This is an archive of past discussions about Elizabeth II. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Considering the recent outcry against Andrew, the wave of Republican sentiment that has risen recently (both related to and unrelated to Andrew's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein), the recent uptick in criticism of the monarchy's wealth AND rapidly increasing outrage over England's colonial past (such as Barbados becoming a Republic) - I suggest that we alter the line in the lead which says However, support for the monarchy in the United Kingdom has been and remains consistently high, as does her personal popularity. There are an abundance of recent sources which contradict that claim. Therefore, I feel like - whilst it would have been true in the early 2010s - it absolutely isn't now and must be changed. The article should also be updated to reflect crticism of the monarchy in recent years. I would like to hear others' thoughts on this so a consensus can be reached. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 00:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
All recent polling by major organisations e.g. YouGov indicate support remains high, so the line is still accurate. I suspect you may have a dog in this fight? But regardless, please feel free to cough up this "abundance of recent sources" that claim support for the monarchy isn't still high overall. --Jkaharper (talk) 00:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't have a dog in this fight. If most people do not support the monarchy anymore, I want the lead and article to reflect that. If most people still support the monarchy, I want the lead and article to reflect that. Please do not be aggressive to me. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 00:21, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2) Ipsos data from March 2022 found that more than 2/3 of individuals polled had a favourable impression of the Queen, and that the level of the Queen's support actually increased 7 percentage points since 2018. Polling for other individuals varied wildly – Prince William had a 64% approval rating, while Prince Andrew had an 11% approval rating. A YouGov poll from 2021 also found that a majority of those polled support the monarchy, though the level of support among young adults declined quite a bit from a prior 2019 poll. In any case, I don't see that the statement in the article is "absolutely isn't [true] and must be changed." Aoi (青い) (talk) 00:24, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
It's late here so whilst I have sources, I do not have time post them all here now. Regardless, I do have them and will reply to you when I have time. Thank you for being courteous to me and I hope we can reach a consensus soon. I also do not think the Ipsos poll on impressions of Elizabeth are reliable - since only 2055 people were polled there. Attitudes to the monarchy are far-reaching so I don't think that a selection size of ~1417 people (69% of 2055) is an accurate reflection of majority views towards her. Both considering how many people both do and do not support her in Britain and the Commonwealth - I think that sample size is not reliable regardless of whether it skews towards 'for' or 'against'. Please tell me if you disagree, though. I would love to hear your thoughts so we can reach a consensus. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 00:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Not inherently - but I think it is compared to the millions of people who live in Britain and the Commonwealth. I'm not saying that the sample size should consist of millions - but it should consist of a higher number to reflect the far-reaching attitudes towards Elizabeth, from my point of view. Maybe I've misunderstood something though, and if I have I would appreciate you letting me know. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 00:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
TBH, the whole support/oppose bit should be left out of the bio. AFAIK, there's no referendum being scheduled on whether or not the UK should become a republic. GoodDay (talk) 00:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Whether the British monarchy is popular or unpopular, is irrelevant. There's not enough Brits calling for a republic. GoodDay (talk) 01:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Why bother mentioning the monarchy's level of popularity. Unless a referendum is coming up, the topic is irrelevant. GoodDay (talk) 01:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't think it should be removed. It's a perfectly formed sentence with relevant information. It tells a reader unfamiliar with the context generally how the public feel towards Her Majesty. It also isn't entirely about the popularity of the monarchy as a whole; some of it focuses on her alone: "However, support for the monarchy in the United Kingdom has been and remains consistently high, as does her personal popularity." Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
The problem here is that the lead is supposed to summarise the whole article. But, in the rest of the text - such as the section on "Public perception and character" - there is (quite correctly) nothing said about the popularity of the monarchy as an institution, only comments about her personal popularity. So, there is no justification for the words "...support for the monarchy in the United Kingdom has been and remains consistently high..." to be in the lead of this article, whether it is accurate or not. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps more should be put into the popularity of the monarchy in the article then. Seems appropriate, seeing as she has been the figurehead of the monarchy for over 70 years, and as a result has seen sea changes in the popularity of the monarchy as an institution. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
