Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

→

Archive 35

Number of realms

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The official website says that there are 16. I'm not aware of any sources that give a different current number. DrKiernan (talk) 16:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

It says there are 16 "Commonwealth Realms", which are defined as realms that are members of the Commonwealth. There are also realms that are not members of the Commonwealth. TFD (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

There are only 16. The status of the CI/Niue is in a grey area, but in terms of realms they are explicitly within that of New Zealand, and have the NZ head-of-state. CMD (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the lede talks about sovereign states and the Cook Islands and Niue are under the sovereignty of the Queen of New Zealand. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

There are 16 Commonwealth Realms, but the opening talks about sovereign states. The Realm of New Zealand is made up of three sovereign states (and the territories/dependencies of New Zealand), meaning Queen Elizabeth is the head of state of 18 sovereign states. See the List of current heads of state or the debates about Niue and the Cook Islands being sovereign states. [Soffredo] 17:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Consensus is clear. You will not change consensus unless you provide sources that Cook Islands and Niue are "sovereign states known as Commonwealth realms", which judging from your own statements, you know does not apply to either country. DrKiernan (talk) 20:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you even reading what I'm saying? The Cook Islands and Niue are not Commonwealth realms. They are sovereign states that are part of the Realm of New Zealand. The opening sentence should be

"Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is the constitutional monarch of 18 sovereign states which, along with their territories and dependencies, make up the 16 Commonwealth realms. She is also the head of the 53-member Commonwealth of Nations. "

Also, saying the consensus is clear is unfair since I was blocked from Wikipedia while discussions began. [Soffredo] 23:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have read your statements. That's why I said "judging from your own statements". However, you changed the article so that it could be misread as meaning that they were Commonwealth realms: "18 sovereign states, known as Commonwealth realms". I'm objecting to an edit that serves to confuse and misinform rather than clarify. DrKiernan (talk) 08:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

A Commonwealth Realm is a realm of the Queen that is a member of the Commonwealth. A realm that is not a member of the Commonwealth is not a Commonwealth Realm. A member of the Commonwealth that is not one of the Queen's realms is not a Commonwealth realm. The Cook Islands and Niue are not members of the Commonwealth, hence they are not Commonwealth Realms. The definition of a Commonwealth Realm is provided by the palace and they provide a list. TFD (talk) 05:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for once again agreeing with me that "The Cook Islands and Niue are not Commonwealth realms". They are, however, sovereign states with Elizabeth II as their head of state. I feel like I'm repeating myself, but... The Realm of New Zealand, one of 16 Commonwealth realms, is made up of three sovereign states: the Cook Islands, Niue, and New Zealand (along with its territories). If you Google search Queen of Cook Islands or Queen of Niue, it will give you an infobox of Queen Elizabeth. Searching up Queen of Tokelau or Queen of Ross Dependency, which are the territories of New Zealand, does not give that same infobox as they are not sovereign states. [Soffredo] 13:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Whether they are "sovereign states" is open to debate. We list them at list of sovereign states because they meet the criteria for inclusion for that list, and we then explain the situation in that case. That does not mean that they are unambiguously and unquestionably sovereign states as per your wording. Rather it means that there is a debate and that they fall on that side of a specific set of criteria. The places where you wish to change things do not lend themselves to this kind of explanation.

It is true that Niue and the Cook Islands are not members of the Commonwealth. But they are unambiguously part of the Commonwealth as they are included in New Zealand. The edit proposed claims her as Queen of the Cook Islands and Queen of Niue, she is not. She is Queen of New Zealand, which for this purpose happens to include the Cook Islands and Niue. Kahastok talk 14:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

So we should completely ignore the list of sovereign states and list of current heads of state and government? Elizabeth II is the head of state of 18 sovereign states that, along with their territories (British, Australian, New Zealander, etc.), make up the 16 Commonwealth realms. I don't see the point of pretending the Cook Islands and Niue don't exist. Maybe we should phrase it as it is in the list of current heads of state:

"Queen Elizabeth II is separately and equally monarch of 16 sovereign states and 2 associated states sometimes known collectively as the Commonwealth realms."

Would this compromise work or should we pretend that two sovereign states don't exist? Also, other articles on Wikipedia talk about Transnistria, Abkhazia, Taiwan, Kosovo, and other places as if they were sovereign states. Why not the Cook Islands and Niue? My proposed edit even had a little note explaining that the Cook Islands and Niue are in free association with New Zealand. [Soffredo] 15:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth II is not separately monarch of Niue and the Cook Islands, and her position with respect to Niue and the Cook Islands is not equal to her position with respect to Canada or Tuvalu. Niue and the Cook Islands are not known as Commonwealth Realms. So your proposal is inaccurate on several points.

