Jump to content

Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 42

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

The Queen Listed as the No.1 Richest Person in the United Kingdom in the Sunday Times Rich List 1989

@Þjarkur I completely disagree with your "opinion", as you yourself have described your edit as such. It is not "too much detail" as you claim for the introduction, upon which you have deleted the text I wrote, in regards to The Queen being listed as the richest person in the UK in 1989. Your personal opinion by which you have deleted the sourced content, does not seem to be based on any other convention or reference on Wikipedia. Every other article about an individual who has been at the top of the Sunday Times Rich List, or Forbes has this important and most notable mention included in the introduction. This includes the Hassanal Bolkiah, The Sultan of Brunei. So why do you believe this article on The Queen should have any different or special treatment on Wikipedia? --Death Star Central (talk) 12:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Really is trivia (if not a bit misleading) and not needed in the lead. MilborneOne (talk) 12:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
There is so much to say about the Queen that even some important things aren't worthy of a mention in the lead as they'd be WP:UNDUE / trivia. (Surely I can only assess things as being WP:UNDUE / trivia by forming an opinion on whether they are so?) I do think we should add "She is one of the wealthiest individuals in Britain." somewhere lower the lead, but mentioning the 1989 Sunday Times Rich List, the amount, and asset type is an unnecessary level of detail. Summarizing is a convention on Wikipedia. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
She lives in palaces and festoons herself in jewels. She's the Queen. She's obviously wealthy. Spelling it out in the lead is unnecessary verbiage. The specific claim from 30 years ago that is clearly out-of-date and dubious was out of place and inappropriate. DrKay (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
It's not required in the lead, even though it does highlight the unseemliness of monarchies. GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2020

Shouldn't Hong Kong be in the list of former territories Her Highness governed? 172.102.170.160 (talk) 15:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

The list is of sovereign states only. DrKay (talk) 15:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Why was the bit about her being the longest reigning monarch in modern Canada removed?

--ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 04:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Superlatives are covered in the lead and the article body: longest-lived and longest-reigning British monarch, and world's longest-serving female head of state, longest-serving and oldest current head of state. It's unnecessary to repeatstate this for each of the realms when the superlatives are so all-encompassing. DrKay (talk) 08:14, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
But the Canada one was none of those. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
See my second sentence. DrKay (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
I did it the first time. Your second sentence talks about repetition. As I just said in my second message, the Canada one was different, therefore no repetition would be made. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Amended. DrKay (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

birthday

The footnote says "The Queen's Official Birthday is not the same day as her actual one" but there's no explanation what April 21 is. Is it the official or actual one? Needs to be explained. 2600:8800:2C00:91A:FDFD:D85B:56AF:BDCB (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

April 21 is her actual birthday. The "official birthday" thing is explained here: Queen's Official Birthday. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Lead

Lets try an retain readers by not making them scroll many time's before they reach prose text or read the same thing 2 or 3 times

@Moxy: The lead current opens with a single sentence. Some users, Moxy and myself included, are in agreement that this is not an appropriate opening paragraph. In mobile view, it is unappealing, since readers are confronted with a single sparse sentence positioned before the infobox. However I very strongly object to the 'solution' of combining the existing first two paragraphs. Elizabeth's early life, before she was Queen, is not the most important or relevant facts about her, and it doesn't belong in the opening paragraph. The first paragraph is a summary of a summary; the lead summarises the article, while the opening paragraph itself conveys the most significant facts (as per MOS); education and early life does not fulfil this criteria. Instead I suggest that we expand the opening sentence; here is my proposal. I recommend that we do not change the lead until we have come to an agreement; let's not change the lead until then. --Hazhk (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I oppose your proposed change, as we don't need to elaborate about the status of the other Commonwealth realms, in the opening sentence. GoodDay (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
In mobile view you see one sentence then a giant box you have to scroll thru. Want readers to read the article make it accessible and oh yes fix the sentences structure you were taught about in grade 4. Try not to make the article look like a ten year old wrote it off the bat.--Moxy 🍁 00:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. It's a biography. Having an explanation of international law in the second sentence is undue. I've looked at mobile view on five different devices. It looks fine, whether there is a paragraph break or not. DrKay (talk) 09:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Best to try and retain readers.--Moxy 🍁 15:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
We already went through this 'show all the realms' argument. Let's not start it up again, please. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Just need to write a normal paragraph....no mention of realms in my comment. As seen in the image our readers see us saying her name 3 times her title 2 times long before any serviceable information. This is the example used to show how bad infoboxes are for regurgitating the same information over and over by thoses that hate them. Just need to expand the first thought...like how long she's been doing this...just something so our readers don't get discouraged by the repetitive text.--Moxy 🍁 17:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Recommend you show us a 'normal sentence' example. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
IMHO, that would need a bit of trimming. The modern royal styles and titles, the commander-in-chief bits, are too much info. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
The British Empire
Current realms
Clearly the British Empire is substantially larger than the current realms
The British Empire was substantially larger than the current realms. The second half of the second sentence is not clear at all and the third sentence is uncited, possibly incorrect and not found in the article body. It is also misleading as she is not in practice the commander-in-chief. Her role is entirely nominal. She has no actual power to deploy troops, makes no tactical decisions, and no strategic input. DrKay (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
O well no point in trying if people are not even aware of her status in non UK countries. Did you even look before claiming BS. Decline of the British empire is covered in the article --Moxy 🍁 19:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Expanding the intro to this article, merely creates headaches. We've been through all this before, concerning the other Commonwealth realms. WP:WEIGHT became the deciding factor. GoodDay (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Not sure why anyone would omit her Military titles in the article or why one sentence in the lead would be too much. Not sure if it’s A republican point of view but it’s odd.--Moxy 🍁 19:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. If I may, the Queen is the Queen, and is one of the most iconic global figures in the world, whether your opinion is positive or negative. The lead-in is the most concise and accurate way to state her role, and since she is who she is, I doubt more detail is needed to "retain the reader", but that's just my opinion.--Bettydaisies (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Sounds good..good luck.--Moxy 🍁 19:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Military ranks Canada

  1. 6 February 1952 – 1 February 1968: Commander-in-Chief of the Royal Canadian Navy
  2. 6 February 1952 – 1 February 1968: Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Army
  3. 6 February 1952 – 1 February 1968: Commander-in-Chief of the Royal Canadian Air Force
  4. 1 February 1968 – : Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Forces

New Zealand

  1. 1990 – : Head of the New Zealand Defence Force

United Kingdom

  1. 1945 – 27 July 1945: Second Subaltern, Auxiliary Territorial Service
  2. 27 July 1945 – 1 February 1949: Junior Commander, Auxiliary Territorial Service
  3. 1 February 1949 – March 1950: Junior Commander, Women's Royal Army Corps
  4. March 1950 – 6 February 1952: Captain, Women's Royal Army Corps
  5. 6 February 1952 – : Commander-in-Chief of the British Armed Forces
  6. 1964 – 10 June 2011: Lord High Admiral of the Royal Navy

