but I'll skip them for now and say that one problem with your suggestion is that many people won't know what's meant by "commonwealth realms". -- Hoary 02:56, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

She doesn't excerise her powers as Queen of Canada etc on a regular basis, she was born in the UK and speaks British, so she should be EII of the UK. She is only Queen through a British law, and through her descend from the monarchs of England and Scotland. Astrotrain 17:15, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

To the contrary, the Queen exercises her "powers" as Queen of Canada every day as the Crown is the basis for all law in Canada, and the foundation of all the institutions which exercise it. While she was most certainly born in the UK, she speaks English and French, not "British." And she is Queen through the constitutional law of sixteen separate and sovereign nations. It's precisely these types of misconceptions that are fostered by calling Elizabeth II only "of the United Kingdom". It's been said before that "Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth Realms" cannot be used because it is not a technical legal term. That may be true. However, neither is "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" technically correct as her proper title, in the case of the UK, is "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories." So, is Wikipedia really operating with accuracy or simply bias? --gbambino 14:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

"Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" is a reasonable way to shorten "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland etc". "Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth", on the other hand, is a neologism and is thus unacceptable. You have been told this several times already. Bringing it up again and again will not suddenly make your neologism acceptable. Homey 17:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

And you, Andy/Homey, are not the all-powerful, omnipotent deity of Wikipedia who can cease discussions with his almighty command. The number of people who have commented on the fact that Wikipedia associates Elizabeth II primarily with the United Kingdom, thus possibly ignoring constitutional realities as well as perhaps violating NPOV, shows that the current policies for the naming of articles on monarchs may not be adequate. Of course, I use "possibly", "perhaps" and "may" because the issue has never actually been fully resolved. --gbambino 14:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Your personal attack does not actually address my points which are 1) Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth Realms is a neologism and thus unacceptable 2) Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is a resonable way to shorten her full title. Homey 15:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

You're certainly a sensitive fellow, Andy/Homey. Anyway, I need not address your points as 1) I long ago agreed that "Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth Realms" is not acceptable, and 2) "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" may or may not be a "reasonable way to shorten her full title," but my point (and that of others) is that it still gives primacy to the United Kingdom over the other Realms, denying the explicit legal relationship of equality when it comes to the Crown and Sovereign.

There may be a reasonable explanation for this, ie. she is "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" because she was born in the UK, but that would put the article James I of England in error as he was born in Scotland. To say she is primarily Queen of the UK over her other Realms has no factual foundation, and thus is unencyclopaedic. These are some of the issues that need to be resolved, and until they are the subject will come up again and again (as has already been happening, demonstrated by everyone's frustration with it). --gbambino 17:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Elizabeth lives in London. During the time James was king of both countries, he also lived in London. As to the subject coming up again and again, that is because you bring it up again and again. john k 17:07, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the issue is how does an encyclopaedia want to deal with Monarchs -- by the concrete laws that define them, or by perceptions based on where they spend most of their time and which kingdom was/is "more important"? I'm not saying that there doesn't exist a perception that Elizabeth II is only British, or predominately British, but it is undoubtedly something open to interpretation depending on one's point of view. Also, there may be a perception that James was more "of England" than "of Scotland", but I'm sure many Scots will hold the opposite view as he was King of Scotland first. What is not open to interpretation is legal realities, both past and present. (As an aside, If James VI/I is deemed "of England" because he lived in London when king of both countries, then why is there no article "James VI of Scotland" dealing with him before he succeeded to the English throne and moved to London?) Also, if you look carefully you'll see that I haven't brought this subject up in months. --gbambino 17:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

2) "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" may or may not be a "reasonable way to shorten her full title," but my point (and that of others) is that it still gives primacy to the United Kingdom over the other Realms, denying the explicit legal relationship of equality when it comes to the Crown and Sovereign.

Nevertheless, you have been asked to present a viable alternative and have proven unable to do so which makes these recurring discussions quite pointless. Homey 21:45, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

As far as I knew Wikipedia was a place where articles were constructed by cooperation, not by one person dictating the rules. Thus, discussion is never pointless.

Also, I didn't say finding a resolution to the issue would be easy -- I can see the problem from both sides. However, this doesn't mean a solution can't be found.

Is there a record anywhere which outlines how the decision to associate a country with a sovereign in their article title was reached? Also, why does this practice not extend to all monarchs, such as Gustav Vasa, King of Sweden; Charlemagne, King of Franks and Lombards; every single Thai monarch (Category:Thai_monarchs), Norodom Sihanouk, King of Cambodia, and so on.

My first inclination, before really getting into the subject, that is, is that no country need be included in an article title. If there are sovereigns who have the same name, then it seems logical that their number will differentiate them (eg. George III from George VI), and if not, a disambiguation page will solve any problems, as it does with other subjects that happen to share the same name (eg Washington (disambiguation)). To me, simply Queen Elizabeth II, King James VI/James I, King Charles II, King George VI, King Charles XII/Karl II, King Juan Carlos I, King Alfonso XIII, King Charles XIV John/Charles III John, etc., would suffice. --gbambino 16:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Proposed move

I have proposed to move Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom to simply Elizabeth II. She is queen of more than the UK as is seen in the opening paragraph of the article. The standard convention of Name of Country is useless in this situation as her realms are many. That may work with Carl Gustaf of Sweden but doesnt really work with the current situation. EdwinHJ | Talk

Support move

Support EdwinHJ | Talk 17:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Support. He has a point. The current styling is simply made up; She should either be found at Elizabeth II or Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories 80.255 20:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Oppose move