It's also far too much detail for the location where it is to be placed. We should take account of List of sovereign states - but that means taking account of all of it, including the bits that point out that some of the edges are rough and that some of the statuses are not clear cut. We should also take account of the official status as provided by the official sources, which are very clear that the number is 16. The status quo is fine in these circumstances.

And I see good reason to object when people try to claim that places such as those you list are unambiguously and indisputably sovereign. They are not unambiguously and indisputably sovereign, and claiming that they are is strongly POV. Kahastok talk 16:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

"Niue and the Cook Islands are not known as Commonwealth Realms." I'll repeat myself for a third time: "The Cook Islands and Niue are not Commonwealth realms". Sources say she is the Queen of 16 Commonwealth realms; 15 of these realms are just sovereign states, while the Realm of New Zealand compromises 3 sovereign states. She is the head of the 16 Commonwealth realms which are made up of 18 sovereign states. We shouldn't ignore the Cook Islands and Niue. [Soffredo] 04:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

And you shouldn't ignore the multitude of editors who have repeatedly informed you that the CI/Niue are not unambiguously sovereign states. CMD (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

It seems like the wording here leaves something to be desired. Niue and the Cook Islands are recognized as sovereign states, even if they're not unambiguously so. While Elizabeth II is the Queen of 16 Commonwealth Realms, the number of sovereign states that make up those realms is disputable. As such, the wording in the lead should probably be changed; perhaps instead of "Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is the constitutional monarch of 16 sovereign states known as the Commonwealth realms, and their territories and dependencies" we could use something more like "Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is the constitutional monarch of the 16 Commonwealth realms and their territories and dependencies". The link for New Zealand within the list of the Queen's realms should direct to the Realm of New Zealand instead of the sovereign state of New Zealand Psunshine87 (talk) 05:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

We should present information in accordance with how it is presented in reliable sources. Since they give very little prominence to CI and Niue, they should not be mentioned in the lead. Perhaps "territories and dependencies" is too narrow, because it excludes states, provinces and associated states. TFD (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

As I said before, I think that best compromise would be to say she's the monarch of 16 sovereign states and 2 associated states. This statement isn't wrong, while saying she rules just 16 or up to 18 can be debated. [Soffredo] 19:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Trouble is, that statement isn't accurate. She is not Queen of Niue and she is not Queen of the Cook Islands. She is Queen of New Zealand, which includes Niue and the Cook Islands. In the same way, she is not Queen of Wales or Queen of Scotland, but Queen of Great Britain, and she is not Queen of New Ireland or Queen of Bougainville but Queen of Papua New Guinea. Kahastok talk 19:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Then maybe we should instead say she's the head of state of 18 sovereign states (or 16 sovereign + 2 associated)? Also, the places you've listed are not sovereign states, unlike the Cook Islands and Niue. [Soffredo] 19:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

It is not clear that the Cook Islands and Niue are sovereign states, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you. Kahastok talk 19:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

So just because their international status isn't clear, we should just ignore them? There's no denying that they are "self-governing states in free association" so why not say she's the head of state in 16 sovereign states and 2 associated states? [Soffredo] 19:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

So, just because you want to get the Cook Islands and Niue in, we have to lose the fact that she is monarch from the first sentence? I think your solution loses a sense of proportion. And in any case, I don't accept that the statement is accurate. If we're accepting that she isn't Queen of the Cook Islands or Queen of Niue, are you saying she's President? Prince? Big Cheese? Kahastok talk 20:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Far more interesting than the CI/Niue are the Australian states and the Canadian provinces, where while not being officially titled "Queen of Y province" she has a separate legal personality, and the states and provinces have their own Governors/Lieutenant-Governors. The Queen's Representative in the CI is similar to the Australian Governors in that they are appointed by the Queen rather than the Governor-General. That said, the first sentence shouldn't get into all the sub-realm detail. The lead as a whole shouldn't touch it either, as it doesn't fit in that short a summary of Elizabeth II. "territories and dependencies" is a nice vague encompassing term whose vagueness should be used to avoid complicated semantics not get into them. We may actually benefit from removing "and their territories and dependencies", as the 'crown' for each realm would encompass all territories/dependencies anyway. CMD (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

