Jump to content

Talk:Diamond Jubilee of Elizabeth II/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Crystal Balling?

Might we be looking 'too far' ahead, in having this article? I'm not calling for an AfD, but if the Queen dies between now & before February 6, 2012, the article would become obsolete. GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

We've got 2012 Summer Olympics already. Plans are in the works for the Diamond Jubilee, so I figured it was okay to start an article about it now. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The death of one person, isn't likely to cancel the 2012 Olympics. The death of one 'particular' person, would cancel the Diamond Jubilee. Ahh, what the heck, the last I've heard, Liz #2 is still in robust health. GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Isn't one of the beauties of Wikipedia the ability to change it as events occur? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Of course. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Aww, might this be an example of 'creeping republicanism'? Jagislaqroo (talk) 23:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Yay! She didn't die!!! All comments in this section are moot.VaneWimsey (talk) 06:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Queen Victoria

The lead reads " Queen Victoria in 1897 is the only other monarch in Britain's,[1] Canada's,[2] and a few other Commonwealth realms' histories to have celebrated a Diamond Jubilee."

Why not say "Queen Victoria is the only other monarch in the history of Great Britain and the Commonwealth to have celebrated Diamond Jubilee." Seems more straightforward. Not sure why we need to mention the Commonwealth at all. Has there been any monarch of the Commonwealth realms that was not also a monarch of Great Britain?

Also, to say "the only other monarch" is "crystalballing". Queen Elizabeth has not celebrated hers yet and thus "Queen Victoria is the only monarch....". I'll fix this.

--Richard S (talk) 05:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Basically, countries are mentioned separately from Brtiain because those countries are separate from Britain. You were right, however, about the misleading implications that stemmed from the premature use of "other." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
But I still don't understand why Canada is called out separately and why we use the locution "a few other Commonwealth realms' histories". Isn't Canada a member of the Commonwealth and why only "a few other Commonwealth realms"? Why not just say "in the history of Great Britain and the Commonwealth realms"? What distinctions are being drawn here that I am unaware of? If there is a distinction worth drawing, it might be worthwhile to make it more explicit to the reader as those of us who are not cognizant of the finer details of the Commonwealth might be confused. (Specially us 'murricans, ya know?) --Richard S (talk) 17:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
The United Kingdom (which is what I assume you mean by "Great Britain") is a Commonwealth realm like all the others. Canada was "called out" for the same reason the UK was: there are refs specifically for both, and "a few other Commonwealth realms" was used because Victoria never reigned over the territories that now comprise Papua New Guinea and possibly the Solomon Islands and Tuvalu (because they were British protectorates during Victoria's reign). I suppose the statement should read: "...the only monarch in the histories of Britain, Canada, and most other Commonwealth realms." Either that or: "...the only monarch in the histories of most Commonwealth realms." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
OK... now I understand what you're saying. Some of the Commonwealth realms were something else during Victoria's reign. However, I think drawing this distinction leads to unnecessarily complicated prose which is unobvious to those who are not up on their British history (like me, for instance). I think a more straightforward locution would be "So far, Queen Victoria has been the only British monarch to celebrate a Diamond Jubilee." Short, sweet and to the point. After all, unless I'm mistaken, the only monarch of a Commonwealth realm is a British monarch. Right? --Richard S (talk) 22:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Not right, unfortunately. The person who is sovereign may be the same in all the Commonwealth realms, but each realm has its own monarchy; the British monarch only reigns in Britain. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  • But by that token then one should simply say she is only the first Commonwealth monarch to have a Diamond Jubilee, as Victoria would not count. One should just follow something like the Canadian title list of Queen of the 'United Kingdom and her other Realms and Territories' Britain is the senior most realm, and is where the monarchy is based, one cannot deny that. Incidently what would people's feelings be about the inclusion of an image of that new window in the Canadian senate which has Victoria and Elizabeth? It would seem appropriate for the article to me. Here is a link of an example http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/02/07/the-queen-loves-her-diamond-jubilee-stained-glass-window/ but that photo cuts out an important part of the window. Threadnecromancer (talk) 04:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Threadnecromancer

emblem

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12518165 - emblem announced —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.234.123 (talk) 10:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC) Done.KnowIG (talk) 11:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Winner of Blue Peter contest

