Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 37

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

'From their dates of independence...'

Would others agree that Revision as of 18:17, 21 October 2015[2] is an acceptable improvement? Qexigator (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Your (Qex)'s is an improvement. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To repeat myself: It "completely lacks clarification on when EIIR became queen of Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, etc."

Are you looking for votes? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I think both versions are an improvement, being more comprehensible. Mostly unsourced, but that can be fixed. Ordering the list by age of monarchy is the best solution, and we need to make the order clear, otherwise some pesky Bermudian will re-order the list to put those uppity Jamaicans back in their place. --Pete (talk) 19:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Pete: both versions: So that we know where we're going, if one is Revision as of 18:17, 21 October 2015,[3]

"Elizabeth II... is, and has been from her accession in 1952, Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, and Head of the Commonwealth. She is also Queen of Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis." perhaps adding "(in the order of their independence)",

which is the other? Qexigator (talk) 20:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. Of the two, I prefer Mies'. --Pete (talk) 20:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

As usual I prefer the less verbose version. That is, the version without the "date of their independence" thing. Why include this? We don't mention exactly when she became queen of the UK. NickCT (talk) 21:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

There is only so much one can do when trying to cram so much into as small a space as possible while still adhering to policies and guidelines.

"From their dates of independence" clarifies that EIIR did not become queen of those countries when she first became a queen in 1952. Though, that exact wording apparently causes consternation for another editor, which I tried to alleviate with my suggestion in the preceding section. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I strongly prefer Qexigator's wording to either of those suggested by Miesianiacal. It conveys all the necessary information in a grammatically correct way. I agree with NickCT that the details of the independence dates are not sufficiently important that we should worry about them in the opening paragraphs. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Version Q is shorter and simpler than version M, for sure, but if we're always going to be resisting attempts to alphabetise the list of ex-colonies, then the extra words may be a small price to pay. Or we could add in another note to explain the ordering, much like the one "explaining" why the Queen's official birthday is distinct from her real one and so she has lots of birthdays all over the world. --Pete (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The note about the order could be added as hidden text or perhaps as a WP:footnote, rather than complicating the prose itself. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, it's my feeling Qex's suggestion leaves readers not knowing (without going off to search) whether Elizabeth did or didn't became queen of all those countries at once on 6 Feb 1952. The decolonization/becoming queen/ceasing to be queen info used to be covered in the sentence "From 1956 to 1992, the number of her realms varied as territories gained independence and some became republics. Today, in addition to the first four of the aforementioned countries, Elizabeth is Queen of Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, [etc.]..." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Those details should certainly be covered in the article text. But, they are an unnecessary over-complication in the opening paragraphs. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, perhaps using a Footnote visible to the reader would be better than WP:footnote. It could simply say These countries are listed in the order of their independence. Qexigator (talk) 22:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

According to the Flag Institute, the order is the date of the "original accession to the Commonwealth." ("Appendix B")[4] I think we should say that instead. It also explains the order of the UK, Canada, Australia and NZ. I really doubt that had Scotland become a CR, its flag would be ranked last among CRs. TFD (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the information and link, TFD. Are you proposing the footnote should add that link? But I am not sure that it is quite suitable. It is about flag flying in the UK and tells of the The "Flag Protocol of the United Kingdom". Qexigator (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The lede, though, is supposed to summarise the article, so, I can't (for that and the other reason I already gave) agree they're unnecessary; or, at least, don't help. They could be over-complicated, though, which is why I've been trying to think of the least complicated way to express them. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

No, I am saying the footnote should be changed to "These countries are listed in the order of their original admission to membership in the Commonwealth." 23:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

You may be right TFD, but that looks like one of those technicalities which have attracted adverse criticism: it adds a new concept "membership in the Commonwealth", and combines it with another "their original admission" which I don't see in Commonwealth of Nations or Commonwealth of Nations membership criteria, so how is that going to help clarify the listing order for the ordinary reader? Qexigator (talk) 00:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I proved somewhere up above (with an order set out at an official Remembrance Day ceremony as a source) the practice is to rank the countries, after the UK as the oldest realm, by date of becoming a Dominion followed by date of independence. The first four countries mentioned in the article are the UK and the only three countries that were once Dominions; the rest, then, are by date of independence. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

We have to provide some criteron for the listing, otherwise it is arbitrary. Membership in the Commonwealth seems like an objective criterion, countries either became members on a certain date or they did not. Independence is more nebulous and is confusing since Papua New Guinea is listed in the order of which it became independent of Australia, which was already independent of the UK. Can one specify the date Canada became independent? Mies, yes they are mostly rated by the date they became independent but only because they became members of the Commonwealth in that order. Notice though that Rwanda, which became a member in 2009 ranks lowest, although it became independent in 1962.

The flag protocol is a guide. It is an example of how a rational neutral observer might list them. Incidentally, we are talking about "Commonwealth Realms", not "realms."