Australia

  1. 1953 – : Captain-General of the Royal Regiment of Australian Artillery
  2. 1953 – : Colonel-in-Chief of the Royal Australian Engineers
  3. 1953 – : Colonel-in-Chief of the Royal Australian Infantry Corps
  4. 1953 – : Colonel-in-Chief of the Royal Australian Army Ordnance Corps
  5. 1953 – : Colonel-in-Chief of the Royal Australian Army Nursing Corps
  6. 1953 – : Air-Commodore-in-Chief of the Australian Citizen Air Force

Canada

  1. 1947 – : Colonel-in-Chief of le Régiment de la Chaudière
  2. 1947 – : Colonel-in-Chief of the 48th Highlanders of Canada
  3. 1950 – : Colonel-in-Chief of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders of Canada (Princess Louise's)
  4. 1952 – : Captain-General of the Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery
  5. 1953 – : Colonel-in-Chief of the Governor General's Horse Guards
  6. 1953 – : Colonel-in-Chief of the King's Own Calgary Regiment
  7. 1953 – 1967: Colonel-in-Chief Corps of Royal Canadian Engineers
  8. 1953 – : Colonel-in-Chief of the Royal 22e Régiment
  9. 1953 – : Colonel-in-Chief of the Governor General's Foot Guards
  10. 1953 – : Colonel-in-Chief of the Canadian Grenadier Guards
  11. 1953 – 1956: Colonel-in-Chief of the Carleton and York Regiment
  12. 1953 – : Colonel-in-Chief of the Canadian Guards
  13. 1956 – : Colonel-in-Chief of the Royal New Brunswick Regiment
  14. 1958 – 1968: Colonel-in-Chief of the Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps
  15. 1977 – : Colonel-in-Chief of the Military Engineers Branch
  16. 1981 – : Colonel-in-Chief of the Calgary Highlanders
  17. 1953 – 1968: Air-Commodore-in-Chief of the Air Reserve Canada
  18. 1953 – 2012: Honorary Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
  19. 2012 – : Commissioner-in-Chief of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police

Fiji

  1. 1970 – 1987: Colonel-in-Chief of the Royal Fiji Military Forces

Ghana

  1. 1959 – 1960: Colonel-in-Chief of the Ghana Regiment of Infantry

New Zealand

  1. 1953 – : Captain-General of the Royal Regiment of New Zealand Artillery
  2. 1953 – : Captain-General of the Royal New Zealand Armoured Corps
  3. 1953 – : Colonel-in-Chief of the Corps of Royal New Zealand Engineers
  4. 1953 – 1964: Colonel-in-Chief of the Countess of Ranfurly's Own Auckland Regiment
  5. 1953 – 1964: Colonel-in-Chief of the Wellington Regiment
  6. 1964 – : Colonel-in-Chief of the Royal New Zealand Infantry Regiment
  7. 1977 – 1996: Colonel-in-Chief Royal of the New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps
  8. 1953 – : Air-Commodore-in-Chief of the Territorial Air Force of New Zealand

South Africa

  1. 1947 – 1961: Colonel-in-Chief of the Royal Durban Light Infantry
  2. 1947 – 1961: Colonel-in-Chief of the South African Railways and Harbours Brigade
  3. 1952 – 1961: Colonel-in-Chief of the Imperial Light Horse
  4. 1953 – 1961: Colonel-in-Chief of the Royal Natal Carbineers
  5. 1953 – 1961: Colonel-in-Chief of the Kaffrarian Rifles

United Kingdom

  1. 1942 – 1952: Colonel of the Grenadier Guards
  2. 1947 – 2006: Colonel-in-Chief of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders (Princess Louise's)
  3. 1947 – 1994: Colonel-in-Chief of the 16th/5th Queen's Royal Lancers
  4. 1949 – : Honorary Brigadier of the Women's Royal Army Corps
  5. 1952 – : Colonel-in-Chief of The Life Guards
  6. 1952 – 1969: Colonel-in-Chief of the Royal Horse Guards
  7. 1952 – : Colonel-in-Chief of the Grenadier Guards
  8. 1952 – : Colonel-in-Chief of the Coldstream Guards
  9. 1952 – : Colonel-in-Chief of the Scots Guards
  10. 1952 – : Colonel-in-Chief of the Irish Guards
  11. 1952 – : Colonel-in-Chief of the Welsh Guards
  12. 1952 – : Captain-General of the Royal Regiment of Artillery
  13. 1952 – : Colonel-in-Chief of the Corps of Royal Engineers
  14. 1952 – : Captain-General of the Honourable Artillery Company
  15. 1953 – 1971: Colonel-in-Chief of the Royal Scots Greys
  16. 1953 – : Colonel-in-Chief of the Royal Tank Regiment
  17. 1953 – 2006: Colonel-in-Chief of the Royal Welch Fusiliers
  18. 1953 – 1970: Colonel-in-Chief of the Loyal Regiment
  19. 1953 – 1966: Colonel-in-Chief of the King's Royal Rifle Corps
  20. 1953 – 1956: Colonel-in-Chief of the Royal Army Ordnance Corps
  21. 1953 – 1956: Honorary Colonel of the Queen's Own Worcestershire Hussars
  22. 1953 – : Captain-General of the Combined Cadet Force
  23. 1953 – 1959: Colonel-in-Chief of the Royal West African Frontier Force
  24. 1953 – 1964: Colonel-in-Chief of the King's African Rifles
  25. 1953 – 1964: Colonel-in-Chief of the Northern Rhodesia Regiment
  26. 1953 – 1974: Colonel-in-Chief of the Royal Malta Artillery
  27. 1953 – 1972: Colonel-in-Chief of the King's Own Malta Regiment
  28. 1953 – 1970: Colonel-in-Chief of the Royal Rhodesia Regiment
  29. 1953 – 1992: Colonel-in-Chief of the Duke of Lancaster's Own Yeomanry
  30. 1956 – 1963: Colonel-in-Chief of the Queen's Own Nigeria Regiment
  31. 1956 – : Honorary Colonel of the Queen's Own Warwickshire and Worcestershire Yeomanry
  32. 1959 – 1963: Colonel-in-Chief of the Royal Nigerian Military Forces
  33. 1959 – 1971: Colonel-in-Chief of the Royal Sierra Leone Military Forces
  34. 1964 – : Colonel-in-Chief of the Malawi Rifles
  35. 1966 – 2007: Colonel-in-Chief of the Royal Green Jackets
  36. 1969 – : Colonel-in-Chief of the Blues and Royals (Royal Horse Guards and 1st Dragoons)
  37. 1970 – 2006: Colonel-in-Chief of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment
  38. 1971 – : Colonel-in-Chief of the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards
  39. 1971 – 1999: Colonel-in-Chief of the Queen's Own Yeomanry
  40. 1973 – 1992: Colonel-in-Chief of the Queen's Own Mercian Yeomanry
  41. 1977 – : Colonel-in-Chief of the Corps of Royal Military Police
  42. 1992 – : Patron of the Royal Army Chaplains' Department
  43. 1992 – : Colonel-in-Chief of the Adjutant General's Corps
  44. 1993 – : Affiliated Colonel-in-Chief of the Queen's Gurkha Engineers
  45. 1993 – : Colonel-in-Chief of the Queen's Royal Lancers
  46. 1994 – : Colonel-in-Chief of the Royal Mercian and Lancastrian Yeomanry
  47. 2006 – : Colonel-in-Chief of the Royal Welsh
  48. 2006 – : Colonel-in-Chief of the Royal Regiment of Scotland
  49. 2006 – : Colonel-in-Chief of the Duke of Lancaster's Regiment
  50. 2006 – : Royal Colonel of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, 5th Battalion, The Royal Regiment of Scotland
  51. 1953 – : Air-Commodore-in-Chief of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force
  52. 1953 – : Air-Commodore-in-Chief of the Royal Air Force Regiment
  53. 1953 – : Air-Commodore-in-Chief of the Royal Observer Corps
  54. 1953 – : Commandant-in-Chief of the Royal Air Force College, Cranwell
  55. 1977 – : Royal Honorary Air Commodore of the Royal Air Force Marham
  56. 2000 – : Royal Honorary Air Commodore of the 603 (City of Edinburgh) Squadron
You really want to put all those military ranks in the infobox? GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
What? who the hell would do that? one worded linked in the lead ....leads to all. My guess is the lead problem for mobile readers will one day be fixed perhaps at an FA review. Just need to make the first paragraph a paragraph that has serviceable information before the overwhelming infobox that is a scrolling nightmare in mobile view.--Moxy 🍁 00:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Duration of Reign