User:KnowIG, the edit summary of your last revert read: "[WP:BRD] applies to you as well. How is stating a name trival come on answer." Firstly, the onus is on you, as the person who made the contested edit, to convince others why it should be done. It can be assumed from your reverting that you feel strongly that the name and age of the Blue Peter contest winner should be included in the article; nowhere is there an explanation of why this should be. The information is trivial in the context of this article; the girl's identity is only tangentially related to the subject of the page and her age even more so. WP:ROC asks that we keep the content of articles focused. If you feel that Katherine Dewar, age 10, is such an important figure, why don't you start an article on the Blue Peter contest itself and mention the winner's name and age there? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Congrats for showing complete incompetence. No one does a separte article on a competition of a TV show. So therefore there is no other place for this to go. Plus it is relavent, as a child designed this, and therefore if Hopkins designed it you would privlige them why shouldn't this child be privlidged. KnowIG (talk) 14:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure you don't want another block for incivility, so please keep WP:NPA in mind. Now, you haven't answered the question: how is the girl's name and age relevant enough to the Diamond Jubilee of Queen Elizabeth II to warrant a place in this article? The name of the designer of the Canadian emblem isn't there. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Well I'm seeing WIKI ownership off you are you sure you don't want to be blocked for that! It's unique. But hay you can't see that can ya. KnowIG (talk) 14:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Can you answer the question, please? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Why don't you read. FOr the third time you paying attension. A child designed it = unique situaiton. Relavent to the page therfore should be on. How about you argue that it's not. And lots more wiki policies say that should be on. Pages should not be created by ROC alone KnowIG (talk) 14:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
"Relevant to the page" is not the answer to the question "how is it relevant to the page?" Point to which Wikipedia policies say the winner's name and age should be included. The fact that the preceeding sentence in the article already outlines that Blue Peter is a children's programme would tend to lead readers to believe that the winner of the Blue Peter contest is a child. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia requests that articles remain focused and on the subject. The addition of her name does not change this. KnowIG (talk) 14:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia does indeed request that articles remain focused on their subject. That's precisely why the name and age of the Blue Peter contest winner isn't needed here; as I said already, the girl's name is tangential - relevant only through her winning the contest to design the emblem for the jubilee in Britain - and her age even more so - relevant only through being the age of the girl who won the contest to design the emblem for the jubilee in Britain. She's not notable in her own right and, as I've also already said, the name of the designer of the Canadian emblem isn't included. Why, then, is Katherine Dewar's? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
As I've stated above notable as she is the designer. Unique cause she is a child and finally does not in any way shape or form make the article suddenly off topic. So it should be there end of. KnowIG (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
The fact that she is a child is irrelevant to this discussion; readers know the winner is a child from the fact the article already makes clear that Blue Peter is a children's programme. The girl is notable for nothing other than the fact she won a Blue Peter contest. Her only relevance to this article is through the fact that she won a Blue Peter contest for the British emblem for the Diamond Jubilee. I still see no reason why a non-notable person whose identity is three times removed from the subject of this article warrants a place in it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
But she's notable to the subject, and it's only you who's disagreeing. And the fact at no one else has touched it says it all. KnowIG (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I think you mean she's relevant to the subject. Only you say she is; but, again, "she's relevant" is not the answer to "how is she relevant?" As I said, her relevance is three times removed from the subject of this page: 1) the British emblem, 2) the Blue Peter contest, 3) the winner of the contest (and 4) her age). The fact that nobody else has "touched it" means nothing. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Well it looks like your as bad as Britwatcher as in being unable to comprimise and come up with a problem and carry on with a rather pendantic line of questioning. Just leave it be. Does it detract from the article. Answer no. So on the question of detracting what is the problem. KnowIG (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
There's no line of questioning; I asked a question and haven't yet received the answer. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Miesianiacal, I don't see any reason to leave out that name: it's not against policy, and it's nice that they didn't go with a professional for the official emblem. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see "it's nice" as being much of an argument for inclusion. Plus, it may not be against policy, but it is counter to WP:ROC's request that we keep article content focused on the subject of the article; the girl's name and age are quite distantly related to this article's focus. However, if more editors are okay with it than not, then it stays. I'm not going to push this issue to MedCab or anything! --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't really have a dog in this fight, but the inclusion of a name hardly seems a huge burden on the article. I think it is notable enough in the current context. There are reputable sources to reference for it, and it is not unrelated to the content of the article. I haven't heard much of a reason NOT to include it other than questioning why it should be included. It doesn't violate policy, it's related to the content, and now 75% of the people discussing it (of an admittedly small sample size:)) favor its inclusion. I think that represents reason to include it.204.65.34.171 (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Other Realms

