Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 30

This is an archive of past discussions about Elizabeth II. 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.

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

→

Opening sentence

The RfC at the Infobox section seems to have expired rather than been closed. However, there was a clear 2:1 majority in favour of "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms", and the fact that nobody has tried to change it again since the RfC lapsed means it has a de facto consensus. The opening sentence ought to be changed in line with the infobox, and read, "Elizabeth II...is the constitutional monarch of the United Kingdom and of 15 other sovereign states, known as the Commonwealth realms, and their territories and dependencies, and head of the 54-member Commonwealth of Nations." Scolaire (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Support. There's little sense in discussion & consensus unless it is fully actioned. Logic would dictate that the lede should follow suit as the issue raised was that of how best to phrase her role &, ostensibly, her notability. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose The lead and the infobox co-existed side by side for some time without any issue. There is no justification for highlighting the UK out from the rest of the Commonwealth realms with whom it is entirely equal. Giving the UK a POV special status would not explain that Elizabeth II is more often directly involved in the governing of that country; words explaining she is (which used to exist in the lead) would.

Also, contrary to the proposed wording, the UK is one of the Commonwealth realms. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

That's easily fixed: just take out the word "of", and say she "...is the constitutional monarch of the United Kingdom and 15 other sovereign states, known as the Commonwealth realms". Scolaire (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

That still reads as though the 15 other sovereign states are the Commonwealth realms, with the UK excluded. It also doesn't fix the POV ingnoring of the established equality among the realms under EIIR in favour of elevating the UK above the others. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Then maybe "...is the constitutional monarch of the United Kingdom and 15 other sovereign states, collectively known as the Commonwealth realms". Also, they "co-existed side by side" when they said the same thing. Your purpose in opening the Infobox discussion was to make them say the same thing again. That is my purpose in opening this discussion. You can't have your cake and eat it. Scolaire (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That was not my purpose. Addressing the POV issue in the infobox was my purpose. I never used matching as an argument in favour of amending the infobox. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Please re-read Scolaire's 'proposed wording' again with care. The wording is absolutely clear on the fact of the UK as being one of the Commonwealth realms. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Judging by your arguments on this talk page, I take that as being self evident. You obviously prefer not to have anyone tamper with the lede. Given, however, that it seems likely that there will be consensus on changing the lede, despite your misgivings, how would you propose it be phrased? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Support "Queen of the United Kingdom" is the most common first title supplied to the sovereign in the Commonwealth Realms of the UK, Canada and Grenada, in the British Overseas Territories, and in every other country in the world except the 13 Commonwealth Realms that each substitute their own names for her first title. Of these, the constitutions of Papua New Guinea, Tuvalu, and the Solomon Islands explicitly state that the Queen of the United Kingdom is the sovereign of their countries. Furthermore, the title Queen of the United Kingdom dates to 1701 and was used in all the Commonwealth Realms until the current reign, and the head of state of all the Commonwealth Realms is only called "Queen" because that is her title in the U.K., not because these countries are "kingdoms". And she is called Elizabeth II, even though Elizabeth I was never Queen of any of the current Commonwealth Realms. Eliazabeth II is also Queen of each British Overseas Territory, Canadian province and Australian state and Australian and NZ dependencies, although that is not her official title in any of them. TFD (talk) 21:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Tuvalu, Solomon Islands, and Papua New Guinea don't say the Queen of the UK is their queen; they say whomever is monarch of the UK will be monarch of Tuvalu, monarch of Solomon Islands, and monarch of Papua New Guinea; the countries are independent, not colonies. Further, the Queen doesn't hold a title in any countries but the 16 of which she is queen; 13 of those removed mention of the UK from the sovereign's title and style. That the monarch gained a distinct title for each of the realms during Elizabeth's reign (since essentially the beginning of it) is argument against giving the UK special status in the lead of this article. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Saying that "the Queen of the UK is their queen" and saying whoever "is monarch of the UK will be [their] monarch" is the same thing. Remember too that these ten Commonwealth realms represent a combined population of about 30 million people and she is known as Queen of the UK in countries representing the 7 billion other people living on the planet. TFD (talk) 22:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

No. The monarch of the United Kingdom reigns only in the United Kingdom. The monarch of Papua New Guinea reigns in Papua New Guinea, the monarch of Solomon Islands reigns in Solomon Islands, and the monarch of Tuvalu reigns in Tuvalu. The latter three are constitutionally always to be the same person as is the monarch of the UK, which is not the same thing as saying the monarch of the UK is head of state of any of those countries.