Can we have a count down clock for the number of days until her reign becomes the longest of any monarch of a sovereign state in world history? As of today it is approximately 3 years 161 days from now when she sets a new record for longest reign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.32.55.127 (talk) 03:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

No. Articles should be formatted like encyclopedia articles and contain the things that encyclopedias contain. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Time photographer

Is the Time magazine image of Elizabeth as a child by Marcus Adams? I can find no mention of the photographer. No Swan So Fine (talk) 13:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

It would appear so: https://www.rct.uk/collection/themes/exhibitions/marcus-adams-royal-photographer/russell-cotes-art-gallery-bournemouth/princess-elizabeth-b-1926-5-july-1928. DrKay (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2021

My name is liam and I would like to edit this page because I have found some wrong information in the queens bio and would like to fix it. Lwb boy (talk) 20:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Please explain the changes you wish to make. DrKay (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Birth year

I've noticed that the birth year is incorrect. Listed as 1901. Should be 1926.[1]Nabelekt (talk) 08:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The user who changed this has been vandalising a number of pages in this way. Bstardyskull (talk) 08:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nabelekt, The user has now been blocked indefinitely. Thank you for your assistance. AussieWikiDan (talk) 15:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.britannica.com/biography/Elizabeth-II

Grammar

"is Queen" or "is the Queen"? TheRafaMarc15 (talk) 03:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Completely agree. AussieWikiDan (talk) 08:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Surname usage

GoodDay Oska I've seen the recent edits and reverts. What is the reason for not using 'Windsor' in the first sentence? The latest discussion can be found here. It seems strange there is reference to it in the infobox without further clarification. AussieWikiDan (talk) 01:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

My understanding was that we don't use the surname in the intro of the article (IMHO, it shouldn't be in the infobox either), as we don't use it in the bio intros of her children, grandchildren (except Archie), cousins. GoodDay (talk) 02:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
There's more recent discussion in Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 41. DrKay (talk) 08:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi GoodDay, thanks for responding. That RfC was very useful and answers my question – as have you. Cheers, AussieWikiDan (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2021

- i may not know anything about this nor may i be sure about what im about to say but.... as hard as i am strugulyinng to still comprehend what has hapened and more all i want to say is I have came to a connclution that i may be part of the British Royal Family! 47.36.108.195 (talk) 06:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a page to discuss changes to the article, not a place to discuss the subject itself. Good luck with your new familial commitments—I hear there's a recent vacancy opened up. ——Serial 06:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2021

Delete “Windsor” as one of the Queen’s names. “Windsor” is not her surname, but rather the royal house to which she belongs. 67.252.80.161 (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Under discussion at Talk:British royal family. DrKay (talk) 22:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Please up date the text:

  • Revealed: Queen lobbied for change in law to hide her private wealth, 7 February 2021: The scale of Queen Elizabeth’s wealth has never been disclosed but she feared a 1973 bill would allow the public to scrutinise her finances. ... The Queen successfully lobbied the government to change a draft law in order to conceal her “embarrassing” private wealth from the public ... an "arrangement, which was concocted in the 1970s"
  • How Queen’s consent raises questions over UK democracy: The exact origins of Queen’s consent are unclear. There is evidence it was first invoked in 1728 in relation to maritime law, when King George II gave parliament permission to debate the suppression of piracy bill. ... Previous attempts to understand even the basic functioning of the opaque procedure have been aggressively resisted.
  • Royals vetted more than 1,000 laws via Queen’s consent: The Guardian has compiled a database of at least 1,062 parliamentary bills that have been subjected to Queen’s consent, stretching from the beginning of Elizabeth II’s reign through to the present day. ... The database illustrates that the opaque procedure of Queen’s consent has been exercised far more extensively than was previously believed. ... Some of the bills the Queen reviewed before they were passed by parliament relate to wealth or taxation. One of the richest families in Britain, with the monarch’s property investments exempt from inheritance tax and collections of fine art and jewellery built up over centuries, the Windsors are notoriously guarded about their finances.
  • The Queen has more power over British law than we ever thought 8 February 2021: This degree of involvement in the legislative process is unjustifiable. It is a serious constitutional mistake that has survived only through being obscured. In the famous formulation, the Queen in our constitutional monarchy has the rights “to be consulted, to advise and to warn”. It is now clear that the process of Queen’s consent goes beyond the boundaries of legitimate involvement set by those rights.

--87.170.205.103 (talk) 12:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done There's a separate article on finances. DrKay (talk) 13:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Birth name

Official birth register of England and Wales for the second quarter of 1926. "Windsor, Elizabeth A.M." is listed in the second column, about a third of the way down.