But this article is a biography of a single person. Obviously there could be a reference to the popularity of the monarchy during her reign, but the bulk of the text on that subject should be in the article about the monarchy, and there is still no good reason for the statement about the institution's popularity to be in the lead of this biographical article. I would revise that sentence simply to state: "Her personal popularity in the United Kingdom has remained high." Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:58, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
But that undermines the point of the pair of sentences in the first place. "Elizabeth has occasionally faced republican sentiment and press criticism of the royal family... However, support for the monarchy in the United Kingdom has been and remains consistently high, as does her personal popularity." You have to cover both points of view; HMTQ has faced republican sentiment, but despite that she and the monarchy remain popular. If you have it as "Her personal popularity in the United Kingdom remains high" then you neglect to mention the other POV. I don't see why it's even a debate to remove the sentences. They are relevant to the lead and bio, they are neutral, and they contain useful information, with landmark events in her life, such as the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, her children's divorces, and her annus horribilis. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Why bother mentioning it in this bio, though? AFAIK, the UK & most of the other 14 Commonwealth realms have little to no intentions of becoming republics. GoodDay (talk) 14:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand what you think would be wrong with: "Elizabeth has occasionally faced republican sentiment and press criticism of the royal family... However, her personal popularity in the United Kingdom remains high..". There is nothing in the article to support the statement that "support for the monarchy in the United Kingdom has been and remains consistently high", and it's not directly relevant to this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Well then, maybe more should be put in the article to support "support for the monarchy in the United Kingdom has been and remains consistently high". I would say that it is relevant, as Elizabeth is the leading figure of the royal family. For example, if an administration was popular, you would put that on the president's article. Like this excerpt from Barack Obama's article: "During Obama's terms as president, the United States' reputation abroad, as well as the American economy, significantly improved." Perhaps the sentence from Elizabeth's article should read: "During Elizabeth's reign, support for the monarchy in the United Kingdom has been and remains consistently high...", but that's an unnecessarily wordy way of putting it, leaving the original sentence as just fine on its own. That is why I think the two sentences should remain intact. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
If "an administration" in the US was popular, that would be directly related to the incumbent, and so would be relevant to that person's biography. The "administration" changes with each incumbent - but the "office of president" does not. The parallel is with the office, not the administration - that is, the monarchy in the UK is a permanent institution that does not change with the occupant. The level of support for the monarchy, as an institution, is quite distinct from the personal popularity of the monarch. It's not sufficiently relevant to this biography of an individual to be mentioned in the lead - it is tangential. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
If a monarch did something scandalous or shocking, then the popularity of the monarchy would plummet. Seeing as Elizabeth has done a good job of keeping her public image positive, then the popularity of the monarchy is therefore positive. Pretend, if you will, that Andrew becomes king. Wouldn't that leave the monarchy deeply unpopular? Elizabeth has done just fine in keeping the monarchy's image a popular one, and that at least merits a passing mention in the lead. Keeping with the presidential metaphor, the "reigning monarch" changes, but the "Monarchy of the United Kingdom" does not. If the popularity of the reigning monarch in the UK was high, that would be at least somewhat related to the reigning monarch, and so that would be relevant to that person's biography. I would argue that the fact that the monarchy is popular in the UK is relevant to this bio, since Elizabeth has been queen for the last 70 years, and therefore has a massive influence in the monarchy's popularity. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Tim. If a president damages or improves the image of the presidency, we would obviously add this to their biography. Sentences like this are fairly standard in this kind of biography, e.g George VI: "he succeeded in restoring the popularity of the monarchy", Queen Victoria: "Victoria's monarchy became more symbolic than political ... the House of Hanover ... had discredited the monarchy." George IV: "dimmed the prestige of the monarchy". The monarchy's popularity is also something mentioned in most if not all biographies of her, and so similarly it should be mentioned here. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:32, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
But are those statements supported by sources in the body of the text? If they are, that's fine. But, in this case, the statement about the popularity of the monarchy (that is, the institution, not the person) does not seem to be supported in the body of the text, unless I'm missing something, and therefore shouldn't be in the lead. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
I can find mentions of the monarchy's popularity in the text:
Public perception and character, paragraph 8: Polls in Britain in 2006 and 2007 revealed strong support for the monarchy...
Turbulent 1990s and annus horribilis, paragraph 4: Even though support for republicanism in Britain seemed higher than at any time in living memory, republicanism was still a minority viewpoint...