TFD (talk) 03:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not giving my opinion on what order the countries should take. I'm saying how the countries were ranked at the Remembrance Day ceremony in London and it was according to, aside from the UK, when first becoming a Dominion (independence isn't relevant, therefore, to Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) and then date of independence. "Membership in the Commonwealth" is an odd guide, since the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand became part of the Commonwealth simultaneously; it was formed around them (and the other Dominions at the time). Why, then, are they in that order if not because it's the order in which they became Dominions? I'll wager a source telling us which day the remaining countries became part of the Commonwealth would show they became members on the dates of their independence.

Regardless, if "membership in the Commonwealth" is what the source says, use it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Some of the members of the Commonwealth (Mozambique and Rwanda) however became independent before they joined the Commonwealth but lay wreaths according to when they joined. The dates used for the UK, Canada, Australia and NZ of course do not relate to when they became independent and there was no Commonwealth. But the dates for the last three are from when they were recognized as having dominion status, which is the older term for CR. TFD (talk) 04:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the Commonwealth gives the year each country became a member: [5]. For each of the Commonwealth realms other than the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, it's the year of their independence. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a relatively minor item for the article as a whole, but one of those knotty problems which deserves the attention it is now getting. I have little to add at this stage, but allow me to mention on a light-hearted note that in HM Navy there is some important protocol distinguishing between a "flag officer" and an "officer of flag rank", but, while "Flags" is the nickname for an admiral's Flag Lieutenant (cp. army ADC), it can also be a nickname for a specialist Communications officer, while a "flag flapper" is a signalman; all of that with hundreds of years of back history, earlier even than Nelson. In more recent times, ships have communicated by flashlight and Morse Code, and today by ..?; then again, while there is something called "showing the flag" its meaning can vary violently when the flag is red. Qexigator (talk) 08:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

+ TFD: Would a footnote like this meet the point? "These countries are listed in the order of their original accession to the Commonwealth" Qexigator (talk) 00:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. TFD (talk) 03:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the current second sentence still suffers from th same problems identified earlier: it sets the 12 predominantly black countries apart without giving an explanation of why they are treated separately nor does it explain why the territories, dependencies and associated states are excluded. There should be something in the sentence itself that explains both of these points, in the way some of the drafts above do. DrKay (talk) 08:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that any attempt at clarification in the opening paragraph - unless included in a footnote or hidden text - would complicate the text. The clarification cannot be done in one or two simple words. Readers need clear and succinct opening paragraphs. Details should be addressed and explained in the main text. I agree with Qexigator and The Four Deuces. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

If that was a problem, I see the recent edit[6] as resolving it. Qexigator (talk) 08:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'd missed that - it looks like the best solution (though I'd prefer to link the country names). Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Linkg to all those countries, might create a sea of blue, however. GoodDay (talk) 09:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

If we list all the countries, they should all be linked. There is no reason to only link some of them, and several are (to the casual reader) somewhat obscure. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Ya'll may want to re-examine the current version. A reader adding links, apparently didn't notice the 12 newer Commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

It so happens that in this article, adjacent to the opening sea of blue, are tints of purple with a welcoming smile. Qexigator (talk) 16:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

It appears that the article's intro & infobox, have stabilized. Which is good news, as whatever gets decided here, will be adopted for Charles' article, when he ascends the throne -- or is that thrones :) GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Crystal balls may not be reliable predictors, or even a drama in blank verse: King Charles III (play). Broadway now has the mise en scène[7] with Sydney to come in April.[8] Qexigator (talk) 17:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Post-RfC

Editors here may wish to note that comment is being made under the title "Post-RfC at Elizabeth II"[9] Qexigator (talk) 23:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

It's a question; a request for clarification. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

...couched in less than friendly terms. Qexigator (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Truthful and pertinent does not equal unfriendly. And this isn't the place to discuss this. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The content had all the appearance of deliberately snide and disorderly, which is far from friendly, as others can see for themselves. Qexigator (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

My full response is at my talk page. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Some editors – and I think we have at least two in current discussions – have rigid points of view and ways of functioning. Plato would say they are prisoners in the cave, content with their ways of interpreting the world. I think the best way to avoid disruption is not to attempt forcible removal into the sunlight, but instead to stick as best we can to the letter of wikilaw and wikiprocess. Editors possessed of singular views can be sidelined through consensus. Editors who are disruptive can be handled at various noticeboards. We can all assist by shining our torches/flashlights on the best way forward, hoping that those in the dark will see for themselves. GoodDay, the subject of one of Mies' complaints, can be irritating, but I doubt there is any malice in his heart. He has as much right to have his voice heard as any other here, and if he says the same thing for the umpteenth time, I do my best to let it be part of the moment.