There are 16 Commonwealth realms. I don't know what you mean by "known as"; officially, casually, to whom, exactly? And what does it matter? The fact is she is queen of each Commonwealth realm equally. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

See "The Constitution of Tuvalu", section 48, para. 1 of the "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, by the grace of God Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and of Her Other Realms and Possessions, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, having at the request of the people of Tuvalu graciously consented, is the Sovereign of Tuvalu and, in accordance with this Constitution, the Head of State."[1] You are quite right of course that whenever the UK acquires a territory beyond the seas that the monarch becomes sovereign of that territory. But we are concerned with common usage. Show me that her title "Queen of Tuvala" is used as often as "Queen of the UK" throughout the world. TFD (talk) 23:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've read the constitutions of Tuvalu, Papua New Guinea, and Solomon Islands, and from them and other information read I know Tuvalu is not an overseas territory of the UK and the monarch of Tuvalu is an entirely different office to that of monarch of the UK, despite the occupant of the former being constitutionally always the occupant of the latter.

How often "Queen of the UK" is used is a red herring; "Queen of England" is likely what's most often used, but, what's most often used doesn't negate the fact that Elizabeth II is queen of each Commonwealth realm equally nor that the UK has no special status above the other Commonwealth realms. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Which is why we should same Queen of the UK and of her other realms. TFD (talk) 00:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what that means. But, it seems to be a logical fallacy: That Elizabeth II is queen of each Commonwealth realm equally and the UK has no special status above the other Commonwealth realms is reason to use the phrase "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms." Doesn't compute. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

So why isn't she "Queen Elizabeth I"? You are kidding yourself in not accepting that the Canadian monarchy is a relic of the colonial past. It is not, as in the Hanoverian kings being also electors of Hanover, some kind of coincidence that the British monarch also happens to be Queen of a number of other countries, territories, provinces and states. TFD (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

That is a non-sequitur. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose The current wording is more appropriate. She is as much the Queen of the other realms as she is of the U.K. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Support - Per WP:COMMONNAME. Throughout the world, Queen Elizabeth is known as Queen of the United Kingdom. Outside of Canada, Jamaica etc you'd never hear anybody refer to the Queen of Canada or the Queen of Jamaica etc. I suppose moving the page is a whole other can of worms though, right? --Cameron * 16:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose For NPOV reasons we must not elevate one realm above the others. As a compromise, I would suggest listing all the realms in the first sentence, either in descending order of population or alphabetically. Neljack (talk) 02:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Support Wikipedia's function is to reflect reality -- not shape it: She is most widely known as Queen of the United Kingdom, and Wikipedia should change its primary references to her to "Queen of the Commonwealth Realms" when that becomes the way she is predominantly and documentably referred to in reputable English-language sources. FactStraight (talk) 06:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Where are the reputable and unbiased sources asserting Elizabeth II is "most widely known as Queen of the United Kingdom"? And in what way does that relate to this RfC? The lead doesn't say Elizabeth II is the "Queen of the Commonwealth Realms". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Sources

Mesianiacial's objection to the proposed intro is the "ingnoring [sic] of the established equality among the realms under EIIR in favour of elevating the UK above the others." I decided to see whether the published sources stress that "established equality" or whether, on the other hand, they "elevate the UK" in some way. A Google Ngram provides no support for "established equality"; it says simply, "Ngrams not found: Queen of the Commonwealth Realms". The UK is the only game in town as far as that search is concerned. So I did a Google Books search. "queen of the united kingdom", for books published after 6 Feb 1952 only, gives plenty of results, among them:

The Chameleon Crown: "Did she act as Queen of the United Kingdom, Queen of Australia or Queen of Tasmania and Queensland?" Discusses the constitutional question but without ever using the words "Queen of the Commonwealth Realms".
The High Court and the Constitution: "To suggest that its [s 2 of the Constitution Act] object was to ensure that the Queen of Australia was the Queen of the United Kingdom would not have been understandable by anyone in 1900." Discusses the constitutional question but without ever using the words "Queen of the Commonwealth Realms".
Talking of the Royal Family: "The Queen of the United Kingdom is a case in point; she is queen of a whole series of Commonwealth nations." UK first, then a whole series of Commonwealth nations.
Majesty in Canada: Essays on the Role of Royalty: "The Queen reigns separately and divisibly as queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. The monarch is shared, but the institution of monarchy had evolved into separate constitutional entities." UK first, then three other states; no use of the words "Queen of the Commonwealth Realms".
International Law Reports 2007: "It was also clear that the licence had been refused to the claimant on the instruction of the Secretary of State, although there was an issue whether, in issuing the instruction, he had acted in right of Her Majesty as Queen of the United Kingdom or of the SGSSI [South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands]." Discusses the constitutional question but without ever using the words "Queen of the Commonwealth Realms".
Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe: "Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". No mention of "Queen of the Commonwealth Realms".
How Colonialism Preempted Modernity in Africa: "But then we have Canada and Australia as well as many Caribbean countries, including Jamaica, that regard themselves as 'former colonies' while at the same time continuing to look up to the queen of the United Kingdom as their head of state." No mention of "Queen of the Commonwealth Realms".