It seems another editor is putting her birth name in the infobox as Princess Elizabeth of York, I reverted the edit once but they have re added it stating it is an 'Undisputed fact'. Rather than enter into an edit war, I thought I would ask people's opinion here (as I may be wrong). The Queen was not BORN Princess Elizabeth of York, that was a title given to her, she was born Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor. As I say I maybe wrong which is why I asked on here before reverting the edit again. Tommi1986 (talk) 21:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Her birth name was HRH Princess Elizabeth of York. Insofar as that title was given to her, it was given to her by automatic operation of letters patent issued long before she was born.
But I think the field is better left blank. We don't have to fill every field in every infobox and this one is a distraction. Kahastok talk 21:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Her birth certificate is online if you just Google it. It says “Elizabeth Alexandra Mary”. Doesn’t list her surname of Windsor. Agree with the above user though. This field should be left blank. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Elizabeth's Alexander 102.249.0.42 (talk) 07:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

It very clearly shows her surname as "Windsor" as every single surname is listed once and all births under that listed in alphabetical order. This is clearly a POV that wants to press a title as a legal name when they are very clearly different things. What is the problem with her having a full name anyway? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.206.59 (talk) 21:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

May 2007 paragraph

There's a paragraph about her "exasperation" with Tony Blair over some issues, based on a single source. Was that some WP:RECENTISM dating back to 2007, or is it something significant in the context of her nearly 70-year reign? Park3r (talk) 02:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

It's less than the coverage of Thatcher and they were both prime minister for over 10 years. I think the political events of a decade merit a few sentences. DrKay (talk) 07:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Reference format

@DrKay: regarding the full stops I added being removed per WP:CITEVAR. I realize now that the format was inconsistent after my edit, as some references still did not have full stops, but with your reversion the format is still inconsistent. The current references numbered 31, 33, 49 and 222 still end in full stops. I don't believe there is a way to remove them due to the templates used for those citations, so for the format to be consistent throughout the article, I think that either full stops would need to be added to other references, or some of the citation templates would need to be changed. Is this correct? WP:CITEVAR says "imposing one style on an article with inconsistent citation styles (e.g., some of the citations in footnotes and others as parenthetical references): an improvement because it makes the citations easier to understand and edit" is standard practice and generally considered helpful.

In case the numbers change, I mean these references:

  • "No. 36973". The London Gazette (Supplement). 6 March 1945. p. 1315.
  • "No. 37205". The London Gazette (Supplement). 31 July 1945. p. 3972.
  • "No. 38128". The London Gazette. 21 November 1947. p. 5495.
  • UK Retail Price Index inflation figures are based on data from Clark, Gregory (2017). "The Annual RPI and Average Earnings for Britain, 1209 to Present (New Series)". MeasuringWorth. Retrieved 2 February 2020.

Thanks. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Monarch

She has been the longest reigning monarch in British history Herrera3428 (talk) 15:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion to improve the article but note this is already mentioned. MilborneOne (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Current Events Template

Due to Prince Phillip's death, i have added the current events template. DM5 19:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Slightly strange content?

"From April to September 1982, the Queen was anxious but proud of her son, Prince Andrew, who was serving with British forces during the Falklands War.". I am unsure whether the in depth analysis of her feelings is necessary, especially since It appears that this is mere speculation.Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). Should this be changed? HistoricalSimon (talk) 11:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I went ahead and reworded it somewhat. It may need some more work, but it does at least look ok for now... Earl of Arundel (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Or maybe not. It's really disappointing to see just how rampant bad stewardship has become on Wikipedia. And particularly regarding DrKay, who would obviously much rather abuse other editors than encourage participation. Shame on you! Earl of Arundel (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Huh? That comment is far out of the blue, it can only be considered bizarre. DrKay (talk) 15:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
You have repeatedly reverted EVERY SINGLE change I have made without a single effort to be civil and discuss. How is that not sociopathic? Earl of Arundel (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't know what you're talking about, sorry. Most recently, I helped integrate a change you made in response to HistoricalSimon by inserting 'reportedly' into a speculative claim and adjusting the text to match the sources given and adhere to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style: [1]. I don't know and cannot recall any other interaction. Your animosity seems wholly unfounded. DrKay (talk) 23:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
To break down the edit:
In April of 1982: this is against MOS:DATE and the end date had been deleted without explanation, hence I changed it to From April to September 1982
the Queen's son, Prince Andrew, entered active service in the Falklands War: this was misleading in combination with the date of 1982 since he entered active service in 1979, I therefore changed it to the Queen's son, Prince Andrew, served with British forces in the Falklands War
a fact: this is unnecessary and words like 'a fact', 'in fact', etc. are often deprecated and simply cut since all content should be factual, I therefore cut it
which reportedly caused the Queen some distress: only change here is a change in wording to for which she reportedly felt anxiety, which is closer to the sources (Note the retention of reportedly.)
She nonetheless expressed great pride in her son's decision: this is not found in either source provided and is explicitly addressed in the edit summary. It was shortened in my edit to and pride, which avoids making an unsupported claim and is simpler. DrKay (talk) 23:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't know what to say! For some reason, at that moment it just seemed to be a recurring thing. I was obviously mistaken of course, and I do apologize for the misunderstanding. Earl of Arundel (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

First widow queen since Victoria

Article now says: 

   after which she became the first British monarch to reign as a widow since Queen Victoria.

She's the first reigning queen since Victoria, so of course there were no other reigning widows. Isn't this a bit silly?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.200.240.180 (talk • contribs)

I agree. I just removed the "first widow since Victoria" bit from the text. Aoi (青い) (talk) 05:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
@Peter Ormond: Pinging the person who readded it to the article. I still don't support including this in the article as worded by Peter Ormond. As the IP noted, she's the first reigning queen regnant since Victoria so it's WP:UNDUE to describe her as the first "widow" since Victoria. However, I am OK with @DrKay:'s version since it's a bit more noteworthy given there were four other monarchs who have reigned since Victoria and none of them were widows or widowers. Aoi (青い) (talk) 11:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
@Aoi: I have now added the phrase: 'the first widowed British monarch since Queen Victoria', as a man or woman who has lost their spouse has been "widowed" (Common term for widows and widowers).[1] Peter Ormond (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.joincake.com/blog/widow-vs-widower/
Whilst that’s technically correct, I prefer the clarity of Dr Kay’s version and I’m not sure why it was worth the effort to change it. I think rightly or wrongly what will spring to the average reader’s mind still is “she was the only widow” since Victoria when reading that wording. DeCausa (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
The version that you are mentioning said "she became the first British monarch to reign as a widow or widower". This sentence is incorrect as The Queen is a woman and therefore is not a widower. Hence, I added "the first widowed British monarch", as the word "widowed" (the past tense form of the 'verb' widow), can be used for both men and women who have lost their spouses. Peter Ormond (talk) 01:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Drkay's version is not incorrect. It does not imply that the Queen is a widower--the phrase "widow or widower" refers to all the monarchs that have reigned since Victoria, and does not refer only to the current Queen. Though I can live with the text as it reads now, I am with DeCausa on this and prefer DrKay's version. Aoi (青い) (talk) 01:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
yes, I fail to see why DrKay’s version is incorrect. “widow or widower” qualifies “monarch”, which is obviously gender neutral, and not “she” in that sentence. DeCausa (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Why not say "the first British monarch since Queen Victoria to reign after their spouse died."  ? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Sounds like they only started reigning after Phillip's death. Maybe "the first British monarch since Queen Victoria whose spouse has died during their reign"? Mabuska (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Does this even need mentioning? I noticed that the sentence in question isn't referenced. Are there reliable sources that mention this, or is it just some trivial factoid that an editor thought would be good to include? It seems unnecessary to me. nagualdesign 19:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Comparing the two, Victoria was widowed when she was only 42 years old, and only 9 months after her mother had died. Albert's death profoundly affected her, and her subsequent withdrawal from public life had a profound effect on the monarchy. She reigned for another 40 years and is widely remembered as "the widow queen", always dressed in black. Queen Elizabeth is already older than Victoria ever was, and becoming a widow at her age isn't particularly uncommon, save for the fact that she's the queen. If she withdraws from public life and starts wearing black, and secondary sources begin referring to her as a widow, it will be worth mentioning in the article. Until and unless that happens, it seems rather crass to add it to the article as a bit of trivia. nagualdesign 19:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