I think we are progressing well, overall. We have made a significant change in the lede without too much unpleasantness. We are tweaking our way through a very thorny minefield of rocks and shoals, where grammar, sourcing, concisety, and accuracy are pulling our barky in different ways. Let us tweak forward in amity. --Pete (talk) 04:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

As I already posted (somewhere, just can't remember), if the current version in the opening works & isn't confusing our readers? then so be it. However, if the current version is going to continue to be problematic??? We still have that more concise ("UK+15") option :) GoodDay (talk) 09:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I advise you all to calm down. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

@AlexTiefling: - This is definitely a pretty lame debate. I think it highlights a pressing problem though, which is WP inability to deal with lame behavior. NickCT (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Nobody's hyperventilating. Well, not for the moment, anyway :) GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

How to show the House of Windsor

Shall we show in the infobox, the House of Windsor as - 1) House of Windsor or 2) Windsor? GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Windsor. Infoboxes should be simple and concise. It is unnecessary to write "House: House of Windsor" when "House: Windsor" is sufficient and unambiguous. DrKay (talk) 20:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I've gone through (I think) all the other related articles & made the change to Windsor. These types of changes (i.e - don't show House) should be made throughout all monarchial infobox, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Elizabeth II's regnal number

She is not elizabeth 11 of uk she is elizabeth the 1 of scotland and eliabeth the 11 of england — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petes 1958 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

It's Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 21:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

See MacCormick v Lord Advocate 1953. The Queen may choose what number to use in the UK. TFD (talk) 21:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Link to the List of Longest Reigning Monarchs

How is there no link to the List of longest Reigning Monarchs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest-reigning_monarchs) anywhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.16.133.119 (talk) 08:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

It's linked twice, once in the lead and once in the article body. DrKay (talk) 08:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Image to use after her passing

• 
• 

Shall we agree to use the picture above of Her Majesty as the main image after her passing? It an official portrait from 1959 which shows Elizabeth II as she will be remembered throughout history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HalloweenNight (talk • contribs) 20:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

In the event of her passing, I'd recommend an image from the middle of her reign. Which (as of 2015), would be from 1983 or 1984. This image is acceptable though. GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we should cross that bridge when we come to it? If she's anything like her mum, she's got a few more good years left. --Pete (talk) 21:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

You beat me to my next question. I was going to ask "Is she ill?" GoodDay (talk) 21:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I prefer the second image because it is twice the resolution and more in focus than the older picture. It is a valued picture on commons and a featured picture on wikipedia, so it has already been identified as one of the best images on the project. DrKay (talk) 14:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

No: she looks like a robot. Firebrace (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The image changes by B Fairbairn should be undone. The first change is a copyright violation and the second change removes an image where her face can be seen to one where the focus is on the doorway of a building. 137.205.238.124 (talk) 11:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Done. DrKay (talk) 16:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Length of Reign section

I am not sure that the person that added this read the article...as in it already mentioned...that said..does it merit its own section? -- Moxy (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

IMHO, the section should be deleted. It's already mentioned in the article that she's now the longest reigning monarch in the history of the British Isles. As for the 'future' dates? those can be added into the article content, when/if she passes those records. Also, a Jacobite pretender's claim, is irrelevant. GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree with your assessment. -- Moxy (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

So do I. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Philip of Greece and Denmark

What is the best way of mentioning Prince Philip on the main infobox of Elizabeth's article? Should it be Philip of Greece and Denmark or Philip Mountbatten? Because all of the consorts are mentioned on the infoboxes of their spouses' articles by the titles they held before their marriages, for example Queen Alexandra as Alexandra of Denmark, Queen Mary as Mary of Teck and Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother as Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. Keivan.f^Talk 13:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I see no easy way of choosing between "Philip, Duke of Edinburgh" and "Philip of Greece and Denmark" because they are as natural, recognizable and precise as each other, as well as being the same length. I wouldn't use "Philip Mountbatten" though because, although it is another of his names, it is far, far less recognizable than either one of the other two. DrKay (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Keivan.f: See advice at WP:CONSORTS... Firebrace (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Firebrace It's better for you to read WP:CONSORTS again. The most common names for consorts like Alexandra and Mary are Alexandra of Denmark and Mary of Teck. Many consorts, particularly of England and France, are known in English as "{Name} of {Place}". Prince Philip's article must be titled as Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh because he's still alive and maybe after his death the article's title remains as it is. Anyway it has nothing to do with Elizabeth's infobox. The common name usage is a rule for articles' main titles not the names that are used in the body of a page. I just changed the title Duke of Edinburgh to Philip of Greece and Denmark to mention that he had a title on his own before marring Elizabeth. Albert, Prince Consort is also mentioned as Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha on Queen Victoria's article. You can find numerous other examples on the other articles. Keivan.f^Talk 07:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Anyway I won't revert your edits until we find a solution here. I don't want to engage in an edit war. Keivan.f^Talk 07:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

He disposed of the titles Prince of Greece and Denmark and Prince of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg before he married Princess Elizabeth. At the point he actually married her He was Lt. Philip Mountbatten RN. So I don't think he should be called Prince of Greece and Denmark in the context of his being Elizabeth's husband. I know that Mary of Teck, discarded the Teck title during her tenure of Queen consort, and that her family adopted the surname Cambridge, but at least she was still Princess of Teck when she married. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Not all consorts are referred to by the names/titles they had before their marriages. In fact, Prince Albert (a better parallel to Prince Philip as he was also a male consort and didn't take his title from his wife], is referred to as his post-marriage title of Albert, Prince Consort on his wife's infobox and not his birth given title of Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Psunshine87 (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Well as long as I know he's referred to as Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha on Victoria's infobox. Keivan.f^Talk 18:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