On the other hand a search for "queen of the commonwealth realms" over the same time period gives us three books that definitely use the phrase. One is a novel. One is entitled "The Tudors on Film and Television". The third one, Monarchies, says, "As queen of the Commonwealth realms and as head of the Commonwealth of Nations, she also spoke to the UN, praising calm." So that's one mention. But wait! On page 136 of the same book it says, "Queen Elizabeth II is seen as a unifier as well, reigning over not just the United Kingdom, which consists of the four countries of England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, but also over the 15 other Commonwealth realms." So it does seem to be "elevating the UK above the others". Since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, the official or legal status of an article's subject does not determine how she is described. Since WP:Verifiability says we must say only what can be verified by reference to reliable sources, and since we do not give undue weight to minority viewpoints, I can't see how there are any grounds for leaving the opening sentence as it now is. Scolaire (talk) 14:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

In case mentioned in the International Law Report, the House of Lords said that the Queen was Queen of every territory subject to her, in this case the uninhabited British Overseas Territory of SSGI.[2] Following Miesianiacal's logic we would need to change the titles for all monarchs where England or the UK had overseas territories. But we should be guided by WP:COMMONNAME. Half the people where she is Queen live in the UK. Of the population of the other Commonwealth Realms, half live in Canada, where she is "Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada [etc.]". When she travels, she is known as "Queen of the United Kingdom [etc.]." TFD (talk) 16:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The point of all that is elusive. You made some searches for a phrase that isn't in the lead and nobody's proposing go there. The objection--my objection, anyway--is to the proposed "Elizabeth II... is the constitutional monarch of the United Kingdom and of 15 other sovereign states, known as the Commonwealth realms"; that, as I put it, "[ingnores] the established equality among the realms under EIIR in favour of elevating the UK above the others." In the previous discussion regarding the infobox, I provided sources that affirm the equality of the realms over which Elizabeth reigns; here they are again:

"[The realms are] equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown."p.3
"Britain had to reconcile itself to the fact that it no longer had elevated status within the Commonwealth and that their queen was now equally, officially, and explicitly queen of separate, autonomous realms."p. 28
"The royal titles adopted in each of the fifteen realms, of which she was equally Queen, would require the assent of the Parliaments of each."[3]
"The Acts passed by each of the then members of the Commonwealth after the 1952 conference had to reflect the fact that the other members of the Commonwealth were full and equal members with the United Kingdom, so that the Queen was equally Queen of each of her various realms, acting on the advice of her Ministers in each realm."p.18
"Elizabeth II embodies in her own person many monarchies: she is Queen of Great Britain, but she is equally Queen of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Pakistan, South Africa, and Ceylon... it is now possible for Elizabeth II to be, in practice as well as theory, equally Queen in all her realms."p.52, 369

Additionally:

"Elizabeth II was equally Queen of Canada and the United Kingdom. The monarch remained shared, but the institution of monarchy had now evolved into independent constitutional entities... Although there was no hesitation among the Queen's realms in showing allegiance to their sovereign by appearing at her Coronation, their lack of official participation in the ceremony itself proclaimed to the world, in a dignified yet visible fashion, their status as equal, independent, and autonomous constitutional monarchies... [T]he Statute of Westminster, passed in 1931, had granted the former colonies full legal independence and had declared that the British and Dominion parliaments were equal in status."[4]
"We in this country have to abandon any sense of property in the Crown. The Queen, now, clearly, explicitly and according to title, belongs equally to all her realms..." [House of Commons, vol. 512, col. 199]
"In the Commonwealth the path to equality has led to separate but equal facilities. Perhaps the clearest illustration of this process is the way in which the monarchical part of the constitution has been domesticated in the Commonwealth countries overseas."[5]
"Britain could no longer rest on its imperial laurels and dreams of former glory; it had to reconcile itself to the fact that it no longer had an elevated status within the Commonwealth and its queen was equally queen of separate autonomous realms."p.144
"The Imperial Conferences of 1926 and 1930... declared the Dominions to be equal in status with the United Kingdom...