yes, you’re right. DeCausa (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Pointless to mention this. Whether a monarch becomes widowed or not is not a historically major fact about their reign, and "being the first since" is certainly not something that becomes part of their historical legacy. naugaldesign's point about sources is significant; if this has not been made a point of in Reliable Sources, it would be Original Research to include it. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I have removed it from the article while it is under discussion. There is no clear consensus either way at the moment, but as challenged recent material, it should be left out while the discussion progresses. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Agree with taking it out. Without sources it’s WP:UNDUE (Don’t think it’s OR though. As a factoid/trivia, it’s WP:BLUE). DeCausa (talk) 21:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
I removed it only from the lead, where it is challenged. It is still in the article text, in the "longevity" section, where it has one reference and may be regarded as harmless trivia — like a lot of the rest of that section. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep it out. I haven't seen any source mentioning this in my reading about the subject of the D of E's death, which confirms the notion that it's basically irrelevant. Since Victoria there have been three kings who died in office and were all outlived by their wives. Not surprising really given that women live longer than men on average.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    Agreed, unless reliable sources start regularly noting it, it should be kept out. Further to the lifespan point, all the intervening male kings married younger women. Prince Philip was older than the Queen. CMD (talk) 04:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Aligned table of realms in the infobox

For me, this version of the aligned table of realms in the infobox is the best version so far presented because it is the only version I've seen so far that puts all the realms (bar one) on a single line in both the desktop and mobile versions in both Chrome and Edge. I prefer each item to be on a single line because (1) it's shorter and the infobox is extremely long already, and (2) it's easier to understand because the relationship between the dates and realms is clearer. DrKay (talk) 08:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

On my iPad/Safari both versions are the same - have all bar one on mobile and desktop. On my Mac desktop with Safari or Chrome, both versions are the same (all on a single line bar one). DeCausa (talk) 10:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

"Kraliçe İkinci Elizabeth" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Kraliçe İkinci Elizabeth. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 30#Kraliçe İkinci Elizabeth until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 17:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Titles and succession

Prince Phillip needs to be replaced from "Titles and succession". --2A02:2F07:B10C:E300:C0DD:69DF:E08D:5938 (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I've removed that part of the article as it's not very important and would have been removed on her death anyway. DrKay (talk) 14:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Potentially confusing revert

I made a bit of a mess trying to revert some recent edits[2] by Neveselbert. I was trying to preserve a portion of the edits, but that didn't work as expected, so I'm just going to reinstate the rest of that by hand. Earl of Arundel (talk) 23:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Lead Image after her passing

Consensus is that this is a question to be discussed as and when the Queen does pass away, it is not something to address now.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

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 Queen is 95, and her reign may end in the later years of this decade. So, we should seek a consensus for what image should be used as Lead Image for the article after her reign ends. It is standard to change the lead image and depict the subject as they are best known after passing. In the event of her passing, I'd recommend an image from the start or middle of her reign.

Full options:

  • 1953 (A)
    1953 (A)
  • 1959 (B)
    1959 (B)
  • 1976 (C)
    1976 (C)
  • 1983 (D)
    1983 (D)
  • 1986 (E)
    1986 (E)

Please post your thoughts. Peter Ormond (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2021 (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.

RFC Lead Paragraph

NAC: The responses are about evenly split between A, leaving it at one sentence, and B or C, expanding it. There are reasonable arguments based on the MOS and other guidelines both ways. There is No Consensus as to whether to leave the current lede sentence or expand it. I recommend that someone write a specific expanded lede paragraph and submit an RFC. Since there has been no consensus, the current wording should remain until there is either further discussion or a new RFC, and a new RFC with a specific wording is both permitted and welcome. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

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.

What should the lead paragraph look like? Should it be one sentence long, as it currently stands. Or, should it be about 3 to 4 sentences long (as, for example, in this version)?

  • A. It is fine as it currently stands.
  • B It should be 3 to 4 sentences long.
  • C Other (please explain).

This topic comes up frequently on this talk page, and was recently discussed here, and here.

The relevant guidelines are MOS:OPENPARABIO, MOS:BEGIN, and WP:PARAGRAPH.