It is a little thin, granted, but the former gives good support for the popularity of the monarchy, and the latter shows that the United Kingdom does not want to abolish the monarchy any time soon. There are sources mentioned above that if added to the article would justify the claim in the lead further. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Thin, and outdated - 2007 was fifteen years ago, and the 1990s were thirty years ago! They provide no basis for saying that "support for the monarchy in the United Kingdom... remains consistently high". Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes, but as I said, sources mentioned previously still support it and can be added to the article. As User:Aoi has mentioned above, "Ipsos data from March 2022 found that more than 2/3 of individuals polled had a favourable impression of the Queen, and that the level of the Queen's support actually increased 7 percentage points since 2018... A YouGov poll from 2021 also found that a majority of those polled support the monarchy...". The 2007 polls and the 1990 statement takes into account the part of the sentence that reads "has been and remains consistently high", as polls and data from throughout her reign will support that. If we use the data from March 2022 and 2021 in the article, the "remains consistently high" part is justified. That is all we need to do to keep the lead intact, and then this issue can be put to bed. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
I would certainly not object to the sourced information you suggest being added. My objection has simply been to the fact that sourced information that is reliable, up to date, and relevant to the article subject, is not currently in the article to support the statement in the lead. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Great. One issue is where to put it. Public perception and character wouldn't work because this is about the institution, not the person. The only one I could think of as being appropriate is under the sub heading "Platinum Jubilee" as the March 2022 poll was conducted after February 6, and therefore in between the actual anniversary date and the public celebrations in June. It could be integrated into the text like this:
"The Queen does not intend to abdicate,[252] though Prince Charles began to take on more of her duties as she grew older and began carrying out fewer public engagements.[253] The popularity of the monarchy remains high, as a poll conducted in March 2022 reveals 44% of individuals from a 2,055 person sample size view the monarchy favourably, with an additional 26% indifferent."
I don't think that it's as seamless or natural as it could be, but it is just an idea. Please do let me know if you could help improve upon this. As for the 2021 source, I think perhaps "COVID-19 pandemic" is the best fit, with something similar, e.g. "During the pandemic the monarchy remained popular" with data from the YouGov poll. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
I keep a distant, occasional eye on this article from one of the monarch's realms. It concerns me whenever I see comment that is purely about the UK. If any content is added based on what is happening in just that country, it MUST be made clear that is the case. HiLo48 (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Absolutely. I'm also not sure whether 44% of those responding in the UK with a favourable view of the monarchy can be described as a "high" proportion. It would be better simply to say: "In the UK, a poll conducted in March 2022 revealed that 44% of individuals from a 2,055 person sample size view the monarchy favourably, with an additional 26% indifferent." I'm not convinced that 44% can be stated as a "high" proportion - it's less than half. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
FWIW, a majority of Canadians are unaware of the monarchy in Canada or are at least indifferent to it. A small group of monarchists are the only ones that make a fuss about the queen & her family. GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
It is still a majority though. 44% think that the UK would be worse off without the monarchy, 26% are indifferent and 22% don't support the monarchy. I will, however, add to the article that the poll was conducted in Great Britain, not in other places in the Commonwealth. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
More about monarchy in the other current realms ?
Can we add a section about the other current realms apart from the UK? There's almost nothing in articles about the monarchy in the other realms. LK (talk) 09:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
There's a whole bunch of articles on those: Monarchy of Canada, Monarchy of Australia, Monarchy of New Zealand, etc. They're all linked from the infobox at the top of the article. There's also quite a lot in the article body about the other realms: Australia and New Zealand in 1927, Canada in 1939, southern Africa in 1947, Malta in 1951, plus Kenya, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Ghana, Africa and the Caribbean, Rhodesia, Austronesia, Australia again, Canada again, New Zealand again, Grenada, Fiji, Jamaica and Canada twice again in the reign section. Australia, Tuvalu and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines are in the public image section. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
This article isn't about the Monarchy of the UK. It's about Elizabeth II, who is equally monarch of the UK and all the realms at the same time. This article should not concentrate on just the UK. HiLo48 (talk) 00:12, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
She's mostly associated with the United Kingdom & resides there, which removes the necessity of a UK governor general. GoodDay (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Legally that's simply not true, and the royalists here in Australia would have conniptions upon reading that. HiLo48 (talk) 04:51, 21 May 2022 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —Sirdog(talk) 18:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Third longest-reigning monarch of all time
I suggest modifying the fourth paragraph (in the introduction) to highlight the fact that Elizabeth II is also the third longest-reigning monarch of a sovereign state in history (at least among those with verifiable reigns by exact dates). Please check the Wikipedia article List of longest-reigning monarchs. In a few days, she'll likely become the second longest-reigning monarch of all time, after surpassing the former King of Thailand, which should definitely be noted in her biography. The article could read: Elizabeth is the longest-lived and longest-reigning British monarch, the longest-serving female head of state, the oldest living and longest-reigning current monarch, the oldest and longest-serving incumbent head of state, and the second/third longest-reigning monarch of a sovereign state in history.