He was Philip Mountbatten, Duke of Edinburgh, at the time of his wedding. He had already given up his Greek & Danish titles, fraternal family names & adopted his maternal family's surname. King George VI, had already bestowed the title 'Duke of Edinburgh' on him. GoodDay (talk)

Is that so GoodDay? I own a copy of the order of service for the marriage ceremony. There he is described as Lt. Philip Mountbatten RN. That is not to say that I think he should be described in the infobox as that. He simply should be Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh there. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

He was created Duke of Edinburgh the morning of his wedding (by which time the order of service had already been printed). Biblioteqa (talk) 05:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

As I understood it, he gave up his Greek & Danish princely titles before his marriage. He wasn't created a British prince until 1957. As for his being in the British Navy? we don't really need to show that. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The forces require surnames, but I believe royals are allowed to choose their own. So Prince Harry chose Wales, while other members of the family chose Windsor. TFD (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh is best because he is most commonly known by both those names. Prince Albert was different, he never received any noble titles in the UK and did not use his German title of Duke of Saxony. Also "Saxe-Coburg and Gotha" became the name of the royal house. TFD (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Queen role model

Hi. This is a bit hard to put in, but I want to know more about how the Queen does this big job. She has Queen of many countries, and knows all the leaders and they never oppose her. I we should say something that she is a role-model. She is never geting angry and never argues or fights, and follows her duty. She is always the patron of many groups, but what does she do there. She teaches them by example, not by giving orders. No other leader is like this alive. And always gives encouragement. I am not a good writer, but we should find something to say about this special style of leader. 81.17.242.228 (talk) 22:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

By appointment to her Majesty...

What is the proper term for product endorsements saying By appointment to her Majesty... and is there an article about this term? --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Royal warrant. 137.205.238.38 (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

1953-54 around the world tour

The tour was 173 days, so it didn't last seven months. The seven months comes from the dates: from late November to early May: five whole months (December through April), plus a few days either side. Alexandra of Yugoslavia, Pimlott, Lacey and Brandreth all call it a "round the world" tour, because it was a circumnavigation: across the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian oceans, stops included Bermuda, Jamaica, Panama, Fiji, Tonga, New Zealand, Australia, the Cocos (Keeling) islands, Ceylon, Aden, Uganda, Tobruk, Malta and Gibraltar. I can see, if we count the territories as countries and Yemen as a Commonwealth country (which half of it was at the time), that there are 12 Commonwealth "countries" in the list. What was the other one? DrKay (talk) 16:43, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

There's a lot more then 12 Commonwealth countries. Including the United Kingdom, there's a total of 53 Commonwealth countries. Actually we better say 53 Commonwealth sovereign states or members. There's still a dispute on Wikipedia over what a country is - concerning England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but which of those "countries" did she visit during the 1953-4 "world" tour? DrKay (talk) 17:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Now, that's for you & the others to figure out. Why? Because I haven't a clue. GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2016

Change current age to 90 Joejuzl (talk) 23:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

It will automatically change when the UTC reaches 00:00 hrs, 21 April 2016. GoodDay (talk) 23:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: As GoodDay stated it will update itself --Cameron11598 (Converse) 00:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2016

81.101.244.50 (talk) 00:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: No request --Cameron11598 (Converse) 00:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Photo change

Hi... The creator of this page pls change the photograph of the queen, its from March 2015. Pls put a recent photo. Thanx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.97.108.120 (talk) 08:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Why? Has she changed that much in 12-months? GoodDay (talk) 11:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2016

Queen Elizabeth the II is the Queen of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. She is not the Queen of the United Kingdom as she is not the Queen of Wales Cymrokiwi (talk) 22:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Per countless number of sources - Wales, along with England, Scotland & Northern Ireland make up the United Kingdom. Therefore, Queen of the United Kingdom is correct. GoodDay (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: per GoodDay — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

QUESTION (Charles's secret love-child)

In Globe paper I came across this paragraph

She became desperate to stop her eldest son, Prince Charles, from taking the Throne after his latest scandal — the claims of an Australian government executive, Simon Dorante-Day, 50, that he is the secret love child of Charles and a then-unwed teenage mistress, Camilla.

but I couldn't find any subject about that in Wikipedia. any body help me find that in WP? Alborzagros (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Tabloid stuff. The Queen's heir-apparent is Prince Charles, a position that can 'only' be changed by the British Parliament & the 15 other Commonwealth realm Parliaments. GoodDay (talk) 14:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Dubious