And we seem to have forgotten Jersey and Guernsey, as well. (Though, they may be what "dependencies" refers to.) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we should remove "and their territories and dependencies" as well, as CMD's argument makes sense. We don't need to get into the sub-realm details at all, but Soffredo has a valid point in that the Cook Islands and Nieu are not a part of the sovereign state of New Zealand, nor are they clearly territories or dependencies. Given as the sentence itself isn't sourced, it seems like it would be easiest to simply say that Elizabeth II is the monarch of the 16 Commonwealth Realms and leave it at that. Is it really important that "sovereign states" be included? Psunshine87 (talk) 07:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. TFD (talk) 07:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'd say the "sovereign" or "independent" part is rather important. A great many people think that the realms other than Britain aren't independent precisely because Elizabeth is their queen.

Adding "fully" before "sovereign" would differentiate the realms from places like Niue, Jersey, and Manitoba. Also, how is it that Niue and the Cook Islands aren't dependencies of New Zealand? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The CI/Niue have signed agreements with NZ which makes them officially states in "free association". This grants them complete independence with regards to their affairs, but they have chosen to maintain NZ citizenship and keep the NZ head of state, and agree to act with respect to NZ in those regards. They are freely able to move towards complete sovereignty at any point without NZ approval. (Whether or not this is a "dependency" depends on the definition of dependency of course.)

On the matter at hand, how about changing the current one to "16 separate sovereign realms, each with a legally distinct monarchy."? The Commonwealth of Nations bit should probably move to a separate sentence, it's not of the same significance as actual monarchy. CMD (talk) 15:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer to say "16 Commonwealth Realms", then add a sentence explaining what the term means, since it is not commonly understood. "A Commonwealth Realm is a member of the Commonwealth that shares the Queen." The monarchy is btw legally distinct regardless of the degree of independence. One cannot pay a debt to the crown of New South Wales to the crown of Queensland. But in foreign affairs, the crown of Australia will sign treaties. TFD (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The monarchies are not unambiguously legally distinct. It is a shared monarchy in some aspects. So, it's clearer to say that the realms are separate, sovereign and independent rather than the monarchies. DrKiernan (talk) 16:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

What about the draft below? DrKiernan (talk) 16:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC):

Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is the constitutional monarch of the Commonwealth realms: 16 sovereign states and their associated states, territories and dependencies. She is head of the 53-member Commonwealth of Nations and Supreme Governor of the Church of England, carrying the additional title of Defender of the Faith in some of her realms.

According to the Law Lords, "But it is now clear, whatever may once have been thought, that the Crown is not one and indivisible....The Queen is as much the Queen of New South Wales...and Mauritius...and other territories acknowledging her as head of state as she is of England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom."[1] But most sources on the Queen do not mention this and therefore it is probably best to omit it in the lead. The types of territories over which she is queen is a long list - dependencies, crown dependencies, overseas territories, associated states, states, provinces, countries of the U.K. or in the case of England and Wales, two countries. TFD (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

It is not clear to me whether you are dissenting or agreeing with the new draft. DrKiernan (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

In line with CMD's and Mies arguments above (not the place to get into sub-realms, include 'fully sovereign'). Taking Dr. Kiernan's proposed draft, I would like to see something a lot simpler (keeping in mind the majority of readers have no background in politics or necessarily know about the Commonwealth).

Perhaps along the lines of "Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is the sovereign of 16 fully independent Commonwealth realms."

Sovereign of 16 independent realms is easily sourced, if someone is unsure what a Commonwealth realm is they can click the blue link. If someone wants to know what those realms are, they're available in that same blue link along with a detailed explanation on the status of Nieu and the Cook Islands. I would say the vast majority of readers do not care to know the intricacies of "associated" vs "independent" vs "fully independent" vs "dependent" states vs "territories" with commonwealth-realms-that-are-all-states-except-for-New-Zealand, etc etc. In the lead to an article about Elizabeth II we're presenting concise, pertinent, non-contentious, quickfacts. If we're so far into the weeds into this issue, still after more than a year of debate, it doesn't belong in the lead. trackratte (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I would support this option, or something that similarly omits all reference to states/territories/provinces outside the 16. This is the first sentence of the lede, so we don't want to get into any more detail than is really necessary. Kahastok talk 21:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Or we could say "of the United Kingdom and 15 other independent member states of the Commonwealth." DrKiernan, I think it is best to keep the lead simple.