LK (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments

  • A. I think the sentence is fine as it currently stands. The information meets MOS:OPENPARABIO and establishes her notability; naming every single Commonwealth country does little to support it.--Bettydaisies (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • A Nothing wrong with the status quo. ~ HAL333 20:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I strongly prefer B. According to MOS:OPENPARABIO, The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable, which obviously can't be done in a single sentence. B provides this context while A does not. Loki (talk) 05:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • A. The suggestion is vague and frankly a bit arbitrary. I say keep as is. Earl of Arundel (talk) 06:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • A. Per MOS:OPENPARABIO: the first sentence establishes her name, date of birth, context and notability, and the alternate lead did not reflect the balance of reliable sources; it said she was queen of 3 countries (South Africa, Pakistan and Ceylon) which are rarely if ever considered the first notable things about her, while excluding 25 other countries of which she was head of state including very large countries, such as Nigeria, which is about 10 times larger than Ceylon. Per MOS:BEGIN: Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead. It is not practical or desirable to list all 32 countries of which she was head of state or all the notable things that happened in a 70-year reign in the first paragraph. The detail should be elsewhere and the first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. DrKay (talk) 07:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
    Is it not possible to meet the standards of MOS:BEGIN while also observing WP:PARAGRAPH, which provides, One-sentence paragraphs are unusually emphatic, and should be used sparingly? 24.77.42.223 (talk) 07:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    It is not possible to comment without knowing what these 3 or 4 sentences would contain. The RfC began by saying option B was "as in this version". That has been clarified, but many other suggestions for expanding the first paragraph ran into similar or worse problems. The last suggested expansion (from December 2020, linked in the opening comment) was factually wrong, uncited, misleading and not found in the article body. A single sentence along the lines suggested by Markbassett (She is both the longest-serving and the longest-lived British monarch, having ascended the throne on 6 February 1952.), would almost certainly be fine by me, although I obviously can't speak for others. However, stretching out a first paragraph artificially with incorrect or undue content just to make a target number of sentences is arbitrary at best. DrKay (talk) 08:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • C I don't understand why there is so much focus on the initial sentence in replies so far, but the basic point that trivia should be excluded seems good. However, that doesn't mean the entire first paragraph should be a single sentence. It seems almost self-evident that it shouldn't. The question then is what to include, and B feels very much a list of trivia, so C seems applicable. CMD (talk) 07:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • B/C All of the replies so far seem to be under the impression that choosing the second option B means endorsing that specific version that the RFC linked to as an example of a 3 or 4 sentence long paragraph; but that is not what the question was, and answering option B means only that you think the paragraph ought to be 3 or 4 sentences long, regardless of what the details contained within it happen to be. So, with that said, I agree with CMD. Firejuggler86 (talk) 01:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • B/C That single line does not seem enough. It doesn’t seem enough to fulfill MOS:OPENPARABIO and doesn’t have a good appearance to my eye as a start for the article. It seems more abrupt and shorter than most beginnings in List of British Monarchs or Monarchies in Europe. As mentioned in the discussions, it’s appearance in cellphone or Google presentation is poor. Selection B looks better, but I could see something else such as the normal giving date of crowning and saying she is both longest-serving and longest-lived British monarch. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Competence is required. If you are too incompetent to see that I explicitly pointed out you had confused accession with coronation[3] and that I explicitly agreed with the addition of the accession date[4], then you should not be editing wikipedia. Learn the difference between accession and coronation. DrKay (talk) 07:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • B/C – Beginning an article with a one-sentence paragraph is generally inappropriate in a publication using an encyclopedic style. As noted in the MOS, One-sentence paragraphs are unusually emphatic, and should be used sparingly. As with other commenters, I am not, however, married to the version linked to by Lawrencekhoo. 24.77.42.223 (talk) 07:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • B As others have pointed out, B does not imply endorsement of my version, just endorsement of a 3 or 4 sentence first paragraph. I think it's pretty self-evident that having a normal length first paragraph would be preferable to a one sentence first paragraph. LK (talk) 08:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • A It should be kept as it is.Sea Ane (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • B, per MOS:OPENPARABIO - Idealigic (talk) 06:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • B The opening should be a normal length paragraph of 3 or 4 sentences. Spudlace (talk) 01:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • A, as in it's fine to have a one-sentence first paragraph, but also B/C, in that it's also fine to have more than one sentence in the first paragraph as well. The argument seems really to be over what those sentences could be rather than the number of them (I agree that all the previous suggestions were inappropriate). The current introduction is 5 paragraphs and there should be 3-4. Maybe the fourth paragraph could be merged into the first one? Celia Homeford (talk) 07:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • C per CMD’s comment. B is definitely wrong (trivia). A single sentence paragraph can’t be right. So, it needs other meaningful sentences, but not the ones in B. DeCausa (talk) 12:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • A. I think the sentence is fine as it currently stands. It is crisp, appropriate and sharp. --Whiteguru (talk) 22:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
repetitive nightmare to mobile view
  • B Definitely add to the first paragraph...well technically not a paragraph it should be one. The lead as of now is a repetitive nightmare in mobile view because you get one sentence and then a giant infobox that you have to scroll through... regurgitating the same thing over and over. Bet we lose many readers because of the scrolling off the bat. The fact that this is come up multiple times should indicate to those watching the article that is a problem too many Moxy- 22:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Expanding the first paragraph won't solve that problem because the stuff added in option B is also in the infobox, so you get more repetition by expanding the first paragraph not less. DrKay (talk) 07:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Prose is better then data chart for retaining editors. Best have prose first in a cases of this nature.....its why the first paragraph is seen before infobox in mobileview. --Moxy- 13:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  • C: In my opinion, the current lead paragraph should kept like that; and after her death, it should be changed to something like this:

"Elizabeth II was Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand from 6 February 1952 until her death in ????. In addition to that, she was also Queen of 28 other Commonwealth realms during different periods in her reign. Her reign of ? years is longer than the reign of any other British monarch in history, and was marked by a great decolonisation of the territories of the British Empire, and its transformation into the Commonwealth of Nations." Peter Ormond (talk) 09:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that. Something like: “Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926)[a] is Queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other Commonwealth realms.[b] She succeeded to the throne on the death of her father, George VI, on 6 February 1952 and is the longest-lived and longest-reigning British monarch and oldest and longest-serving current head of state.” DeCausa (talk) 11:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I prefer to refer to the "British throne", or "throne" after "British monarch" as in my version above from nearly a month ago, because it escapes the argument over whether there is one throne or 32. (If 32, she didn't succeed her father to the thrones of 25 of them and she didn't succeed to those thrones in 1952.) I also think it is unnecessary to mention the death of her predecessor twice in the lead. I prefer to keep it in the second paragraph, which is more in line with the other monarchs' articles, which give the accession date in the first paragraph but not the reason for the accession. The reason for the accession is typically explained in the second or third paragraph, as is done here at present. DrKay (talk) 12:39, 4 May 2021 (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.

Inbreeding

I'm sorry, but I've got to say it. Some might want to absolutely kill me for pointing this out. It isn't mentioned on Elizabeth or Philip's article, but it should be. It's the truth, and I don't care about things not portraying the royals in a positive light not being mentioned on the article. I'm a fact based man, and I don't care about their honour. Look at these: Royal intermarriage and Royal descendants of Queen Victoria and King Christian IX. They're both absolutely inbred! They don't deserve protection. This should be noted on the article with links to these pages, but I could only view the source. Her and her deceased husband were heavily related to Queen Victoria and they're third cousins. There's no reason not to put this directly on the page, and the people of the Great British public and the commonwealth need to know this when they read the page. 62.6.32.178 (talk) 22:00, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Elizabeth II#Marriage states that "They were second cousins once removed through King Christian IX of Denmark and third cousins through Queen Victoria." Additionally, it's customary to start new discussions at the bottom of the page. Thanks.--Bettydaisies (talk) 22:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a tabloid. We follow WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:BLPBALANCE guidelines here. Earl of Arundel (talk) 00:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

First widow queen since Victoria

Reviving this discussion from the archive.

The third paragraph of the article now ends with this text, recently re-added by @Peter Ormond: 

   after which she became the first British monarch to reign as a widow or widower since Queen Victoria.

Another section later in the article now contains the exact same verbiage, and does have a couple of sources ([[5]] and [[6]]), both of which mention, unlike the Wikipedia text, that her widowhood is unlikely to be similar to Victoria's.