I can see that history.com claims that she is the only female royal to join the armed forces, but she was in the ATS, which was commanded by her aunt, Princess Mary: [10]. The source also makes the claim that Elizabeth is the "only living head of state who served in World War II", but that is ignoring the fact that there are at least five living former heads of state who served in World War II, including a German. I appreciate that Mary did not have an active role and that Jean, Grand Duke of Luxembourg and Michael I of Romania are no longer heads of state, but I think history.com are stretching definitions in order to make bold claims that are not really supportable. If Mary was not active in the armed forces, then frankly neither was Elizabeth: her role was purely honorary, just like her aunt's. She didn't actually do any fighting or serve in any real capacity. DrKay (talk) 15:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Didn't she serve as a mechanic and driver?76.98.184.25 (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The point in dispute is not whether or not she served. The point in dispute is whether or not she is the only female royal to have served. DrKay (talk) 16:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I see the problem. I will remove it then. Sorry for the mistake.JaneSwifty (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Former wife

I thought this phrasing was odd;

"the death in 1997 of her son's former wife"

shouldn't be former daughter in law, or her son's ex wife? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.103.31 (talk) 11:02, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Lead photo

Here are some positive reasons I can think of to use the photograph I added yesterday:

1. There are no distractions in the background. It's just her.
2. It shows the Queen in a more human light because she isn't buried under a garish hat and coat (which is a tourist's idea of what the Queen looks like).
3. It was taken by a professional photographer.
4. The colour harmony of blue and orange is very pleasing to the eye.
5. She isn't squinting.
6. The photograph is in focus.
7. She is 'facing' the text as recommend by MOS:IMGLOC (in the other photo her body is facing away and she is looking forwards).
8. It is "the type of image that is used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works" per MOS:LEADIMAGE.
9. It was taken inside one of the Queen's many palaces, Hillsborough Castle.
10. Her appearance didn't change in 12 months (indeed, looking through the Talk archives, this argument of 'we must keep it up to date' has been shot down many times).

Firebrace (talk) 12:19, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

"Prince Philip" in the lead

The second paragraph of the lead says, "In 1947, she married Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh". This is anachronistic, of course - he didn't become "Prince Philip" until 1957. I'm not quite sure what the policy is on this, however. StAnselm (talk) 22:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd say it should refer to him by his title on the day of the wedding, which was HRH The Duke of Edinburgh. Eggybacon (talk) 09:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I've thought of another way around the anachronism: "She has been married to Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, since 1947..." What do you think?

OK, another editor changed it to "Philip, Duke of Edinburgh" - that's resolved the issue well enough, I think. StAnselm (talk) 10:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Canadian coat of arms

Is there any reason why the image used for the Royal Arms of Canada is the old version without the motto of the Order of Canada? The only possible reason I can see is that the colouring of Wikipedia's image of the pre-1994 arms is a better match with the British arms, which I agree makes it easier to see the similarities and differences. Eggybacon (talk) 09:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Probably because the current Canadian coat of arms falls under copyright, and so can not be used here. CMD (talk) 11:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

There's an image of it on Arms of Canada, though (which claims 'fair use') Eggybacon (talk) 09:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

There is, but I do not feel fair use would apply to this article as well. CMD (talk) 15:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Lead wording. What is "severe press criticism"?

• What qualifies something under that assessment? What falls under "severe press criticism"? example(s)?

"Elizabeth has occasionally faced republican sentiments and severe press criticism of the royal family, but support for the monarchy remains high, as does her personal popularity." CaribDigita (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Section 3.8. longest-reigning monarch

After the death of the king of Thailand (see BBC News for source : http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-37643326 ), she's now the current longest-reigning monarch and head of state. --12:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.204.104.68 (talk)

Elder Daughter at birth? No. Margaret was the younger daughter when she was born because Elizabeth was already there. Elizabeth was the only child until Margaret came along...

I have a question about how to succinctly handle the obvious error in the sentence starting "Elizabeth was born in London as the elder daughter of the Duke and Duchess of York"... until her sister Margaret was born, she was the ONLY daughter. JByrd (talk) 18:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

There is also the bothersome "is, and has been since her accession in 1952," in he first paragraph, which I think could be handled better: "is Queen of ... and Head of the Commonwealth. She is also queen of 12 countries that have become independent since her accession to the throne in 1952:" Firebrace (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Scouting?

Wilson links her to Scouting, should the connection be noted?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 08:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

What is the connection? Celia Homeford (talk) 10:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Name

Does the Queen Elizabeth II actually have a last name. There isn't one listed here so I don't know. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Her last name is "Windsor". Not sure why it's not there. --104.234.241.247 (talk) 04:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Is her name actually Mountbatten-Windsor as I think I read somewhere that it is the name of the royal house now. ILikeCycling (talk) 22:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

No, the name of the royal house is Windsor, and the Queen last name is Windsor. "Windsor-Mountbatten" is the name for those of "Philip and Elizabeth's male-line descendants who do not carry royal titles." Sadiemonster (talk) 15:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Andrew and Edward?

The Marriage and family section mentions the births of Prince Charles in 1948 and Princess Anne in 1950, but not the births of Prince Andrew in 1960 and Prince Edward in 1964.