We only put things in the lead if they're in the article body, and we only put things in the article body if they are cited to reliable sources. DrKay (talk) 06:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Also, I’d go the other way. That sentence is already a trivia-bucket. For the lead, longest serving British monarch is quite sufficient. We’re not introducing a guest on Record Breakers (for those old enough) DeCausa (talk) 07:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
While the lead states Elizabeth's name (not title) is "Elizabeth Alexandra Mary", the infobox states her birth name was "Princess Elizabeth of York". To my understanding, the infobox's listing would actually be a title, not a name. CNN lists her birth name as Elizabeth Alexandra Mary (source here), as does CBS (source here). Of course there are editors much more versed in UK royalty names vs. titles, so I could be completely off base. Interested in hearing other editors' thoughts! --Kbabej (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
According to this archived discussion from last year, Elizabeth's birth certificate lists her name as Elizabeth Alexandra Mary. The image of the birth certificate is easily found (here on a discussion on Quora), but it's not attached to a RS. --Kbabej (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
I don’t believe the purpose of that paramater is to show the literal birth name i.e. as stated on a birth certificate. If you look at Template:Infobox royalty the instruction for “birth_name =” is “If different from name or full name”. Obviously, what appears on a birth certificate is the “name or full name” so that can’t be what the parameter is looking for. It’s only if they were known by a different name at birth than their actual name that a name should be set against that parameter. (Many royalty infoboxes in fact don’t have a name against this and only a birth date and place is shown) So yes, that would be about having a different style or title at birth. The approach for this infobox is the same for other British monarchs from George III onwards. DeCausa (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
On 1 June 2022, Buckingham Palace released a photograph of Her Majesty The Queen in commemoration of the Platinum Jubilee. The photo was taken by Ranald Mackenchnie, and the photo has since been used.
The photo is not to be used for commercial purposes but may be used here with proper credit given. It is a very recent photograph of Her Majesty with a clear purpose and focus on the Queen; the background is not distracting and is professionally reminiscent of infobox pictures of previous British monarchs (Queen Victoria, Edward VII, etc). I think that this portrait should be considered for replacement of the 2015 picture used in the Royal infobox. AKTC3 (talk) 13:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
That image will shortly be deleted. We can't use images in violation of wikipedia's image policies. Images MUST be public domain or licensed for commercial use. This is explicit. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
I agree with this statement-
I myself did change the photo in which it stayed for a day until someone switched it back to the older 2015 one, although to the one that I uploaded was photographed in 2015, and mind you it was from a PD, the person who changed it back stated that it should be talked with in the talk section of the page, although your message isn't mine the photo I uploaded looked much better than the classic one that's been there since as long as I can remember but I think it's time for an update as you stated it has been 7 years and I think everyone is just getting tired of the one on wikipedia now. Nolan MacLellan (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
At some point, the infobox image will have to be updated, seven years is a bit of a long time. Her appearance has changed between the ages of 89 & 96. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
This is probably mainly because everyone knows her as Elizabeth II, plus-
Even if you put "Queen Elizabeth II" in the search bar it already redirects you to her page, so I would see no need in it being Queen Elizabeth. Nolan MacLellan (talk) 14:51, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2022
This edit request to Elizabeth II has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Paging @GoodDay and anyone else interested -- The editor's note at the bottom of the lead section cites polls conducted in 2006 and 2007; and implies the last sentence of the lead should not be changed because of them. I argue these polls are outdated and no longer reflective of reality. What do you think? DeaconShotFire (talk) 01:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
TBH, I see no reason to even have polls mentioned in the article. AFAIK, there's little to no chance that the British monarchy will be abolished. GoodDay (talk) 01:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
I'd argue it's important because of her position as head of state. Plenty of elected heads of states' articles mention their popularity and cite polls/studies. (+ With Chuck on the way, I imagine the Windsors don't have long left.) DeaconShotFire (talk) 01:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Some more realms may become republics in the coming decade. But the United Kingdom will mostly likely remain & not become United Republic. GoodDay (talk) 01:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
This isn't what I'm talking about. I'm saying the polls cited in the article are no longer accurate and should be updated to reflect reality. DeaconShotFire (talk) 01:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
The article later even goes on to read "Whilst not as universal as it once was, various polling suggested the popularity of the monarchy remained high in Great Britain during the Platinum Jubilee". This directly contradicts what the lead currently states. Would you agree to changing it for the time being? DeaconShotFire (talk) 02:06, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
@Peter Ormond I knew it would be you as soon as I saw this reverted. The change has been proposed here and GoodDay has agreed with my edit for the time being. The polls cited are from 2006 and 2007 and are no longer reflective of reality. DeaconShotFire (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Article now one of 4 examples used to show what not to do with a lead as 68% of readers only scroll one time.