I think the UK should be mentioned because it is the only kingdom, and if it were not she would not be styled as queen in her other dominions and territories. TFD (talk) 22:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Or "(she) is the shared Monarch and Chief of State for 16 separate kingdoms known as Commonwealth Realms." -- Comment' A Kingdom (simpler) can be made up by any number of "territories", "dependencies", "colonies", "protectorates", and "associates states" etc. can be made up of any number of parts and doesn't lose its meaning. During the 1960s the Eastern Caribbean islands were an "Associate States" with the U.K. proper. Formerly known as the U.K. and the West Indies Associated States. New Zealand sounds similar to that relationship. She head of separate Kingdoms but they're all led by the same singular Monarchy under various titles.' CaribDigita (talk) 01:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

@Carib. I still think that is getting sucked down the rabbit hole so to speak. Looking up realm in the dictionary, it simply says "a kingdom", with "synonyms: kingdom, country, land, dominion, nation". With Kingdom as "a country, state, or territory ruled by a king or queen" with "synonyms: realm, domain, dominion, country,...nation, state". We don't have an article titled "Commonwealth kingdoms" for a reason I think, for the same one we don't say "Chief of State", they are simply not the terms commonly used (even though they essentially amount to the same thing). The job of an encyclopedic article is to document not to create.

• The Preamble of a Constitution doesn't need to say "The Kingdom of Barbados" for Barbados to be called a Kingdom. The Federation of St. Kitts and Nevis doesn't need to be called The Kingdom of the Federation of St. Christopher and Nevis" for that to be a Kingdom either. P.S. There are other "Realms" in the Commonwealth of Nations besides the one Queen Elizabeth leads. Lesotho For example is a Kingdom and a member of the Commonwealth of Nations. Anyway, is there a source that says she's head of The "Realm of New Zealand"? Or was that made up too? CaribDigita (talk) 03:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

@TFD. We've gone down that path I think, and my reasoning remains the same. First, '16 realms' is simpler than 'UK and 15 other realms' (the 16 obviously include the UK as per the Commonwealth realm blue link, so its redundant), second, it is not the only kingdom, any state with a monarch is technically speaking a kingdom, so they're all kingdoms, and third, singling out one country ahead of the others (particularly the UK), smacks of vieux-monde imperialism.

"Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is the sovereign of 16 fully independent Commonwealth realms.", or something similar seems to me to be as simple as it gets, while still containing that key, most basic info required for the lead. Any hints of subtleties regarding the state of certain countries over others (or 'sub-realms' for that matter), or any explained deviations from common terms employed in media/academia/etc are better placed within the article itself I think. Particularly as it seems that nearly every 'subtlety' (kingdom or realm, 16 or 15, mention state or no, etc) all seem to result in argument. The above statement, or something near, I think is as bare-bones and contention free as we may be able to manage, seeing as many of the arguments put forward have been ongoing for over a year (if not longer) and are still not properly resolved. trackratte (talk) 02:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

If it smacks of imperialism, it is because that is how the monarch of the United Kingdom came to be sovereign of so many territories. All these territories were acquired by conquest, cession or settlement. In no case did any foreign country actually request annexation by the British crown. And it is olde worlde, or vieux-monde if you prefer, to have an hereditary head of state, particularly one who happens to live in the old country. Not of course that there is anything wrong with that, but it is wrong to ignore reality.

It is only in 13 Commonwealth Realms where the Queen's office title is Queen of [local country other than the UK]. Throughout the world both within and outside the Commonwealth she is referred to as Queen of the UK, and even Canada and Grenada put that title before her title as monarch of their countries.

I suggest that the United Kingdom is far better known than the Commonwealth, even if it is redundant it provides clear information to readers.

TFD (talk) 04:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

While imperialism may be how these territories became Commonwealth Realms, Elizabeth II's page is not the proper place for a discussion on this history or imperialism, particularly in the first sentence. Nor is it necessary to delegate the other realms into being somehow less than the United Kingdom in that same sentence. Simply saying 16 realms is simpler and removes redundancies. Calling these realms "kingdoms" is inaccurate as many of them have never used "Kingdom" in their official names (i.e. Canada, Australia, and New Zealand were all Dominions, not Kingdoms). An ammendment to DrKiernan's draft could be:

Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is the constitutional monarch of the 16 Commonwealth realms, the head of the 53-member Commonwealth of Nations and Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