"So what changes in that constitutional relationship had occurred, which the Royal Style and Titles Act reflected? Australia, as a Dominion, was given equal status with the United Kingdom."pp.81, 111

So, the UK is, in fact, not elevated above all others. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

So why is her title in Canada Queen of "the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories" and not just "Queen of Canada", as you have misleadingly implied? TFD (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Neither that question nor the bizarre accusation following it in any way render the above sources as invalid. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

You say that we should not put the title "Queen of the UK" first because she is Queen of other realms. But Canada, which has a larger population than all the other realms combined, is quite happy that her title of "Queen of the UK" comes first. And of course it also comes first in the UK, which has a population larger than all the other realms, including Canada combined. And of course the rest of the world, containing 99% of the world's population, uses her title as Queen of the UK first. So do we reflect practice in the 99.75% of the world or the 0.25% of the world?

Notice that the UN referred to her as speaking "as Head of State of the United Kingdom and 15 other Member States, as well as Head of the 54-member Commonwealth of former colonies and other countries."[6] In their picture of her, she is described as "Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom."[7]

If you think the world practice should be different, this is not the place to begin your campaign.

TFD (talk) 22:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say we should not put "Queen of the UK first"; I said we should not, in the context, single out the UK from the other realms as though it somehow had a special status apart from the rest of them, which the proposed "reigning monarch of the United Kingdom and the 15 other Commonwealth realms" does. Canada's monarchical title (an anomoly among all those of Elizabeth II) and the frequency with which Elizabeth II is referred to as Queen of the UK (ultimately unquantifiable, let alone verifiable) each only affirm other statements not currently proposed. Neither justifies the ignoring of WP's verifiability and neutrality policies in order to insert a composition that gives readers an impression that runs contrary to the fact, now more than adequately affirmed by the provided sources, that the UK is equal to the other realms, as they all are to each other. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

It does not matter that Tuvalu (population 11,200) has the same status as the United Kingdom (population 63,181,775) but what is the "name that is most commonly used." That should come first, as it does in the UK, Canada, Granada and the rest of the world other than a few Commonwealth Realms. TFD (talk) 23:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

It matters when the UK having no special status apart from Tuvalu or any of the other countries under Elizabeth II's reign is very well sourced and Elizabeth's supposed commonly used name being "reigning monarch of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms" is not at all. Again, the UK coming first is not part of this discussion. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The UK coming first is the issue of this discussion. Go back to the beginning of the discussion thread at Talk:Elizabeth II#Opening sentence. TFD (talk) 00:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

As you'll see there, the issue is changing "the constitutional monarch of 16 sovereign states, known as the Commonwealth realms" to "the constitutional monarch of the United Kingdom and of 15 other sovereign states, known as the Commonwealth realms". [I apologise for incorrectly using "reigning monarch".] That is about singling out the UK from the other realms. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Why is that a problem? Please cite a policy or guideline. TFD (talk) 01:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

See my comments above. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I have, and you have cited no policies or guidelines. TFD (talk) 02:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I did. So, you cannot have read thoroughly enough at all. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I found it. You mentioned verifiability and neutrality, but did not explain how they applied. It is verifiable that the sovereign is Queen of the UK. It is neutral to describe the position the way it most commonly is - i.e., in the UK, Canada and Grenada, representing 75% of the population of the Commonwealth Realms, and in the rest of the world, representing 99% of the world's population. TFD (talk) 02:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I did explain how they applied.

Asserting it is verifiable that Elizabeth II is monarch of the UK rebuts a straw man argument; nobody questioned Elizabeth II's place as monarch of the UK. But, Elizabeth is monarch of more countries than just the UK; she holds many positions, not "the position", and we are here debating not her name, but how best to describe that fact within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. WP:COMMONNAME therefore doesn't factor into this. (Even if it did, it is unverified that "the constitutional monarch of the United Kingdom and of 15 other sovereign states, known as the Commonwealth realms" is her common name and the argument that Canada's and Grenada's monarchical titles are the common way to refer to Elizabeth II is untenable, given that those two titles are anomolies among all those of Elizabeth, the definite majority of which, including the UK's, follow "of [Country], and of Her other Realms and Territories...", each placing its name before metion of the other realms. The reality of her titles actually more supports not giving the UK a special status apart from the other Commonwealth realms.) It has been amply proven with a number of reliable sources that Elizabeth II is queen of each Commonwealth realm equally; the UK is equal to the other realms, as they all are to each other.