So far the article details the jubilee in Canada and the UK... what's happening in Her Majesty's other Realms and Territories? (Especially Australia and New Zealand.) David (talk) 11:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Victoria's Diamond Jubilee

Okay, Miesianiacal has asked me to take this edit to the talk page. The current version states "Queen Victoria in 1897 is thus far the only monarch in the histories of Britain, Canada, and a few other Commonwealth realms to have celebrated a Diamond Jubilee." Two things about this are problematic for me: the only country that Victoria served as monarch of for 60 years was the UK. To say that she was monarch of any country for 60 years is incorrect. However, "in the histories of Britain, Canada, and a few other Commonwealth realms" is a bit ambiguous for my liking – several other rulers – not British – have served for more than 60 years "in the history" of Britain. I propose a change to "Queen Victoria is the only British monarch to have celebrated a Diamond Jubilee, marked in 1897." IgnorantArmies 13:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The sentence in question doesn't say Victoria is the only monarch in British history to have reigned for 60 years, nor does it say she was monarch of Canada for 60 years; it says she's the only to have celebrated a diamond jubilee. I can't say whether or not any other diamond jubilee was actually marked in British history; so, that part of the lead could perhaps be modified. But, the sources are pretty clear that Victoria's is the only diamond jubilee Canadians have thus far observed: "Queen Elizabeth... is the second sovereign to reach this mark in Canadian history, the other being The Queen's great-great-grandmother, Queen Victoria, in 1897."[1] "Celebrating the Diamond Jubilee – the only Diamond Jubilee since Queen Victoria's in 1897 – will establish a historical legacy for Canadians..."[2] "This will be only the second time Canadians will celebrate a Diamond Jubilee: the first was Queen Victoria's in 1897."[3]

You forgot The Bahamas, Prnce Harry has just left us to head to Jamaica — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.150.194.191 (talk) 05:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Is it right to have an article about this?

A lot could happen to an 85 year old woman between now and the 60 years anniversary of her accession. Maybe we ought to create the article if and when it goes ahead. For all we know she could die. I hope she doesnt but you never know --Thanks, Hadseys 23:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Well there is only a few months left to the ceremony, and if someone was curious about it this is a good page to look at for info on it. So even though it has not happened yet, i think it should be kept.MilkStraw532 (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
As a lot is being officially planned for the event, even if it has to be cancelled there should still be an article! David (talk) 23:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
This question will be a mute point in just over 3 months time anyways. It's also being discussed at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting 2011. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 13:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Yep, there's going to be a Diamond Jubilee Trust with all, or most, of the Commonwealth Realms joining in. David (talk) 13:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