Further down it says "Elizabeth's pregnancies with Princes Andrew and Edward, in 1959 and 1963, mark the only times she has not performed the State Opening of the British parliament during her reign," but their births are not mentioned in the body of the article.

Shouldn't the births of all four children be mentioned in "Marriage and family?" Or is the article meant to be loosely chronological? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadiemonster (talk • contribs) 15:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

There's a section called "Issue" for the children. So, it shouldn't be necessary to explicitly list the children again in a "family" section. Consequently, I've removed the "family" sub-heading. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Infobox image

Harper9979 has proposed that the image below should replace the present image. Comments are very welcome.

• 
  Current image
• 
  Proposed image

--Nevé–selbert 20:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support I agree with the proposed change. It looks a better and clearer image. ILikeCycling (talk) 22:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose because User:Harper9979 has put forward no argument in favour of the proposed image. I have no reason to oppose the current image: it is a bright and clear photo, with a high resolution, and it displays a clear shot of the face. The newer image has less focus on her face (which is smaller in this shot) and more focus on her waving hand, bright clothing and surrounding objects. The colours also appear too bright it looks over-exposed. In summary, not only do I see no clear reasons for changing the image but I also think there are significant weaknesses with the proposed image. -- 81.154.11.224 (talk) 23:40, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Alternative

Elizabeth in 2011

There are much better images that could be used. How about this one? It was taken in 2011 but there is no policy or guideline which states that photographs have to be as recent as possible, and she has not really changed in appearance. Unlike those two, it would be facing the text, which actually is a requirement in the Wikipedia manual of style. The colours are nice – no garish colours (which are worn to stand out in a crowd, not to look good in photos) – and the head is nicely in profile. Firebrace (talk) 14:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Oppose - It has extremely distracting background faces, and is inferior to either the previous image, or the proposed alteration. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

The original image is underexposed and over-saturated. The edited version still doesn't look right, not helped by the fact that her face is in shadow, and she is wearing a garish red and pink outfit that completely buries her. She is looking off to the right, and it isn't immediately obvious that she is talking to someone; she could be staring into space, and it looks odd. It looks like a cartoon.

This one looks natural, has not been manipulated, she isn't hiding under a massive wide brimmed hat, the people in the background provide some context, and she is facing left towards the text.

Of course, none of this matters... Firebrace (talk) 13:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511201056/http://populuslimited.com/uploads/download_pdf-160108-The-Discovery-Channel-Monarchy-Survey.pdf to http://populuslimited.com/uploads/download_pdf-160108-The-Discovery-Channel-Monarchy-Survey.pdf

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Poorly Written.

I'm an eight grader, and I can see the punctuation errors in this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.147.2.68 (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I teach English and used to work as a professional copyeditor, and I don't see any. Perhaps you're unfamiliar with British punctuation or logical quotation? 86.188.71.32 (talk) 09:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Section titles generally don't have punctuation if that's your beef.theBOBbobato (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2017

Under the 1'Royal family of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms" tab Prince Harry is listed as Prince "Henry" of Wales. This is incorrect. 24.192.133.178 (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Done RudolfRed (talk) 00:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Undone. Henry of Wales is his name. He goes by Prince Harry, and if you click on the article it links to the Prince Harry page, where his name is listed in the first sentence as "Prince Henry of Wales." TonyBallioni (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Louis XIV and the Queen Mother

I went ahead and removed the lines about her mother being the longest reigning queen, because she wasn't queen regent and part of her time as queen was also as dowager, not even consort. I also removed the Louis XIV line that was next because I didn't see a source on it, but then saw it had been sourced above to the Prime Minister's office. I think how we present this information should be discussed because even that statement notes that she is the longest reigning Canadian monarch in the modern era of the country, and I think it would be debatable as to whether Louis XIV was a Canadian monarch or whether he ruled the land that is now Canada as a part of being King of France. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• I have removed the sentence about her mother being the longest living queen again because this is unsourced and appears to be original research as I cannot find the claim in reliable sources. All of the sources discuss Elizabeth II as the longest reigning British monarch, beating Queen Victoria. Her mother was never the Queen, she was simply Queen consort and dowager. She never held the same office as Elizabeth II and mentioning it in the article makes no sense. Prince Philip currently holds the record for longest consort, and Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother the record for longest as dowager, which is a title that Elizabeth II will never have. Comparing their lengths here is apples and oranges. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Perception and Character

User:DrKay, Thank you for pointing out the Daily Mail WP:RS issue. I didn't know about that. In regards to sourcing there are many other sources that are reliable to say the same things so that can be fixed. You gave your opinion that it is "trivial" but as part of her "perception and character" I think it is notable that she uses her handbag to signal her staff at social events. If you would not have how she handles herself socially as part of her character, I disagree.

If not here, where would you have it go?

So. Here are the fixes for references [11] [12] The original article that is popular in the last couple of days is from 6 years ago.