If you desire to have the lead recognise that Elizabeth II is more frequently referred to as Queen of the United Kingdom, that is not expressed by the (biased and misleading) phrase "Elizbeth II is the constitutional monarch of the United Kingdom and of 15 other sovereign states, known as the Commonwealth realms". What would is some sentence like "she is most often referred to as Queen of the United Kingdom". Though, at least one reliable source will be needed to affirm the claim. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

You have explained why you think that certain policies and guidelines do not apply. Can you cite any policy or guideline that supports the wording you believe should be used? If so, please explain how tey support your position. TFD (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

All that needs be done is show why the proposed change is undesirable; it violates policy, misleads readers to believe something that is demonstrably false, and doesn't achieve the ends some editors seem to think it will. I've already written hundreds of words explaining how. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

What policy does it violate. How is it "demonstrably false" that the sovereign is "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms"? TFD (talk) 00:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I have above allotted hundreds of words to answering those questions already. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Why not allocate a few words to answering the question rather than hundreds that do not. TFD (talk) 00:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Stating that Elizabeth II is "the constitutional monarch of 16 sovereign states" is accurate and neutral. Stating that she is the monarch of the United Kingdom and 15 others elevates one above the others, which is not neutral and is contrary to the established principle in law and in practice of equality between nations, just as stating that she is Queen of Canada and 15 others, etc, would. trackratte (talk) 20:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

She is also Queen of all her territories, including the South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands (SGSSI) which has a nil population. But no reasonable source would say she is "Queen of the SSGI, the UK and other places." TFD (talk) 02:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Right. trackratte (talk) 08:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Appositives

Parts of this article read as though they were written by an American journalist. "Prime Minister Major"? Contrary to DrKay's edit summary, the nouns and noun phrases in question are all appositives, not titles. Please go and do some research on titles and appositives, both restrictive and non-restrictive, and also preposed appositives. Be aware that a person's title is different to their job title. I'll be back later. Cheers. Inglok (talk) 17:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

"Prime Minister Major" is the same as "President Obama". We don't write "President, Obama". Don't personalise debate. Don't insult the knowledge of other editors. DrKay (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I am disappointed by your reply. I am not making this 'personal'. That is not my intention. And what I said was not an insult and should not be construed as such. Please assume good faith, as I am doing with you.

I am afraid you are wrong, and your reversions and your reply show that you misunderstand some basic English grammar. Prime Minister Major and Prime Minister John Major (putting aside the fact that Prime Minister Major is never heard on these shores anyway) are quite different to the likes of President Obama, Sir Paul McCartney and Mr David Cameron. I urge you again, please research the subject and come back to the discussion better prepared: titles and appositives, both restrictive and non-restrictive, and also preposed appositives. I'm sure some of it can even be found on Wikipedia. Thanks. Inglok (talk) 21:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Signature

I have uploaded a high-quality photograph of signatures of Elizabeth and Philip, released by The Co-operative Group. It would be great if someone could create a .svg version and include it in the articles. Surtsicna (talk) 22:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Possible alternative to the present lead image

Does the flower show image (click to see what it looks like when put into infobox) stand a chance to replace the one that's reigned for the last six years? I understand that the NASA portrait is a featured image, but I don't think it would hurt to freshen up a little bit. The flower show image also shows the Queen smiling and, unlike the NASA portrait, she is facing the reader. Surtsicna (talk) 11:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

She's smiling, facing front, not squinting, and you can see her hair. I like it. Keep your fork, there's pie (talk) 14:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I prefer the current photo, just on picture quality; to my eyes the current photo is much better quality. In addition it would look much worse in the article as she occupies less than half the frame of the photo, so is smaller and harder to see.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

212.121.212.207 (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done see List of titles and honours of Queen Elizabeth II#Royal titles and styles. DrKay (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

212.121.212.207 (talk) 14:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done PoV not an edit request

No controversies please, that would be disrespectful.

Interesting how this Wikipedia "Featured Article" does not even mention the controversy about her numbering (Elizabeth I vs Elizabeth II).