Sigh. Not again!. Strongly oppose wasting any more time on this subject - agree with JTD (FearÉIREANN). -- Arwel 18:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Although I think the proposal makes sense, I seem to be in the minority, and it does not make sense to debate this endlessly. Let's let this rest for six months, and Jtdirl suggests below. Ground Zero 21:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Mackensen (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Absolutely, definitely, no. James F. (talk) 21:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
No. Not again. Given past discussions and absolutely clear decision on this point I would support any admin reverting any move of this page! Yes, she is of more than one country, but WP style is that we include the name of the domain. --Vamp:Willow 22:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
No, the proposal is anglocentric and ignores her formal title. 172 | Talk 22:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
You cannot be serious. john k 22:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
I guess I'd better vote here too or User:EdwinHJ will interpret it as support. And yes, it is utterly crazy to drag up this vote yet again. What next? A vote every day? Every hour? *sigh* What part of oppose in vote after vote is difficult to understand? FearÉIREANNImage:Ireland coa.png\^{(caint) 22:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)}
Oppose 青い(Aoi) 22:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Berek 07:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
I can't believe this was reproposed after ten days. When we say 'don't vote on everything' that doesn't mean 'vote on one thing over and over again'. DJ Clayworth 16:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. This vote is pointless. Timrollpickering 18:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. Don't people read before they bring these things up? ℬastique▼^talk 23:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Oppose — It's a valid point, I guess; but the medicine is worse than the disease. We shouldn't trade a little messiness for a lot. The present situation, although not ideal, is the best available: Elizabeth II of Canada, etc., redirects here; and the first sentence makes the full situation abundantly clear. Doops | talk 04:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Oppose -- Francs2000 | Talk 18:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. Talrias (t | e | c) 08:50, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Additional comments

This has been debated endlessly and the decision has been taken over and over and over and over again, the last time only 9 days ago when 92% voted not to move the page. This article ain't moving. Get over it. FearÉIREANNImage:Ireland coa.png\^{(caint) 17:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)}

There's no need for yet another vote. Leave the poor woman in peace! Gdr 21:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Vote to stop endless revoting on this issue for 6 months

That Wikipedia stop wasting time on endless revoting on this (goddamned) issue and ban votes on this issue from this page for at least six months. The use of "g**d*****" is REALLY offensive to many wikipedians and should be avoided. EdwinHJ | Talk 18:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

For

FearÉIREANNImage:Ireland coa.png\^{(caint) 20:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)}
Astrotrain 21:28, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Mackensen (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Arwel 21:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Deb 21:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
James F. (talk) 21:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Vamp:Willow 22:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
172 | Talk 22:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Although it should be taken as a given that there shouldn't be new votes on this every week without any special vote. john k 22:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
青い(Aoi) 22:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Jpbrenna 03:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Berek 07:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
DJ Clayworth 16:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Timrollpickering 18:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
David Newton 18:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
ℬastique▼^talk 23:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Sean Curtin 07:12, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
Zscout370 (Sound Off) 08:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
(been out of town) — Dan | Talk 02:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Against

Banning voting does not help create a consensus 80.255 20:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments

This is silly. Just leave the page alone, or move it back some vandal moves it. There's no need to multiply pointless votes. Gdr 21:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Lord of Mann?

shouldn't she be Lady of Mann since she is of course female Dudtz 7/21/05 2:25PM EST (question moved from Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Archive 3 -- Francs2000 | Talk 18:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[9] explains the answer to your question. -- Francs2000 | Talk

18:35, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I hope there is a Wikipedia page somewhere that explains his question too! Resorting to external links, whatever next ;-). Pcb21| Pete 22:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

There is now that I've just added it. Lord of Mann -- Francs2000 | Talk

22:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Republicanism

"Although the abolition of the monarchy has been suggested several times, the popularity of the monarchy remains strong with 23% wanting a republic (according to a recent poll by the Daily Telegraph)."

This is from Wikipedia's article on United Kingdom, should the 15% to 20% be replaced with this reference?

Withholding Royal Assent

There seems to be some inconsistency between different Wikipedia articles with respect to the use of royal assent.

In the article on Queen Elizabeth it says that "The Queen may legally grant or withhold Royal Assent to Bills, but no monarch has refused his or her assent to a Bill since 1708."

However, in the article on royal assent it says that "While the Royal Assent has not been withheld in Great Britain (and in the United Kingdom) since 1708, it has often been withheld in British colonies and former colonies by Governors acting on royal instructions." and "The power to withhold the Royal Assent was notably exercised by Alberta's Lieutenant Governor, John C. Bowen, in 1937, in respect of three bills passed under William Aberhart's Social Credit Government. Two bills sought to put banks under the authority of the province, thereby interfering with the federal government's powers. The third, the Accurate News and Information Bill, purported to force newspapers to print government rebuttals to stories to which the provincial cabinet objected."

I believe that the two pages should be consistent. The article on Elizabeth II gives the impression that royal assent is a completely ceremonial power which is never excercised anywhere, without mentioning that it was used in Britain's colonies, including the United States.

[[200.180.6.101 23:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)]]

Categories: Talk archives

Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

Prefixed Styles

Do we really need to this right now?

NPOV

Page protection

Of the United Kingdom?

Why do Britons insist on having a Non-British Monarch?

Huh?

Yes

Protection

Mess in the article

Paramount Chief of FIJI

Lilybet versus Lilibet

Queen Elizabeth II of Canada

Doctorates

Golden Jubilee of Elizabeth II

Elizabeth II of Canada

Move Article to Elizabeth II

Political Role - PMs

Ancestry

(Banging Dead Horse) Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth Realms

Proposed move

Support move

Oppose move

Additional comments

Vote to stop endless revoting on this issue for 6 months

For

Against

Comments

Lord of Mann?

Republicanism

Withholding Royal Assent

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search