As such, what constitutes a realm is removed from the Queen's page - as it's not necessarily relevant to her page itself - and redirects it to the actual Commonwealth Realms page. Psunshine87 (talk) 07:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Niue, ironically given the start of this conversation, did actually request to be part of British dominion. CMD (talk) 09:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy to drop the definition of Commonwealth realm ("fully independent", "sovereign state", etc.) because the independence of the realms is explained in the second paragraph, so I don't think it's immediately necessary to say "independent"/"sovereign", etc., in the first paragraph as well. DrKiernan (talk) 10:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Psunshine87, I m not suggesting that the article discuss the history of imperialism, merely that we describe the Queen the way reliable sources do. The palace website says, "The Queen is Head of State of the UK and 15 other Commonwealth realms." The Royal Style and Titles Act, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, says that her title in Canada is "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith."[2] TFD (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

You're giving undue weight to one British website and one title out of sixteen. This give-the-UK-prominence matter is unrelated to the subject of this discussion and has already been settled via a very long round of debate and discussion, anyway. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

TFD's "The Queen is Head of State of the UK and 15 other Commonwealth realms" wording is what we should be using. MIESIANIACAL and other royalists continue to support the weird, non-natural, undue and slightly perverse current wording while desperately claiming the discussion over the wording is "settled" and not worth continuing. NickCT (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The website is not just "one Britixh website" but the website of the person written about in this article. I have set up a discussion thread at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Elizabeth II. TFD (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The statement that Elizabeth II is the constitutional monarch of 16 sovereign states known as the Commonwealth realms is absolutely correct, neutral, and doesn't in any way negate the opinion that Niue and the Cook Islands are sovereign. If "dependencies" doesn't cover Niue and the Cook Islands, I suggest changing the opening sentence to Elizabeth II is the constitutional monarch of 16 sovereign states known as the Commonwealth realms and their dependencies and associated states. That covers those entities that aren't part of any of the sovereign states: the British Crown dependencies of Jersey, Guernsey, and the Isle of Man, and the Cook Islands and Niue, which are states in free association with New Zealand. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

But the what about the "overseas territories" Mies? Or Australia's legally undefined "external territories"? We really don't need a list of political statuses.

Anyway, this "UK and 15 other" vs "16" is another discussion from what we were discussing earlier, so I've edited the article based off Trackratte and Psunshine's suggestions. CMD (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality does not mean even-handedness to all aspects of a subject, but presentation with the same emphasis on different aspects as provided in reliable sources. BTW AFAIK Man and the CI are not dependencies of the Crown not the UK. In fact the constitutional language is that the Queen not the UK acquires overseas territories. TFD (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the way the lead sentence is worded now (after CMD's revision) is suitable, neutral, factual, and simple. If someone wants more information on any of the realms, territories, constituent parts, whatever term you want to use, etc, clicking on the Commonwealth realms blue link gets the reader that in-depth information if they so choose.

Regarding the "16" vs 'two and a half dozen of the other' conundrum, placing the UK ahead of the others is simply UK centric. The palace website is a British website, none of these other realms' monarchs have Buckingham palace. For example, Elizabeth II's Canadian Website simply states "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada. She has dedicated her life to public service and continues to serve Canada and Canadians after 60 years." I don't then use that reference to argue that the lead should state that "Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada and 15 other Commonwealth realms". Using a Canadian website to push a Canada centric lead is POV, just as using a British website to push a British centric lead is POV. "16 Commonwealth realm" is neutral, simple, factually correct, and non-contentious. trackratte (talk) 22:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Your link is not to the Queen's "Canadian website", but to a website run by the Canadian government. It in turn links to Royal Style and Titles Act R.S.C., 1985, c. R-12, which btw has the force of law in Canada and says, "The assent of the Parliament of Canada is hereby given to...the following Royal Style and Titles, namely: Elizabeth the Second...of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen."[3] The "British website" otoh is "the official web site of the British Monarchy. Written and managed by the Royal Household at Buckingham Palace, the site aims to provide an authoritative resource of information about the Monarchy and Royal Family, past and present."[4] Whether or not the site is "UK centric" is irrelevant - that is how the world knows her. TFD (talk) 23:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Right, the official site of the British monarchy says Queen of the UK. The official site of the Canadian monarchy says Queen of Canada. The fact is they are both right. To take one to overrule and cancel out the other is simply POV.