"Featured Articles" such as this one are the work of enthusiasts who flog some hobby horse.

Contact Basemetal here 04:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

That's because there is no such controversy. If you disagree, please provide some proof. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Just read Regnal number#Ordinals and the Acts of Union 1707. Plus, it's been well known for more than 60 years. Why don't you read up a bit before you start accusing people of making stuff up? At most you should have said "I have never heard of such controversy". Contact Basemetal here 10:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

If Jack really needs to "read up a bit", perhaps it's not so well known. Nor important. HiLo48 (talk) 10:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

So he defines what's well known and important, right? This interesting reaction shows a level of sophistication which might explain a few things. Contact Basemetal here 10:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, but perhaps you also need to be little more careful with the words you choose. That one of the important skills of communication. HiLo48 (talk) 11:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

As I said above in a different section, this is already covered in the "List of titles..." off-shoot article. It's insufficiently important for the main article. DrKay (talk) 10:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a matter of opinion but ok. Thanks for the pointer. There was no mystery. I was just curious where in WP one could find information about this. As usual (see above) it's the ignorant who accuse people of making things up. Contact Basemetal here 10:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, the diplomatic approach. Clever. HiLo48 (talk) 11:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

As I read the link provided by Basemetal, the controversy blew up in 1952 and subsided in 1953. So, while there WAS a controversy, there no longer IS a controversy and there hasn't been one for over 60 years.
I have accused nobody of making anything up. I simply denied Basemetal's original thesis, and challenged them to produce evidence to support it ("If you disagree, please provide some proof" does not equal "You are making this up"). The link they provided does not support their thesis. They are free to come up with different evidence if it exists.
The only other unsupported assertion that has been made in this thread is the one made by Basemetal about "the work of enthusiasts who flog some hobby horse". This should be withdrawn.
We are now at what is commonly known as Square 1. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like to edit on this oage as kI belove that some of the information is incorect Kyleprice1998 (talk) 11:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

What information? DrKay (talk) 12:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done User has not provided specific details of what change needs to be made. Also the fact that user has previously vandalised an article here makes me doubt his request. Ethically^Yours! 16:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Jewish heritage

This article does not mention Queen Elizabeth's Jewish background. (Even the name "Elizabeth" is Jewish/Hebrew.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.248.240 (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Her Jewish background, whatever it is, is clearly not a significant aspect of her life. HiLo48 (talk) 00:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

You need to provide a reliable source, not just the History of the Kings of Britain or a Larouchie pamphlet. TFD (talk) 03:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Her Jewish "background" such as it is, is pretty irrelevant. Having a name of Hebrew origin is very common in the Western world. I have a Hebrew name and I'm Protestant, as do millions of others. Assuming the notation above is in good faith, I will let it slide. But if you're trolling for a forum for your anti-Semetic views, I will report you. 74.69.9.224 (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2014

This edit request to Elizabeth II has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The Queen was not appointed Colonel in Chief of the Grenadier Guards at age 16 but Colonel. The King was Colonel in chief until his death and then Queen Elizabeth became Colonel in Chief

Thanks 81.106.102.86 (talk) 11:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The source in the article says Colonel-in-Chief. DrKay (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The source article is incorrect (not the first time the monarchy's website has contained an error). Here is the London Gazette announcement of the appointment as Colonel: https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/35464/supplement/887 . And HMTQ was 15 at the time. Lee McLernon 07:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The article doesn't say she was appointed at 16. DrKay (talk) 08:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

"The article doesn't say she was appointed at 16." Sorry, my mistake. Any thoughts about the edit request on the basis of the extract from the London Gazette? Lee McLernon 13:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbombbardier (talk • contribs)

Seems reasonable. DrKay (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Religion

Would it not be more correct to have Queen Elizabeth's religion as Anglican instead of both the Church of England and Church of Scotland descriptions that now occupy the info-box? All of her immediate predecessors have their religion described in the info-box as Anglican. Tomh903 (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The Church of Scotland is not Anglican. I believe by listing her as both Church of England and Church of Scotland Wikipedia is acknowledging the fact that when she is in Scotland, the Queen attends services at a Church of Scotland, despite having been raised in the Anglican faith. Psunshine87 (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2014

This edit request to Elizabeth II has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

If I didn't know anything about her life, this sentence would be meaningless:

She has also reigned through various wars and conflicts involving one or more of her realms.

Please change it to something like:

She has also reigned through various wars and conflicts involving many of her realms.

Thank you!