I would love other opinions on this as I try to be WP:NEUTRAL - Pmedema (talk) 20:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

In depth material about the personality and image of Queen Elizabeth II has been moved to the other article, which is linked from this one. DrKay (talk) 21:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Excellent and thank you! - Pmedema (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Question

How about, I wanted to ask a question, which, although it has nothing to do with the article precisely, but rather with the subject.

If Elizabeth II had not had biological children, but adopted, and all these children were not British by birth, would it be legitimate for the oldest of them, as the code of succession indicates, to be the heir to the throne?

And on the other hand, if she had adopted foreign children before having her 4 biological children, who would the throne correspond to, the greatest biological child or the oldest of all her children (adopted and biological)?

If there is any error in my message it is because I do not speak English.--Gustavo Parker (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Adopted children have no right of succession. DrKay (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 8 April 2017

Queen Elizabeth is the 44 the most powerful person, not the most powerful Micheal2098 (talk) 09:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I have deactivated the edit request because you have not requested a specific edit and the statement you've made does not directly relate to any content in the article. DrKay (talk) 10:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Religion

I think about a day ago an edit war began on this article between DrKay and another user as to whether the "Religion" should be included on the infobox or not. As at last it was removed, I thought it would be better to do the same thing for the other similar articles, but now Willthacheerleader18 obviously disagrees with me. Would all of you please share your opinions and make it clear that what needs to be done according to the policies? Keivan.f^Talk 04:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• We don't say "race = white" or "sex = female" in the infobox, and "religion = Christian", as it said immediately before the most recent removal, strikes me as similarly redundant. As far as denominations go, I believe that the opening comment of SMcCandlish at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes applies equally well here. She worships with more than one denomination and infoboxes are not designed for nuanced or complex issues. DrKay (talk) 07:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

  Agreed. It's not helpful to use infoboxes this way.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Prince Harry

In the table that lays out the family relations of Elizabeth, Prince Harry is listed as Prince Henry. The link is correct though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.168.127.44 (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

That's his name. "Harry" is a nickname for people called Henry. He's Prince Henry Charles Albert David in full. — Jon C.^ॐ 15:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Infobox

I have added Canada, Australia, and New Zealand to the main infobox title along with the UK since these countries all have been ruled by Elizabeth II since February 6, 1952, which is when the infobox indicates her reign began. All other countries listed became ruled by her later or have since removed her as their head of state. Charles lindberg (talk) 03:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

A past discussion on this matter, resulted in a consensus for Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms. It's best that you don't re-open a can of worms here. GoodDay (talk) 04:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The present wording was decided in an RfC, now archived at Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 29#Infobox. I don't think it should be changed now unless a new RfC determines that consensus has changed. DrKay (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101203033258/http://www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDiary/Factfiles/60diamondweddinganniversaryfacts.aspx to http://www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDiary/Factfiles/60diamondweddinganniversaryfacts.aspx

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150519101110/https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/124/MonarchyRoyal-Family-Trends-Satisfaction-with-the-Queen.aspx?view=wide to https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/124/MonarchyRoyal-Family-Trends-Satisfaction-with-the-Queen.aspx?view=wide

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2017

Queen Elizabeth II is a descendant of William the Conqueror, https://infogalactic.com/info/Descent_of_Elizabeth_II_from_William_the_Conqueror#Genealogical_relationships_to_Elizabeth_II

Rollo is the great-great-great-grandfather of William the Conqueror, or William I of England. Through William, he is one of the ancestors of the present-day British royal family, as well as an ancestor of all current European monarchs and a great many claimants to abolished European thrones. Source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rollo#Descendants 2602:304:CDCD:1B80:AC10:A6:41B6:7A6C (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 23:18, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Politician infoboxes when there will be a new regent

What will happen to all the "Monarch Elizabeth II" in the infoboxes of for example Theresa May when there is a new Head of the Commonwealth? Would all the infoboxes of politicians (and others?) needed to be changed manually or is there a automated way to do it? Vespasian (talk) 01:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

You mean of course, when there will be a new monarch. Yes, those will be changed from Elizabeth II to who succeeds her as British monarch, Canadian monarch, Australian monarch etc etc. As for Head of the Commonwealth? it's not yet decided as to who'll succeed Elizabeth II in that role. GoodDay (talk) 01:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok but will it be done automatic? If so, how? Vespasian (talk) 01:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

When Elizabeth II dies, Charles automatically succeeds. Therefore, Charles III will be put in Theresa May's infobox with Elizabeth II's name. For now, it's not a concern, as the queen is still alive. PS- We the editors will make the changes on Wikipedia, ourselves. GoodDay (talk) 01:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry if I was not clear enough I hope I am now. I'm not concerned with who succeeds her physically but how the changes are made to the infoboxes? -->

The Right Honourable Theresa May MP
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
Monarchs	Elizabeth II Charles III

If that's to be done manually then it's a lot of work. Vespasian (talk) 02:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

With so many editors watching these articles, I'm confident it'll be completed within 24 hrs. GoodDay (talk) 02:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Within 10 minutes using AWB or some other script would be my bet. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks TonyBallioni that was exactly what i was was looking for. It would be neat if there would be something as a "article variable" so instead of writing "|monarch = [[Elizabeth II]]" you wold do something like "|monarch = {{Current monarch of the Commonwealth}}". Vespasian (talk) 02:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