The law you refer to states that the Queen of Canada's titles are "Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith" (thus Royal Style and Titles Act, there are three titles). The style within the Royal Style and Titles Act is "by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories". So no, Elizabeth II is not titled 'Queen of the UK' in Canadian law. Her Style includes the UK for historical and cultural reasons, just as it includes "Grace of God", "other Realms", and other "Territories". The inclusion of "Her other Realms" within the Style has no bearing on her constitutional role in Canada, and subsequently no bearing on her legal title. trackratte (talk) 00:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but your statement that the website you provided is the "official site of the Canadian monarchy" is false. It is no such thing nor does it pretend to be. The other website of course is the official website of the monarchy. And while the Queen's constitutional role in Canada is her position of Canadian head of state, it is significant that Canada's law provides priority to her position as Queen of the UK, which of course does the rest of the world, except 13 Commonwealth Realms, representing less than 25% of the population in her realms and territories, about 2% of the world's population and less than one half of one percent of the rest of the world where she is referred to almost exclusively as the Queen of the UK. TFD (talk) 00:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Canadian law does not "provide priority to her position as Queen of the UK". That would mean that Canada is in fact not an independent and sovereign state if it 'gave priority' to a foreign head of state over its own, which is obviously not the case, simply because the Queen of the UK (or any other foreign head of state for that matter) has no bearing on Canadian law or its constitution. The last vestiges of that ended in 1982. And X percent of the world's population uses Y term is not only impossible to definitively prove, but is also irrelevant. EII is not simply the Queen of the UK in 15/16 Commonwealth realms. All of these realms are equal. Your attempts at twisting things around in an attempt to push your personal POV that the UK is better or more important than 15 other states is misguided at best. trackratte (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

In case you missed it, the Revised Statutes of Canada (i.e., Canadian law) says, "The assent of the Parliament of Canada is hereby given to the issue by Her Majesty of Her Royal Proclamation under the Great Seal of Canada establishing for Canada the following Royal Style and Titles, namely: Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith." The Canadian constitution says that the provinces requested to be "federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland."[5]

I fully understand that the Queen in relation to Canada, Ontario, or the British Antarctic Territory is queen of those places, as they are not part of the United Kingdom. But that has no relation to what she is called. In Ontario for example she is called Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, etc. It may be that Ontario should call her the "Queen of Ontario" or the Queen's website is in error calling her the British monarch, rather than the Ontarian monarch, and you are welcome to write to the palace about this. But the issue is how is she known throughout the world.

TFD (talk) 02:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

You continue to interpret the Royal Style and Titles Act as if it were called the Royal Title Act. "Queen" is a title. "Head of the Commonwealth" is a title. "by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom" is not a title. It's a Royal Style. The use of a style as a title would be awkward at best: 'What's your job?', 'Hi, I'm the by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories, nice to meet you'. I hope you're able to now see the difference between a style and a title, and subsequently why the Act explicitly differentiates the two.

And you do realise you are quoting a passage from laws as passed in 1867, when Canada was actually still part of the UK? When the Constitution Act, 1867 says "under One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain" it's because there was no such thing as the Crown of Canada at that time, so Canada was literally part of the UK. The idea of Canadian independence rose in tandem with the concept of a Canadian Crown (obviously) coming to a head in 1931. Canadian citizenship did not exist until 1947. Full Canadian independence did not exist until 1982. And you're quoting passages from 1867 as proof that Canada is still beholden to the Queen of the UK as opposed to the Queen of Canada? EII isn't simply called the Queen of Canada, she is the Queen of Canada, and in constitutional law, the Queen is Canada (corporation sole). trackratte (talk) 03:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The term used is "style and titles". Your opinion that the act is referring to two different things is incorrect and you have provided no sources to suggest otherwise. A "style and title" by the way is distinct from a job, although it may describe the job. Being a knight for example may be a job but nowadays usually isn't. The Queen btw is not "by the grace of God of the United Kingdom", but by the grace of God Queen in all but one of her realms. It even says it on Canadian coins.

Canada was never "literally a part of the UK", nor did the Canadian Crown originate in 1931. Where are you getting these ideas? I have provided the opinion of the House of Lords on the divisibility of the Crown, and you counter that with unsourced assertions based on what?