POV mentions

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diamond_Jubilee_of_Elizabeth_II&diff=458652060&oldid=458627935 this] was repeatedly added without reason despite the removal being explained. It is pov to mention only the anglo-perspectives and brush through theothers. Why does canada get special mention and the carib. etc get brushed by? the world is not neatly packaged into an anglo worldview and thats pov.Lihaas (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It would seem you're seeing bias where there is none and how you're seeing it makes little sense; why do you single out Canada (a bilingual country) as getting "anglo" "special mention" while giving Britain a free pass? The fact is, Canada and Britain are mentioned because they're the only two that have sources to affirm the statement. If you can find a reliable source outlining that the Diamond Jubilee of Queen Victoria was celebrated in any Caribbean realm in which the present queen's diamond jubilee will be celebrated next year, please add the information into the article. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Britian gets mentions because that is the seat of the monarchy. THe other realms are ignored, so why then does a european-majority country get spcial prominence when other realsm are excluded? Sources alone dont make npov, in order to be npov then it needs to be balances and researched not to just add what happens to be found. Victoria's info is not relevant here, and if thats the the reason then it has even less relevance here.Lihaas (talk) 08:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Britain is not the seat of any monarchy besides Britain's; the other realms are independent countries. Victoria's jubilee is relevant since it's the last diamond jubilee to have taken place in the Empire and later Commonwealth realms. What do you think would be "less POV" wording? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Notable, it's a celebration taking place in a handful of countries (one of which will be a visit to India which covers 1 billion + people.) That's over 1/7th of the worlds' population that will celebrate this. That's not notable? The only thing which comes close might be religious holidays, or New Year's Day. CaribDigita (talk) 04:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't quite understand your point in relation to the OP. Lihaas was equating some supposed "Anglo bias" with Canada's mention in the lead as being one of the countries in which this is only the second diamond jubilee to be celebrated. India isn't a monarchy anymore; so, whatever celebrations they're having this year, they aren't for the diamond jubilee of the accession of their sovereign to the throne. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry under the wrong area. Something threw off my attention. This was supposed to be under the first "Crystal ball" section. CaribDigita (talk) 05:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The section on Canada is at least twice as long as any other country. I think it's excessively detailed. Canada is hardly the only country in the Commonwealth! 74.69.126.89 (talk) 01:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Latest info on events tours etc

From the BBC today:

BBC News

David (talk) 14:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The Guardian mentions India... any news of any other celebrations there? -- MichiganCharms (talk) 18:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Additions to New Zealand websites

Regarding this edit: There is nothing notable about these additions of content to websites; they are not monuments or events, activities or opinions about the jubilee and have attracted next to no attention. This is likely why a blog is used as the supporting cite. Blogs do not meet WP:RS. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I did think about this before I added them. I believe that they are notable because it is the official encyclopaedia of the New Zealand government. And these websites are part of the New Zealand governments celebration. They were only published a few hours ago so no time for there to attract attention. The Ministry for Culture and Heritage link (the first cite) lists them. This is because the new websites are part of the official NZ government celebration. Yes, the link to the blog is not notable, but the blog is the blog of the government department’s encyclopaedia. However, the MCH link, and links to each separate page should be enough to keep the material here. Up to what everyone else here thinks. I won’t revert any more :) Brian | (Talk)
We're talking about additions to two websites here, even if they are online encyclopaedias. The Canadian government added some pages covering the jubilee to the Department of Canadian Heritage's website. Does that warrant inclusion, as well? I don't think so. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Purpose change to opening

If the diamond jubilee is the 60th anniversary of accession day then the opening here is wrong, as the celebrations are in June and we don't celebrate the anniversary of her furthers death.

I am however not going to change it right this moment due to the discussion at ITN causing some confusion about whether the jubilee falls on an actual date (i.e. accession day) with celebrations at later on or whether there is no actual date and it is just a 'jubilee year' --wintonian talk 10:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

There will be various celebrations on different dates in different countries. All, however, are to mark the Queen's 60th anniversary of her accession to the throne. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The date chosen is that of the Coronation that was on the 2nd of June 1953), so it's Coronation weekend. PhilomenaO'M (talk) 08:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

BBC Timeline

If we don't have it already, there's a very useful and in-depth Timeline of events on the BBC website. Could be useful as a reference. Paul MacDermott (talk) 19:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the schedule of the Central Weekend (as it is called) should be on this page, the main events being:

Sunday 3rd June Thames Jubilee Pageant

Monday 4th June BBC Concert at Buckingham Palace

Tuesday 5th June Carriage Procession

Of course it is more complicated, the Epsom Derby on the Saturday could also be thought as one of the events; a Jubilee lunch took place before the pageant; the lighting of the beacons took place at the concert, as well as the live performance of the Jubilee song and a service took place at St Pauls and another lunch took place at Westminster took place before the procession. Sigh. Perhaps the Central Weekend should have its own page? 195.194.187.132 (talk) 12:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Mention of Julia Gillard/Australia