I noticed that the lead of this page doesn't have the format that the Manual of Style advises. Namely, the first sentence constitutes the entirety of the first paragraph, something that is not in accordance with the aforementioned guideline—specifically, MOS:FIRST and MOS:BEGIN. The reason why there are these two sections and not just a single one is because the first sentence generally constitutes part of the first paragraph which expands on the first sentence with more sentences. My question is if there is a specific consensus as to why Elizabeth II has only the first sentence as the whole of the first paragraph overruling the Manual of Style or is simply something that happened arbitrarily without looking at the relevant MOS:FIRST and MOS:BEGIN guidelines? Cheers! Thinker78(talk)16:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm neither in favour of inclusion or exclusion on this. Just advising that folks 'discuss' it here, rather then fall into an edit-war. GoodDay (talk) 04:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Information about a legal procedure that falls under her head of state functions isn't a part of her public perception and character. Giving one newspaper's brief campaign against a particular parliamentary proceedure doesn't deserve its own section when other, more significant events like, say, the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, gets one brief paragraph. And publishing only The Guardian's take on the matter is the definition of imbalanced. I checked Queen's Consent to see if I could transfer some of the references over. But, I note they're already there. The info about the petition has been moved to that article. --₪MIESIANIACAL05:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
"Information about a legal procedure that falls under her head of state functions isn't a part of her public perception and character." which is irrelevant now that you have moved it to a different section in the article and rewritten it with several mistakes.
"Giving one newspaper's brief campaign against a particular parliamentary proceedure doesn't deserve its own section when other, more significant moments like, say, the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, gets one brief paragraph." I find it interesting that you characterise it as a mere campaign against a parliamentary procedure rather than an ongoing work of investigative journalism.
"And publishing only The Guardian's take on the matter is the definition of imbalanced." Admittedly I didn't think to include the palace's response to the allegations.
Interesting that you say I made "several mistakes" and then you didn't correct any. "On [date]" or "in [year]" is not the mandated way to start a paragraph and, indeed, having paragraph after paragraph start that way is grammatically weak.
The petition is for an inquiry into the convention of Queen's Consent, not into Elizabeth's actions. The Queen didn't invent Queen's Consent. Not this queen, anyway. But, it's late here and this is a busy article. I'm sure others will contend with that while I sleep. --₪MIESIANIACAL05:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, mostly. Except in one respect, it's a technical constitutional issue that's relevant to Queen's consent but not her personal bio. The exception would be if it had been used to benefit her personally. For most of the claims there isn't any allegation in respect of her. There is, however, one claim that seems to be doing that: the 1973 case of removing the requirement for the Queen to disclose beneficial interests in shares. Curiously that doesn't form part of the edit to this article. An argument could be made for a sentence on that to go in here. DeCausa (talk) 12:58, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Possibly. However, The Guardian keeps (so consistently one starts to suspect it's on purpose) leaving out the fact Queen's Consent is given or denied on ministerial advice. Elizabeth can ask for whatever she wants; that doesn't mean a minister alwasys says yes, go ahead, or just automatically meets her request. So, if there was indeed some exemption that personally benefitted Elizabeth, it was still the relevant minister who's responsible. The Guardian uses the term "lobbying", which is inaccurate, since that means "to seek to influence (a politician or public official) on an issue", while the Queen cannot influence her ministers, with bribes, perks, kickbacks, threats, or whatnot. --₪MIESIANIACAL16:09, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't think it matters whether the "final decision" is with ministers or not. If the allegation is that she/her advisers used her constitutional position to influence legislation (and it would be simplistic to limit influence to "bribes, perks, kickbacks, threats") that is noteworthy. DeCausa (talk) 06:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. I did make a typo of one digit. It certainly does constitute "many mistakes".
"Claimed" is a perfectly neutral description of what The Guardian did. "Accused" is more accurate. "Report" is a written account of something that one has observed. The Guardian claimed the Queen had been lobbying. Yet, it did not report on when it observed her trying to influence her ministers or what she used to influence them. So, without proof, it's just an accusation. --₪MIESIANIACAL16:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 September 2022 (3)
This edit request to Elizabeth II has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Feels weird as she has been for so many a constant presence on the world stage. One of the most important monarchs of all time for sure, wonder how the legacy section will be handled. RIP Fbrh47 (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 September 2022 (5)
This edit request to Elizabeth II has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I think the onus is on User:DeaconShotFire to explain reasoning for wanting to make the change. It's illogical to suggest that linking to Republicanism in the United Kingdom implies that Republicanism is exclusive to the UK. That's like saying that when talking about how the covid pandemic has affected the UK, a link to COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom would be inappropriate because it implies that covid is exclusive to the UK, which would be an equal load of baloney. Linking to Abolition of monarchy seems, at best, unnecessary, and might just be a case of MOS:FORCELINK to suit some personal political opinion. An alternative solution would be to use a more generalised term, as in: She has faced occasional republican sentiment...? Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