TFD (talk) 03:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Why, exactly, is Canada's royal style and title law important here? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It is important because it refutes the claim that giving priority to her title as Queen of the UK is biased. TFD (talk) 16:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

So, you're saying that because the words "United Kingdom" and "other Realms" are included in the Canadian Royal Style, that the lead to this article should be 'UK and 15 other realms' instead of '16 realms'...? trackratte (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Certainly not. But if Canadian law refers to the Queen as as Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada and her other realms and territories, then having this article referring to her as Queen of the United Kingdom and her other realms is certainly not biased. You should read The Queen v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ex parte Quark Fishing Limited where the House of Lords explains the nature of the Crown.[6] But the relevant policy here is weight, viz., how do reliable sources describe the Queen's offices. TFD (talk) 01:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Just because Canada has "other realms" and "United Kingdom" as part of the Royal Style for obvious historical and cultural reasons, does not mean that when discussing the completely different topic of 'how many realms is Queen Elizabeth II the Sovereign of' within an international context, that undue weight should be given to one state above all others. For example, a random British site uses both perspectives, stating both that there are 16 realms, as well as UK and 15. This Australian site uses 16 realms. This Political Geography Now site uses 16 realms. The Commonwealth of Nations site states "16 of these are realms with Queen Elizabeth II as head of state". So, a cursory overview based on the first page of a Google search supports both usages, British sites seem to use both, other sites seem to use the '16 realms'. In any event, it is completely irrelevant, both usages purvey the same fact, that QEII is 'head of state' of a list of 16 sovereign states. This is a stylistic decision by editors. The current consensus is to convey this fact in the lead in as clear and neutral way as possible. '...of the United Kingdom and 15 other sovereign and independent realms' is less clear and less neutral than '...of 16 independent realms'. trackratte (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Political Geography Now says, "you may have heard it mentioned that Elizabeth II is not just the Queen of England and the U.K., but of 15 other independent countries as well." It then lists the 16 Commonwealth Realms, starting with the United Kingdom.[7] On the Commonwealth website, click "Queen Elizabeth II" and it says, "Aside from the United Kingdom, there are 15 Commonwealth realms in existence today...." Your "random" websites are the British Monarchist Society and the "Australian Monarchist League." Not interested in reading what they say.

The bitter reality is that mainstream sources list the Queen's position as Queen of the U.K. first. The only exception is the "Style and Titles" acts in most of the former colonies, except Canada and Grenada, which btw represent the majority of Commonwealth citizens in Commonwealth Realms outside the UK. TFD (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Right, so Political Geography Now says "Queen Elizabeth's 16 Countries" in the title, "the Queen of England and the U.K., but of 15 other independent countries as well", and "Queen Elizabeth II is the official head of state for 16 different independent countries, known as the 'Commonwealth realms'". So it twice uses '16 realms' and once uses 'UK and 15'. So once again, it's a stylistic choice on how to represent the same fact.

It's not a matter for your questionable and convoluted method of 'Style and Titles acts for the highest percentage of population of former colonial states equating with forcing editors on Wikipedia to take one stylistic choice over another'. Frankly, your entire argument hinges on the fact that Canada's Royal Style includes the words "United Kingdom", so therefore the lead to this article needs to say 'UK and 15 other realms', which frankly makes no sense. trackratte (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

No, it hinges on the fact that that is how the vast majority of sources would phrase it, assuming they decided to mention the Queen's other realms. Therefore that is how policy says we should describe it. I presented the Canadian example not as evidence of how we should phrase but to counter the suggestion that it was somehow not neutral to mention the U.K. first. I am sure that you may believe that if you asked the man in the street who the Queen of Tuvalu was he would be as likely to know the answer as if you asked him to name the Queen of the U.K. But this is supposed to be an encyclopedic article, not an article for a monarchist fan club. TFD (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Do we have a number for this "vast majority" of sources? One, four, ten? Something like that? I'll bet that whatever number you come up with, I can find twice as many sources mentioning "The Queen of England". Using this sort of logic, we fill our encyclopaedia with questionable content. The Queen is the monarch of sixteen realms. We are certain of that. Once we start listing them or putting one above another, we get into difficulties of opinion. --Pete (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

All the reliable sources presented here - the Queen's website, the Commonwealth website, etc., mention her position as queen of the UK first, with the possible exception of the websites of other realms explaining their head of state. Few reliable sources refer to her as the Queen of England. A Google books search for "queen of england" returns 898,000 results, the vast majority for pre-union queens. "Queen of the united kingdom" returns 940,000 results. "Queen of canada" returns 93,200 results. "Queen of tuvalu" returns 444 results. TFD (talk) 23:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

So when we examine the facts, this "vast majority" you claim is actually two websites? Perhaps we could dispense with hyperbole, and perhaps you could address my other points. Let's see how we go with that approach. --Pete (talk) 02:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

No, they are just two examples, and there are none for the current wording. Since you did not look at the Google books sources mentioned, here are the links:

• "queen of england" - 898,000 hits (mostly for monarchs who were queens before England and Wales merged with Scotland into the United Kingdom)[8]
• "queen of the united kingdom" - 940,000 hits[9]

"queen of tuvalu" - 444 hits[10]

As for your other "points", it is not up to us to correct the prejudice in reliable sources. That's the role of the monarchist leagues.