There's no such thing as monarch of the Commonwealth, though. GoodDay (talk) 02:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

"|monarch = {{Current Head of the Commonwealth}}" then. Vespasian (talk) 02:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

It won't work because there would need to be two monarchs listed. May would be prime minister under both Elizabeth II and Charles III in this example. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

On a related topic, when she dies what photo should we use for the infobox? The same one we have now (or another contemporary one), or one from her coronation, or something else? Ivar the Boneful (talk) 09:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Why are we suddenly concerned with what inboxes will look like after she dies? Am I missing something? Is she seriously ill? Surtsicna (talk) 09:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160507202232/https://www.royal.uk/50-facts-about-queens-coronation to https://www.royal.uk/50-facts-about-queens-coronation

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Images post coronation until went grey

As a casual reader of the article, the images of the Queen from this period (1953 coronation until approx 1990) seem really inadequate, especially when there are so SO many available (see commons:Category:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom by year). For instance a crop of would show the Queen, aged 42 in Feb 1969, quite well. From 1970 onwards, colour photos start to appear. This one shows the Queen aged 50 in 1976. And this one File:Prince William with Queen Elizabeth II in 1987 (11440082454) (cropped1).jpg shows the Queen now in her 60s in 1987 with 5yo Prince William. Note that she has not yet decided to go grey - we have plenty of those in the article, but she had a long period of not being grey between her 1953 coronation and around about 1991 when it appears the blue rinses commenced. Can we please have a discussion about inclusion of new images and possibly removing some old? Please point me to older discussion on this if relevant. Donama (talk) 00:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

As I recall, the picture of Ford was removed because there was a complaint that there were too many images of her with American presidents and the color picture with Pat Nixon is better than the black and white one with Richard Nixon. We shouldn't have two of the Nixons anyway. The one with Prince William has been uploaded since the last time the images outside of the infobox were discussed. Discussions can be found by searching the archives: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=image&prefix=Talk%3AElizabeth+II%2F&fulltext=Search+archives&fulltext=Search. DrKay (talk) 06:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, DrKay. Wow. One response after almost 48 hours. I already did search the talk archives here by the way. Noted the discussion about American presidents. Couldn't find any discussion about pics of Elizabeth herself (i.e. the Amercian ones can be cropped if needed) over this time period. It looks like I should just go ahead and make changes. Donama (talk) 22:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Remove Street...

Please change street, town, country to town, country. Street is not required to read articles 2A00:23C4:7A88:4C00:50C1:7DC9:9DCA:9C04 (talk) 18:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170820033830/http://features.thesundaytimes.co.uk/richlist/2017/live/richlist/view/group6/1/rank/-/The%20Queen to http://features.thesundaytimes.co.uk/richlist/2017/live/richlist/view/group6/1/rank/-/The%20Queen

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Moments of sorrow

The following sentence appears intended to elicit sympathy and feels out of place on Wikipedia. I have not seen anything like it in other biographies. It goes without saying that notable people lose family and suffer personal tragedies just like the rest of us. Why should the Queen be any different?

"Moments of sorrow for her include the death of her father in 1952 at age 56; the assassination of Prince Philip's uncle Lord Mountbatten in 1979; the breakdown of her children's marriages in 1992 (her annus horribilis); the death in 1997 of her son's former wife, Diana, Princess of Wales; and the deaths of her mother and sister in 2002."

I wonder if anyone else has an opinion about whether it should be deleted or kept. Firebrace (talk) 01:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

It think it should be deleted. I imagine that mostly anyone in their 90s, would have suffered quite a few loses. GoodDay (talk) 01:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Some of the events listed in the sentence (annus horribilis and Diana's death) should be kept. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

They can be reworked into the sentence about her popularity which ebbed after the 1992 events and Diana's death. Firebrace (talk) 13:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that would work. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

"It goes without saying that notable people lose family and suffer personal tragedies just like the rest of us. Why should the Queen be any different?"

With hereditary monarchs, it is typically an expectation that your predecessor is dead when you rise to the throne. Also other people who are higher than yourself in the order of succession have to be dead or disqualified. For example, George V was only heir to the throne, because he survived his older brother Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale. Dimadick (talk) 15:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I know how sexually transmitted authority works, but that could be mentioned in a different context, not within something that reads like a pity party for the Queen. Firebrace (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The queens signature

Is that really her signature? It has no "z" in it! HardeeHar (talk) 11:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

yes there is she writes a z with part of it under the line looking a bit like a y Penrithguy (talk) 11:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

It's called a tailed z. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Titles, styles, honours, and arms

"Titles, styles, honours, and arms". Please, please, please, will someone please remove the unwanted US style third comma shown in this heading?

Should read as "Titles, styles, honours and arms". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.185.188.20 (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Serial commas can be used in British English. DrKay (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)