The article currently says "Paying tribute to Queen Elizabeth II as Queen of Australia in the Australian House of Representatives in Canberra on 6 February 2012, Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard stated the Queen was a revered figure in Australia.[citation needed]" A definative search of the facts shows it is false. A search of Open Hansard shows no such words were uttered in the house of reps. http://www.openaustralia.org/search/?s=queen&pid=10257 replace the word queen there with Elizabeth and/or revered and the result doesn't change.203.214.32.18 (talk) 09:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The full transcript is here. It’s from the sitting of 7 February 2012. The word "revered" is not mentioned once.
The misquote appeared in Radio Netherlands Worldwide website of 7 February (timed for 9:39 am), purporting to quote Gillard in parliament, but she didn't actually speak till 2:36 pm. I guess different time zones could account for that, but they were still making up her alleged words as they went along.
Then, Amanda Fazio in the Upper House of the NSW Parliament got into the act on 14 February. She got not only the words wrong, but also the date. She claimed Gillard said it in the House of Reps on 6 February, but the House was not even sitting that day. Suspiciously similar wording appeared in Fred Nile's media release of 16 February. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 12:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Should not the date be June?

I think it is misleading that this article says that a Diamond Jubilee week began in February 2012. The date of the Diamond Jubilee is June, when there were lots of television programmes to celebrate her jubilee (this is to mark the fact that her coronation took place in June, as can be discovered if one reads Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II.). ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

No, that's a misconception. She became Queen when her father died on 6 February 1952, and her actual 60th anniversary as queen was on 6 February 2012. But they decided to hold the major celebrations in June, to coincide with the anniversary of her Coronation in June 1953. This will mark the 59th anniversary of her Coronation, but what's being celebrated is not the Coronation but her accession to the throne 16 months earlier. Confusing, I know, but them's the facts. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 11:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanksgiving Service - why only one of her children there?

Maybe I missed it, but the only one of her 4 children I saw in attendance was Charles (plus Camilla, Will and Harry). No sign of Anne, Andrew, Edward or their spouses or kids. Very surprising. Nor did those others appear on the balcony at Buck Palace. About a million ordinary folk made it there, so where were the rest of her family? Were they all visiting Philip in hospital? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 11:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

They were all at the cathedral. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
As I said, I must have blinked and missed them. Why were they not given seats close to the Queen and Charles? Why were they not in the parade back to the palace? Why did the camera totally ignore them for the entire broadcast? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 12:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I assume that you must have been watching a different broadcast from the one I saw. (I was watching the broadcast on the BBC.) Charles and family were on the front row one side of the aisle; the others were on the front row the other side of the aisle. The original plan was that the Queen & the Duke's chairs would be in the centre between them, but when the Duke was unable to be there the Queen's chair was moved to be alongside Charles rather than leaving her sitting on her own in the centre of the aisle. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
That's weird, David. I saw an "edited highlights" version on the ABC, but it still went for an hour (with no ads). I'm assuming the version shown was that provided by the BBC, who had edited it themselves prior to distribution, and was not further edited by the ABC. I saw the last 50 minutes of the program uninterrupted. It had many, many, many shots of the congregation, many close ups, dozens of the Queen and Prince Charles and his sons. But precisely zero shots of any other members of the family. And they weren't in the procession back to the palace (we were just shown the Queen, Camilla and Charles in one carriage; and Will, Harry and Kate in the other; endlessly alternated), nor did they appear on the balcony. My friend and I formed the reasonable conclusion that they just didn't participate in the occasion at all, and our minds started coming up with explanations, as minds do. Maybe they were covered in that first 10 minutes we missed. But it's still odd that they never made a single reappearance in the final cut. The BBC doesn't dislike them that much, does it? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 23:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Picture

Shouldn't there be a picture of Queenie as she is now, rather than as she was at her coronation?! Gymnophoria (talk) 15:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II X.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II X.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II X.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Permanent tributes

 In addition, a majority of MPs have endorsed a proposal to name the clock tower of Westminster Palace that houses Big Ben, the Elizabeth Tower

I'm afraid this has become out-of-date; the Clock Tower has already been renamed the Elizabeth Tower. Please see Big_Ben#Elizabeth_Tower. I don't have the exact date, just 2012. Dick Kimball (talk) 14:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Diamond Jubilee Lunch - May 2012

There should be a section for the Diamond Jubilee Lunch. Something like this will never happen again. Almost all kings etc. attend at this event and the group photo would be perfect.