2001:18E8:2:28CA:F000:0:0:2B89 (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Not quite a minor edit but benign enough.

Done —KuyaBriBri^Talk 02:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2014

It says in the article that both Prince Andrew and Prince Edward were born in 1959 and 1963, but further down the page their date of birth have been published as being in 1960 and 1964. Unless I'm mistaking, I think there's a slight error in this article. Kind regards,

92.233.239.45 (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The article states correctly that she was pregnant in 1959 and 1963 not that they were born then. She did not attend the State Opening of Parliament on 27th October 1959 or 12th November 1963 because she was pregnant. Andrew and Edward were born in the following February and March respectively. DrKay (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The appropriate way of addressing and referring to Queen Elizabeth II.

I find it odd that the article refers to Queen Elizabeth II chiefly by her first name. Though this may be a component of the egalitarian, objective nature of Wikipedia, it is not customary to refer to her this way. Rather, she should be referred to as 'The Queen', 'Queen Elizabeth', or Her Majesty.

I ran a quick search on whether this was discussed earlier, though the results were not helpful. Any thoughts on this? Storms991 (talk) 06:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

In this and other articles, we use the person's name. In Her Majesty's Dominions and Territories of course one uses her titles, but outside them it is not required. TFD (talk) 06:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

We're not addressing her personally and in a forum like this, "the Queen" could mean the Queen of Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Spain, etc. She also is a person as well as holding a title. 74.69.9.224 (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It isn't disrespectful at all or "egalitarian" to refer to royalty in books or articles by their first names, that is the convention in fact. You wouldn't call her "Elizabeth" if you met her, but that's not the same thing.Smeat75 (talk) 21:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Technically speaking, she only has one name, Elizabeth, since sovereigns do not have last names. Even her grandchildren, for example, have been portrayed as having 'Windsor', 'Wales', or 'Mountbatten' as last names. Prefacing it with "Queen" everytime would be akin to using "Mr. X" throughout an article as opposed to just X, for example. trackratte (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

In Barbados per the Barbados government it is Your Majesty .Styles of Address, ([ http://www.foreign.gov.bb/ foreign.gov.bb]). Accidentally overwrote a comment. Didn't mean to do that. CaribDigita (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't an instrument of a commonwealth government, or a British citizen, or anything; I think it's most appropriate if we refer to the Queen the way we'd refer to other monarchs past and present. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I find it funny that on WP you can find people by a silly stage names (sobriquet) as their main article name. But the actual name she's known by around the world "Queen Elizabeth the 2nd" is too radical for WP naming conventions. She doesn't go around the world opening buildings as "Elizabeth II". QE2 plaque The ship named after her isn't merely called the "Elizabeth II". CaribDigita (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

And why should Wikipedia refer to Elizabeth II the way she wants to be called, when Kim Jong-un does not get the same privilege? Or do you propose that we, in all instances, refer to him as "Dearest Supreme Leader"? While we're at it, should Muhammad always be referred to as Muhammad sallAllahu `alayhi wa sallam, the way more than a billion people want him to be called? Don't waste your time. Of course this "component of the egalitarian, objective nature of Wikipedia" will be upheld. Wikipedia is not an arm of any government, or so it should seem at least. Surtsicna (talk) 20:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

"Wants to be called"? or is known as? What Newspaper says "Elizabeth II" did '_blah_' today? To spin that on it's head why include "Pope" in the article title for "Pope Francis". He wants to be called "pope" right? If I was not catholic, why not just "Francis" or "Francis of Vatican City" under that same convention? or his real name pre-papal name? CaribDigita (talk) 23:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I think one thing we are all forgetting here is that while she is Queen Elizabeth II of England & Wales I believe, there has never been a Queen Elizabeth of Scotland or a United Kingdom. As the union of crowns and the act of union don't stipulate any provisions for title and names of monarchs, this was obviously a historical mistake and that she was ill advised by ministers or the royal court when she gained the throne. While it caused offence and still rankles with some due to accusations of English bias, I personally believe it was a simple oversight in the use of the royal prerogative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.85.159 (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Her title in Scotland is whatever the law says it is. We are not 'all forgetting' what you, anonymous IP, think and believe on the topic - that has literally no bearing whatsoever on the content of this article. And - obviously - we can't have 'forgotten' your opinion which you hadn't previously provided. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no section on the power QE has