We are using Republicanism in the United Kingdom because we're exclusively talking about republicanism as it relates to the British constitution, and any other republican movements elsewhere round the world are surely irrelevant in the context of this article. I would also draw your attention to the following sentence/link in the Monarchy of the United Kingdom article (After the 1707 Acts of Union section): However, her reign was also marked by increased support for the republican movement, due in part to Victoria's permanent mourning and lengthy period of seclusion following the death of her husband in 1861. Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
I double checked the wording and it says, "she has faced occasional republican sentiment". There's nothing specifically British about that. Perhaps someone could explain how the republican movements in Austrlalia or Jamaica aren't relevant to the Queen of Australia and Queen of Jamaica? --₪MIESIANIACAL12:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
I understood the sentence to be specifically referring to the political movement (in Britain itself) that seeks to replace the United Kingdom's monarchy with a republic. You're talking about Commonwealth nations seeking to remove QEII as monarch of their own nation, but that wouldn't affect her position as monarch of the UK and titular head of the Commonwealth of Nations. The individual status of the Commonwealth nations is a wider issue that doesn't appear to be examined in this article and, frankly, it's a huge can of worms. I still think a straight link to Republicanism would be the best solution, rather than a confusing forced link. Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Strangely enough (or not), it's possibly easier to abolish the British monarchy, then it is the Canadian monarchy. Anyways, I'll go along with whatever you all collectively decide. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, Australia replacing the office of Queen of Austrlalia with a politician head of state would not affect EIIR's position of Queen of the UK. However, the UK replacing her with a president similarly wouldn't affect EIIR's position as Queen of Australia. Regardless, my point wasn't to open up any can of worms. I was merely saying that if the sentence in the lede doesn't refer specifically to Britain and there are republican movements elsewhere, linking to Republicanism in the United Kingdom isn't appropriate. Liniking to Republicanism is a sound proposal. However, Modern republicanism has subsections specifically for Commonwealth Realms. --₪MIESIANIACAL18:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
If there's no objections? I'll change the link to Abolition of monarchy. If there are objections? let me know over the next 24 hrs & I'll hold off. PS - If somebody else in the meantime changes the link? I won't revert it. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Sea of blue
Of the 392 words in the lead, 149 are blue. That is a rate of 38%. Do terms such a "heir presumptive", "accession" (to the EU), "withdrawal" (from the EU), and "state visits" (which points to an article about state visits in general) really need to be wikilinks? Firebrace (talk) 13:00, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Some other editors have humiliated me publicly, perhaps unintentionally, while acknowledging that I made my edits in good faith. Respectfully, English is my native language and I am following the conventions of English grammar in making these edits. To those who contacted me privately instead of calling me out publicly, I thank you. I made these edits in good faith for accuracy and clarity since employing passive voice in written English is unconventional typically. Adverbs almost always follow verbs in written English, which I did not see in the original article, so gave rise my first concerns and motivated me to make my subsequent changes.
I also wish to use active voice when I edited the article in order to facility reading it for those who read in languages besides English, whether English is a second, third, or other language for these readers. I believe that the articles will be more concise and, as such, clearer if I abide by the aforementioned conventions.
Wikipedia is an excellent source for basic information about people (such as Queen Elizabeth II), significant historical events, and the like. I have made my contributions to the site in good faith previously and my intention remains the same regarding the edits I have made to the article on Queen Elizabeth II. I am happy to discuss these concerns here or privately otherwise. Whether you choose to reply, I ask only that any further discussion proceeds in good faith. Thank you for reading this and giving me the benefit of the doubt. MCzarn (talk) 05:43, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
I have reverted these edits. The forced formality of phrases like 'remains high consistently' and 'primogeniture protocols in force at the time' are not improvements. 'She was not expected to become queen.' is more easily understood and less complex grammatically than 'Neither the royal family nor the public expected her to become their queen.' The alteration of sentence structure subtly altered the meaning of sentences, for example 'the King and Queen should evacuate the princesses' is not the same as 'the princesses should be evacuated'. One involves the parents, the other does not. 'The princesses staged pantomimes at Christmas to the Queen's Wool Fund' has an entirely different meaning to 'The princesses staged pantomimes at Christmas in aid of the Queen's Wool Fund.' These are just some examples of where the edits were not improvements. DrKay (talk) 07:13, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
And of course, strictly speaking (or should that be speaking strictly?) people are not evacuated; places are. A true grammar Nazi would have known that and corrected it. Poor show I say... Firebrace (talk) 20:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
My heart goes out to Queen Elizabeth’s family, and my thoughts are with people across the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth today.
Queen Elizabeth II set the example of what it means to devote your life to service. For seven decades, she was a pillar of decency and resolve. From being the first woman in the Royal family to serve in the British Armed Forces to supporting changes in the succession law to make sure women were equal to men, she was a quiet, but deeply effective trailblazer.