I thought there was close to a consensus this was "trivia" not worth including at all. Maybe people will accept it based on a couple of press mentions within the ocean of articles on Prince Philip's passing, but does it really need to be in the lead? (Especially when identical text is in the main body.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.200.240.180 (talk • contribs)

Remove as I am unaware of consensus changing since this was last discussed. Agree with IP that this is only trivia and not lead-worthy. Aoi (青い) (talk) 04:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. DeCausa (talk) 12:26, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Golden Jubilee section

In my opinion, the section "Golden Jubilee" should be expanded to cover greater details of the decade (2000-2009), like other sections. Peter Ormond 💬 15:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Head of the Commonwealth

One of The Queen's most significant post is Head of the Commonwealth. Head of the Commonwealth is not a royal title, but an official post in the Commonwealth of Nations, just like Secretary-General of the United Nations. This position is non-hereditary and is therefore not inherited with other royal titles; the Head is appointed by the Commonwealth heads of government. So, such an important post should be included in the infobox.

The preview of the infobox with Head of the Commonwealth included, can be seen here.

And to those who say that infobox shouldn't be too long, adding an important title doesn't make it too long, but rather makes it better and more informative. See the infobox at Sushma Swaraj.

I also started a discussion at the talk page of George VI, but nobody is responding, so I have also started one here. Peter Ormond (talk) 08:16, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Her role as Queen is also a symbolic one and she acts as a figurehead of the nation. Yes, the title of "Head of the Commonwealth" forms part of the Royal Style and Titles Act, but it is non-hereditary, and it is speculated that an elected head may be chosen in the future to make the organisation more democratic. Also, I don't support the notion of adding it to the realms in the infobox, as it is not a royal title, and the role of the Head of the Commonwealth is completely different from that of a monarch. Peter Ormond (talk) 08:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
@Peter Ormond: You’re editing against consensus with this. And the edit summary is highly inappropriate per WP:ONUS. It’s on you to stop trying to insert it when one editor (me) on the talk pages says he’s against it, another editor reverts you. Now I see a third editor has now reverted you. Also, accusing an editor, who has made a legitimate revert, of vandalism as you did here is also inappropriate and can be a form of personal attack. 17:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
I see you’ve behaved similarly, with similar reaction, at George VI and its talk page, which makes it all the more surprising. DeCausa (talk) 18:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I'd support this addition. Including it in the infoboxe is a good representation of the transition from Empire to Commonwealth and the role of the monarch from political authority to figurehead. —WildComet talk 08:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have two problems with the suggested addition shown in the preview. (1) The predecessor, designated successor and dates of tenure are identical to those shown in the other 'succession' parameter; infoboxes should not duplicate content or repeat information twice in the same infobox. Adding another set of identical parameters for 'succession1' is repetitive and unnecessary when they are the same as 'succession'. There is already substantial duplication in the infobox and repetition is one of the complaints listed in the other RfC on the lead paragraph (above). (2) I know of no other encyclopedia that lists secretaries-general in the infobox of the British monarch. This is a novelty that appears to place undue weight on the link between the two. Given the length of the infobox and previous complaints about its length (in mobile view in particular) we should be looking at opportunities to reduce it, not extend it. DrKay (talk) 08:21, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. The addition of Head of Commonwealth to infobox is not necessary for the infobox since "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms" is already in the infobox. It's also worth pointing out that the Head of State of a Commonwealth country is not the same as the Head of Commonwealth. Additionally, Head of the Commonwealth is not a title that is statutorily or otherwise attached to the monarch. It could, for example, be passed to Prince Charles at any point before a succession. Also, if such titles are added to the infobox, it opens the door to far more titles of the same ilk, such as Head of the Armed Forces and Supreme Governor of the Church of England etc. Tonyinman (talk) 21:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
The titles Head of the Armed Forces and Supreme Governor of the Church of England are always attached to the British monarch, whereas Head of Commonwealth is non-hereditary and is elected by the Commonwealth Heads of Government. Peter Ormond (talk) 23:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
@Tonyinman: I'd note that a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, a political association of nations, is not the same as a Commonwealth realm, where the queen directly reigns. The head of the Commonwealth of Nations (the organization) is not necessarily also head of the Commonwealth realms (individual countries). Being the British monarch implies that she is also head of the armed forces, CoE, and the Commonwealth realms, which share succession acts - this is not the case for the Commonwealth of Nations. —WildComet talk 00:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
The title of Emperor of India also formed part of the Royal Style and Titles Act, but it is listed at the infoboxes of monarchs from Victoria to George VI. Peter Ormond (talk) 01:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
The infobox already links to the Commonwealth realms. That should be sufficient. Earl of Arundel (talk) 02:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
@Earl of Arundel: As above, I'd note that a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, a political association of nations, is not the same as a Commonwealth realm, where the queen directly reigns. The head of the Commonwealth of Nations (the organization) is not necessarily also head of the Commonwealth realms (individual countries). —WildComet talk 00:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support the inclusion. I wouldn’t characterize the inclusion as “unnecessary clutter” but important information that informs readers the transition of British monarchy through history with who has the title and who doesn’t. Queen Elizabeth I wouldn’t have have it but Queen Elizabeth II does that tell readers how the monarchy has changed and what role it has today. Black roses124 (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Note however, that the title isn't restricted to the British monarch. Commonweath leaders could've chosen a president of one of the Commonwealth republics, to be the next Head of the Commonwealth. The prince of Wales, wasn't/isn't heir-apparent to the title. He had to be designated by the Commonwealth, to be the next head. GoodDay (talk) 18:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to change top image

I propose we change the top image to a more recent photo of Her Majesty the Queen

Beatrix TBS (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2021 (UTC) TBS

There aren't any good alternatives to the current image in terms of quality and resolution. And her face hasn't quite changed in recent years, so I don't think there is a need to change the image for the time being. Peter Ormond 💬 08:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect naming of Bibliography section

I changed the heading from Bibliography to Further reading, thinking it was a suggested reading list. Later on DrKay took action and reverted my edit to Bibliography, explaining that "part of the references section: these are the fully expanded details of the short citations used in the footnotes". If it's part of the reference section, the heading nevertheless should not be "Bibliography" per Section organization guideline, which states, "Notes and references, with a section heading "Notes" or "References" (usually the latter), or a separate section for each in this order (see Wikipedia:Citing sources); avoid "Bibliography", confusable with the subject's works". Thinker78 (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. When I see "Bibliography" that suggests to me that it's a list of books written by Elizabeth II herself. The use of "notes" and "references" seems to be the most usual for what you're describing.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
It could be changed to "Works cited". Peter Ormond 💬 02:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Move proposal

Requested move discussions should be listed at one of the pages affected, and by following the instructions at WP:RM.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:36, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

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.