This article is like PR given out by the Queen's press officer. The Queen has considerable powers in the UK. These are not mentioned. She is NOT a symbolic head of state. She has power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.64.123.151 (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Covered in Monarchy of the United Kingdom. This article is about her as a person rather than the powers, or otherwise, of the office of monarch. DrKay (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Heir or heiress

There is a dispute about whether Elizabeth II, when she was a princess, should be described as an "heir" or "heiress" presumptive to the throne. While "heiress" is correct, it appears to be used infrequently. Most of the hits n Google books search appear to be from the 19th century,[8] while most 20th and 21st century sources use the term "heir."[9] In the modern era, adding an "-ess" suffix for women in the same position as men, e.g., manageress, directress, actress, Jewess, seem dated at best. (Hope this is not a third rail issue.) TFD (talk) 00:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't forget "doctress" :) Surely by the second section the reader is aware that Elizabeth is a woman, so "heiress presumptive" is redundant, if not stylistically awkward. Surtsicna (talk) 00:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

And seamstress, lioness, abbess, chairwoman, governess, Doña, wife, goddess, deaconess, enchantress, doe, nun, fashionista, widow, noblewoman, vicereine, doyenne, lady-in-waiting, madame, congresswoman, empress, princess, peeress, duchess, countess... :) FactStraight (talk) 05:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Most of your "-ess" examples for humans are formal titles, and the female title is not necessarily the equivalent of the male. A deaconess for example is not a female deacon. A countess may be the wife of an earl, but men cannot carry courtesy titles based on their wife's substantive title. There are dozens of times more jobs for "sewing machine operators" than seamstresses. And we do not normally call a female governor a governess. TFD (talk) 06:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I don't have a preference either way, but I would point out that on the page for heir presumptive the term "heir presumptive" in general is used for both genders (i.e. "regardless of whether she or he is heir apparent or heir presumptive"), but when referring to a specific woman, the term "heiress presumptive" is used (i.e. "Caroline, Princess of Hanover, is the heiress presumptive to the throne of Monaco"). It seems that a standard form should be used - either call her the heir presumptive here and link to a page that refers to women entirely as heir presumptives, or call her the heiress presumptive and link to a page that refers to women, when doing so specifically, as the heiress presumptive. Psunshine87 (talk) 07:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Duke of Normandy

The "Duke of Normandy" is her highest title in the Channel Islands, according to the British monarchy's website[10]. On the other hand, everywhere else her highest title is "Queen..." hence adding the "Duke of Normandy" to the top of the page but not "Duke of [some place in England]". SteveSims (talk) 00:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

It says she's "Duke of Normandy, our Queen". It doesn't say it's her highest title. DrKay (talk) 06:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

No, the British monarchy says "the islands... owe allegiance to The Queen in her role as Duke of Normandy." — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveSims (talk • contribs) 20:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't say it's her highest title. It calls her The Queen. DrKay (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

It says she rules the Channel Islands as Duke. She rules the UK as Queen, hence her being referred to as "The Queen" throughout the website.

Her highest title in the United Kingdom is the "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas Queen, Defender of the Faith". Her highest title in Canada is the "Queen of Canada".

The Channel Islands are not part of the United Kingdom. Thus, even though she holds higher titles in other territories, she rules the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey is the "Duke of Normandy", as she stated in a visit to the Channel Islands and as is claimed by the monarchy itself.

If Canada decided to call her the "Empress of Canada", she wouldn't suddenly rule the United Kingdom as the "Empress of Canada". SteveSims (talk) 22:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

In Canada her title is "of the United Kingdom, Canada [etc.] Queen." While occassionally she may be called "Queen of Canada", that is not an official title. Also, while CI inhabitants may toast her as Duke of Normandy, there is no evidence that that is an official title either. Normandy was ceded to France under the Treaty of Paris (1259), and there is no evidence other than the British Royal family's website (which Pete and trackratte warn us is a British website and hence not reliable) that the title is still claimed. TFD (talk) 02:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

As I demonstrated in an edit summary, she is called The Queen in the Channel Islands as well. You say she is the Queen of "Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas": well, I suppose, in some instances and in some way and in some minds, she was, just as in some instances she is known as the Duke of Normandy. But that does not actually make her the Queen of Ireland or the Queen of the British Dominions or the Duke of Normandy. DrKay (talk) 08:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Her formal title in the Channel Islands is "Queen of the United Kingdom," just as it is in the other Crown dependencies, although she rules the Channel Islands as remnants of the Duchy of Normandy, and sometimes uses the informal title "Duke of Normandy." TFD (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't forget the Falklands. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)