On the world’s stage for as long as many of us remember, Queen Elizabeth will be missed. May her memory be a blessing. DIVINE (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
As a Canadian, I am very heartbroken to hear this news. It was very shocking and unexpected, like really. She was really a great monarch. Rest in peace, Elizabeth, and may King Charles III have a successful reign. Super yoshi013021 (talk) 20:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 September 2022 (8)
This edit request to Elizabeth II has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Queen Elizabeth II died peacefully at Balmoral the evening of September 8th, 2022. The King and The Queen consort will return to London September 9th, 2022 Helixabeth (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 September 2022
This edit request to Elizabeth II has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Edit the thing which includes time of birth so that you add a time of death. Unfortunately, the Queen has died as of the 8th of September 2022. ProGoose1 (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 September 2022 (8)
This edit request to Elizabeth II has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the first line, it reads "Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; 21 April 1926 – 8 September 2022)" but I belive grammar rules should have it read "Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; 21st of April, 1926 – 8th of September, 2022)". I know you all work very hard but just believe this is a grammar mistake however, it might not be so please correct me if I am wrong. Thank you for keeping this site free. Smoore777 (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, this is how dates are normally formatted in articles on Wikipedia. Don't quote me on that, though. Diyamund (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2022 (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.
Several MPs and former PM Boris Johnson have referred to Elizabeth II as 'Elizabeth the Great'. The only other monarch to be called 'the great' was Alfred. Thoughts on the viability of this? Truether1111 (talk) 12:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't think that we should include it yet; if people keep calling her this after her death is out of the headlines, then we can reconsider. At the moment, adding the title would be something akin to WP:RECENTISM. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)13:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Alfred wasn't the only monarch: Llywelyn the Great. I would take with a pinch of salt rhetoric like that from politicians and the likes of the Daily Mail. If it comes to pass in due course so be it (with sourcing) but i think it's more of an "in the moment" sort of thing. There was a push to call Pope John Paul II that at the time of his death. We still have text on it in his article but it came to nothing really and is certainly not widely used now. DeCausa (talk) 13:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
At the very most we should only quote it for what they are—tributes by public figures in immediate reaction to her death. It should not have any further place other than a brief sentence amongst a wider account of the following events that took place after she died. It especially should not be referred to as though it is some sort of title or commonly known as. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2022 (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.
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.
She was Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and as such was the first of her name.
Wikipedia uses the common name of the subjects of biographical articles as reflected in published, reliable sources. Queen Elizabeth's regnal name as reported in every known source that includes a suffix numeral to distinguish her from Elizabeth I, including those cited in the article, is "Elizabeth II". There is nothing "careless" about that name being used in this article. If you can find a reliable, published source that describes Elizabeth of the House of Windsor as "Elizabeth I", please cite it here. General IzationTalk 00:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
The courts decided this in 1953. The regnal number is decided by the royal prerogative and nothing else. She decided on II.[1] If she had picked XXII, that's what it would have been regardless of how many monarchs of the name there had been. DeCausa (talk) 12:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
What's shocking and surprising is that anyone would latterly seek to reinvent the title by which Queen Elizabeth II was known throughout the world for over 70 years. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]02:45, 11 September 2022 (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.
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.
@Paul Magnussen I see no reason why the vaccine she had in January of last year would have affected her health. Is it such a suprise to you that old people die?
Aside from her age. Perhaps a broken heart, as her health quickly declined after Philip's death. Until we hear anything further? "Natural cause" (like heart failure) is what we'll have to go by. GoodDay (talk) 14:22, 10 September 2022 (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.
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.
Someone has changed The Queen’s picture on Wikipedia. For many years it has been this one: Queen Elizabeth II in March 2015.jpg and should be returned to this. The editor who changed it did so without asking for consensus and that is wrong. 92.22.21.39 (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
There's an ongoing discussion (above) re what photo to use. Until that is resolved, no changes should be made now that the initial change was reverted to the status quo (per WP:BRD). If you have an opinion, I would suggest you share it there. ‡ El cid, el campeadortalk18:18, 8 September 2022 (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.
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.
As HM, the Queen has now passed away, I think that she should be remembered in a historical way rather than as the elderly figure currently recognisable. A portrait from her past for the lead image may be more suitable.
Her father, George V, I notice does not have an image dated to the 1940s… Wase134 (talk) 18:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion thread above (titled "Infobox photograph for after her death") where you can express your opinion on a potential replacement. — Goszei (talk) 19:02, 8 September 2022 (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.
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 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.
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 think it would be appropriate to change the image to something from the 80s, to represent her in her middle-age/adulthood, like previous monarchs and Prince Philip. AKTC3 (talk) 23:40, 8 September 2022 (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.