I suggest that the following pages be moved to make them consistent with other such articles: Peter Ormond 💬 06:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

No, it not "made-up garbage". These countries were officially monarchies with The Queen as head of state. Peter Ormond 💬 07:34, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Clarified. DrKay (talk) 07:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree. It's of little personal relevance to Elizabeth II's biography and more to the former institutions of these countries themselves.--Bettydaisies (talk) 08:06, 7 July 2021 (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.

This is now under discussion at Talk:Queen of Ghana. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:15, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Infobox: surname inconsistency

Official birth register of England and Wales for the second quarter of 1926. "Windsor, Elizabeth A.M." is listed in the second column, about a third of the way down.
Marriage certificate of Philip Mountbatten and Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor, signed by both of them, their three surviving parents, and a bunch of other relations.

In the infobox of Elizabeth II, we show a surname Windsor. Yet we apparently 'hide via note' Mountbatten-Windsor in the infoboxes of her children & some of her grandchildren & great-grandchildren. Why the inconsistency? GoodDay (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

The name of her house is Windsor of course. But I’d like to see a good quality WP:RS stating that she has had the surname Windsor or that the name Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor has been used. I have a memory that by convention monarchs and their children don’t have surnames as such (the ‘Mountbatten-Windsor’ compromise was an innovation). DeCausa (talk) 07:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]
IMHO, it should be hidden in 'note form' in the infobox. But, more importantly we need consistency in these infoboxes of George V's descendants. Note: We're showing Windsor in the infoboxes of Elizabeth II's first cousins.
Either we show Windsor and/or Mountbatten-Windsor in the infoboxes of these people (like here & at Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester, Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, etc) or we hide them in note form (like at Charles, Prince of Wales, Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, Prince George of Cambridge, etc). GoodDay (talk) 13:26, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
All of her children and descendants via her children are called Mountbatten-Windsor because of their marriage and Philip wanted his children to have his surname and not just Windsor. Beatrix TBS (talk) 01:37, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
We just wanna know why the surnames are being treated differently, in the British royal family members infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 01:51, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
I have to correct, only her descendants who does not have princely titles use Mountbatten-Windsor surname. If they are prince/princess they don’t use surname.Berfu (talk) 06:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't even see their surnames in their infoboxes. Beatrix TBS (talk) 21:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
You're still not signing your posts, correctly. Read up on WP:SIGNATURE. -- GoodDay (talk) 21:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Official The Royal Family Twitter account published her birth certificate. There was no Windsor surname.[19] Also there was a talk about this in Talk:British royal family#RfC about the full names. I don’t think there should be surname for Elizabeth since she doesn’t use that. Name should be common. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)Berfu (talk) 06:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I've no objections to either its removal from the infobox 'or' its being changed into a note form. GoodDay (talk) 06:34, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Elizabeth does not have a surname. Just because she married a man named Mountbatten does not mean she became Mrs Mountbatten. She's a monarch, and above surnames. The only thing she got from her husband was the title Duchess of Edinburgh, which she used between 1947 and 1952. She's a member of the House of Windsor, but that does not translate to a surname.
Now see Mountbatten-Windsor: Mountbatten-Windsor is the personal surname used by some of the male-line descendants of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. Under a declaration made in Privy Council in 1960, the name Mountbatten-Windsor applies to male-line descendants of the Queen without royal styles and titles.[1] Individuals with royal styles do not usually use a surname, but some descendants of the Queen with royal styles have used Mountbatten-Windsor when a surname was required.
That is, the Queen is not Mountbatten-Windsor, or indeed Windsor, and neither are any of her children, because they all have royal styles and titles, viz. Prince or Princess. The name Mountbatten-Windsor can only apply to the Queen's grandchildren or later generations, and even then only to those who don't have royal titles, such as Archie Mountbatten-Windsor. But not Prince George of Cambridge, Princess Charlotte or Prince Louis, or those who inherited their surname from their fathers, such as Peter and Zara Phillips.
Her spurious "surname" should be removed. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 08:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Note we've also got "Windsor" in the infoboxes of the Queen's paternal first cousins & their children. The Queen's father & paternal uncles also have Windsor in their infoboxes. I can't remember who added them in, but I wish they hadn't. GoodDay (talk) 08:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
That the monarch is "above surnames" is an Internet myth that has been debunked here and elsewhere. Surtsicna (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Keep it in. There's adequate proof in the independent reliable sources and official primary documents provided here that the surname was in use by her and is found in secondary sources. DrKay (talk) 09:59, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm against moving it to a footnote because as I said in a previous discussion, the footnotes are rather silly. 'The Queen doesn't usually use a surname, but when she does it is "Windsor"', is no different from writing 'The Queen doesn't usually use her other Christian names but when she does they are "Alexandra Mary"'. You may as well not bother with the parameter at all when it leads to such footnotes. So if the name Windsor is removed or moved to a footnote on the grounds that she doesn't usually use it, then we may as well remove the entire name from the infobox because she doesn't usually use her other given names either. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
As noted, we had a huge RfC on this question last year, as linked by Celia above. However, I'm not entirely sure what the close is saying. The wording was "I determine the consensus to be that the infobox may be edited as proposed". But what was proposed? The discussion was very long and went in different directions, so it's unclear to me if that close meant we should include the surname or should not include it. @S Marshall: please could you elaborate?  — Amakuru (talk) 10:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
At that time I determined that the consensus was that the infobox should display as shown on the right of this post. The requisite edit was never made, and from recent discussions I am far from confident if that is still the consensus.—S Marshall T/C 12:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Elizabeth II/Archive 42
Given namesElizabeth Alexandra Mary
House and surnameWindsor
IMHO, shouldn't the Royal House name for all of them, be enough? Indeed @S Marshall:, somewhere along the line, that infobox style was gradually rejected & changed, that's if it was ever adopted. GoodDay (talk) 14:45, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
@Celia Homeford: Why is "Mountbatten-Windsor" in 'footnote' form in the bios infoboxes of her children & most of her grand-children & not shown at all, in some of her great-grandchildren's infoboxes? I think we need an RFC, iron things out here, for the sake of consistency among George V's descendants. GoodDay (talk) 13:47, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Listing the subject's given names without the subject's surname is certainly not an established practice in biographies either on or off Wikipedia. What are we accomplishing by listing Elizabeth's given names alone? Surtsicna (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

As a republican, I personally would enjoy seeing surnames added to all monarchs & families bio articles. But, I can't let my political leanings dictate my position on this topic. Thus I support no surnames. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
What does dictate your position? Where is the evidence? Surtsicna (talk) 16:29, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Windsor is the name of the Royal House. Mountbatten-Windsor an apparent cadet of that Royal House. Either way, I'm sticking with no surname. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
So no evidence in the face of evidence to the contrary. Again, I am asking what we hope to accomplish by listing her given names alone? That is not practiced in other biographies on Wikipedia or elsewhere. Surtsicna (talk) 16:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
It's practiced on other monarch bios & royal family member bios. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Here is the evidence: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Royal surnames Rastgele83893 (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_II/Archive_42&oldid=1085454950"