TFD (talk) 02:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Once again, that line of reasoning is nonsensical. You are conflating a few things here. Tuvalu with a population of 10,387 will have far fewer mentions of its head of state than the U.K. with its population of 64 million people. One has a population over 6000 times greater than the other. However, QEII's role as Sovereign of the UK, and her separate role as sovereign of Tuvalu for example, are completely equal. One is not 'more right' than the other, and saying that she is equally head of state of both is completely correct. trackratte (talk) 03:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Not nonsensical. Obviously the Queen's role as head of state of the UK will receive more mention than her role as queen of Tuvalu. That is the point. That is the weight provided in the real world and what we should follow. TFD (talk) 03:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, TFD. As you didn't provide any examples from your Google searches - and of course many of them would be fiction, movie plots, blog entries and the like - I took it that you weren't serious about your "vast majority" claim. Not to worry.

The situation as I see it is that we have no consensus to alter the existing wording. Without consensus, any change will be promptly reverted. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 03:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

We all know that whenever any source discusses the many crowns of the sovereign that her role as queen of the United Kingdom is almost always mentioned and mentioned first, while the list of other realms is mentioned next if at all. Instead of misrepresenting the facts and arguing to provide the wording you favor, it would be more productive to admit the facts and argue for your preferred wording. TFD (talk) 04:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The UK is by far the largest of the 16 realms in terms of population, economy, military power, cultural recognition, political influence, etc, etc. Naturally, all British sources will place the UK first. And naturally, outside (outside of the 16 realms) sources will place 'Queen of the UK' more prominently than 'Queen of X', simply due to the above. However, this article is not about Elizabeth II in her role as Queen of the UK (there's other articles for that), but as her as a person, of which she is equally sovereign of 16 different realms. Her sovereignty over the UK is no more important than her sovereignty over any other realm. The realms themselves may be deemed more important than another according to any given set of criteria, but that is not what is being discussed, and the importance of individual realms is beyond the scope of this article. You are conflating the importance or weight of the UK, for the importance and weight of the legal relationship between EII and her realms. trackratte (talk) 03:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy requires that we provide the same emphasis to aspects of subjects (if you will excuse the term) as do reliable sources. It is not important whether the Queen's role as sovereign of Tuvalu is as important as her role as sovereign of the U.K. but how reliable sources order the different offices. TFD (talk) 05:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

And every single hit in your Google searches is a reliable source? Different reliable sources give different emphasis to different realms, anyway. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

It is a Google books search. Of the ten hits on the first page for "queen of the united kingdom", ten were rs. Since some of these books were 19th century, I am searching for 21st century books.[11] Again of the first ten hits, 10 are rs. I provided links so that you could look at the sources yourself, but you appear to not have availed yourself of the opportunity. The reality is that how reliable sources normally describe Elizabeth II is "Queen of the United Kingdom." TFD (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

What does it matter if they're Google Books sources? Google Books doesn't always bring up reliable sources; I've frequently seen books there that are just print versions of what we're writing here on Wikipedia. Even following your link above, the first hit I see is one in which "Queen of the United Kingdom" is used in the context of a question asking in what role Elizabeth performed some act. The second one talks about how she used to act as Queen of the United Kingdom for the affairs of the Australian states. As I said, I don't know, four times now? You're just dumping numbers out, completely ignoring both the context around the use of the words "Queen of the United Kingdom" and the nationality of the author and/or publisher of the source. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion going nowhere

Given as this discussion seems to be going nowhere, does anyone other than TFD support the "UK and 15 other realms" or can we say that the consensus is in favour of retaining "the 16 realms"? Psunshine87 (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Retain - I don't think we really need to |vote on this. It just seems to be TFD extending discussion past the obvious point and into waste-of-time territory. --Pete (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I am merely replying to your comments, such as above, "As you didn't provide any examples from your Google searches - and of course many of them would be fiction, movie plots, blog entries and the like." Obviously you did not look at the links provided or you would have realized that Google books returns hits for books not blogs. That's why it's called "Google books" and not for example "Google blogs." TFD (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

See my comment directly above. I stand corrected on the blog thing, but IMHO you're flogging a dead horse. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.