There should be a guestlist in the article. With the controversially guests, King of Bahrain and the King of Swaziland. And why Queen Sophia of Spain and the King of Spain were missing (government of Spain said no).

Here is the guest list: 

1.Their Imperial Majesties Emperor Akihito and Empress Michiko of Japan
2.Their Majesties King Albert II and Queen Paola of Belgium
3.Her Majesty Queen Margrethe II and Prince Henrik of Denmark
4.Their Majesties King Constantine II and Queen Anne-Marie of Greece
5.His Serene Highness Prince Hans Adam II of Liechtenstein
6.Their Royal Highnesses Grand Duke Henri and Grand Duchess Maria Teresa of Luxembourg
7.Their Serene Highnesses Prince Albert II and Princess Charlene of Monaco
8.Her Majesty Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands
9.Their Majesties King Harald V and Queen Sonja of Norway
10.Their Royal Highnesses Crown Prince Alexander and Crown Princess Katherine of Serbia
11.Their Majesties King Carl XVI Gustaf and Queen Silvia of Sweden
12.Their Majesties King Abdullah and Queen Rania of Jordan
13.Her Royal Highness Princess Lalla Meryem of Morocco
14.His Majesty King Hamad bin Issa al-Khalifa and Her Royal Highness Sheikha Sabika bint Ibrahim al-Khalifa of Bahrain
15.His Royal Highness Prince Mohammed Bin Nawaf Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia
16.His Highness Sheikh Nasser Mohamed Al-Jaber Al-Sabah of Kuwait
17.His Highness Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani and Sheika Mozah bint Nasser Al-Missned of Qatar
18.His Majesty Seri Paduka Baginda Yang di-Pertuan Agong of Malaysia
19.Their Royal Highnesses Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn andPrincess Srirasm of Thailand
20.The Sultan of Brunei and Her Majesty Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Hajah Saleha of Brunei
21.His Majesty King Simeon II of Bulgaria
22.Their Majesties King Michael I and Her Royal Highness Crown Princess Margarita of Romania
23.His Majesty King Tupou VI of Tonga
24.Their Majesties King Letsie III and Queen Masenate Mohato Seeiso of Lesotho
25.His Majesty King Mswati III of Swaziland
26.Members of the British royal family

The only absentees were Spain’s royal family, who were ordered by their government to pull out at the last minute because of the ongoing row over sovereignty of Gibraltar, and the sovereigns of Bhutan, Cambodia and Oman.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/05/17/diamond-jubilee-queen-sofia_n_1523284.html?ref=uk http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2146404/Kate-William-join-worlds-royals-Queens-Diamond-Jubilee-lunch.html http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/05/18/bahrains-king-hamad-al-khalifa-diamond-jubilee-_n_1526435.html?ref=uk http://royalcorrespondent.com/2012/05/18/her-majesty-queen-elizabeth-ii-and-the-duke-of-edinburgh-host-a-diamond-jubilee-luncheon-for-sovereign-monarchs-from-around-the-world-videos/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/the_queens_diamond_jubilee/9267384/Monarchs-The-worlds-most-exclusive-club-gathers-for-the-Queens-Diamond-Jubilee.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/9276049/Queens-Diamond-Jubilee-The-king-and-queen-of-all-photographs.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.204.102.130 (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Canada

Is it necessary for the Canadian part of the article to have SEVEN separate sections? It makes it seem the article gives undue weight to Canada. Australia and New Zealand are arguably just as important members of the Commonwealth as Canada. Like every other nation written up, they have one section of four or five paragraphs, which I think is about the right length. The sections on Canada have 21 paragraphs between them. I think this is excessive and should be rewritten accordingly with the rest of the article. 74.69.9.224 (talk) 02:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you could just find more information to fill out the other sections. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Diamond Jubilee of Elizabeth II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Diamond Jubilee of Elizabeth II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Diamond Jubilee of Elizabeth II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Diamond Jubilee of Elizabeth II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Diamond Jubilee of Elizabeth II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Diamond_Jubilee_of_Elizabeth_II/Archive_1&oldid=1140407734"