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 was wondering if it could be replaced by the one in this source? [2] The first time I saw this photograph was in an encyclopedia dating to 1963 so I am unsure of the copyright status. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
The photo was taken by Cecil Beaton during her coronation in 1953. File:Elizabeth and Philip 1953.jpg is actually another from the same photoshoot, currently available on Commons. It's worth a check to see whether this image would also fall under the British government license. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 00:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Now that Elizabeth has passed, I would be entirely in favour of switching to a photo of Elizabeth during the early years of her reign. I think this photo in particular would be terrific for the infobox: File:Queen Elizabeth II 1959.jpg. TheScrubby (talk) 08:34, 9 September 2022 (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.
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 would like to reopen discussion about changing Elizabeth II's photo to one taken roughly midway through her reign, similar to the other monarch's pages. I'm not sure whether or not higher-quality photos should be prioritized, or if a mid-reign photo should be sought. Please discuss. ERBuermann (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2022 (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.
An event to come, which may need work on, now.
It's gonna be rather tricky, figuring out how to right up the intro, when she passes on. Along with the United Kingdom, she will have reigned over 31 other realms. I suppose we'll figure that out when the time comes, but we gotta be realistic. Elizabeth II's in her 97th year & has increasingly become quite frail, since Philip's passing. It may not be a bad idea, to figure this out, before that day comes. To do so, would prevent potential edit-wars. GoodDay (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I don't see any issue. Change of tense and circumstances of her death is all that's needed. What's the problem? DeCausa (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
I was just worried. Some might be annoyed with how the 31 other realms would be shown in the lead. Considering that she (so far) has had her reign ended in 17 of them, during her lifetime. GoodDay (talk) 16:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't see what difference her death makes. Seems a non-issue, particularly as no one has said they're "annoyed" about it. DeCausa (talk) 16:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
I'll assume that nobody will object to "..was Queen of the United Kingdom and 31 other Commonwealth realms". Anyways, as a personal request, would you place this aside in the archives, for later? Someone 'did' bring up this topic, last year or earlier this year. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Oh I see what you mean. I think some formulation like "14 at her death" will be fine with the possibility of adding reference to another 17 in her lifetime if people want it. I still think it's not going to be a big issue. Certainly not something to worry about now. DeCausa (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Very well. To date, she appears to still be mentally sharp, so there won't be any slight changes (addition of regent) in Charles' bio lead either, anytime soon :) GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree with this statement-
When it does happen probably atleast 90% of the Wikipedian Volunteer base will be on the page making many edits and when that will turn out most likely the page may crash, and be locked due to "vandalism" or some other reason, leaving an admin to do it themself. And I am sure that that may be the case for all the other royals after her passing, and they'll leave the admins to do it up. I can't say this will be true but in my opinion it will most likely happen. Nolan MacLellan (talk) 19:51, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Hopefully something as follows will be suitable: "Elizabeth II was Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms from 6 February 1952 until her death in {Year}. She was queen regnant of X Commonwealth realms throughout her long reign, but she served as the monarch of Y realms at the time of her death." Векочел (talk) 04:36, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree with this proposal, sums everything up succinctly. I think it makes sense to hold an RfC to have this, or a variation on it, to set it as the official opening paragraph for when she "stops being queen". When that time comes, if any edit-warriors want to pick a fight we can point them to the archived discussions. I have attempted to improve it by looking at a variety of opening sentences on articles about other British monarchs and other related articles but have used User:Векочел's original as a guide.
Apologies, it was a blunder. I had pencilled in "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth Realms", before I decided to refer to the Commonwealth as "Commonwealth of Nations", but stupidly forgot to add in "Head of" between the two. Has been fixed. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
I'd recommend "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms", that way, folks can decide for themselves if it's the 14 other (current) or 31 other (including former realms). GoodDay (talk) 22:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
The general form is fine but the current exact wording is over-repetitive, by which I mean it is (1) unnecessary to repeat the death date and (2) unnecessary to say realms three times when other, clearer phrases can be used. DrKay (talk) 06:31, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
What about "Elizabeth II was Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms from 6 February 1952 until her death in ????. Her reign of 70+ years is longer than that 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 modern Commonwealth of Nations. As queen of 32 independent nations, she was served by a total of more than 170+ prime ministers."? Peter Ormond 💬13:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't think it's as clear because it implies she was queen of 32 independent nations for 70+ years, rather than stating that these were spread over the course of her reign. I also don't understand why the prime ministers are mentioned in the first paragraph. We don't do this for any other monarch as far as I know nor do I see why something not in the article body is important or notable enough for the lead let alone the first paragraph. DrKay (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
reign start and reign end dates (every monarch have them, obviously)
duration of reign (70+ years)
longest reign in British history (could be changed to just "history", if she beats Louis XIV)
decolonisation of Empire (Queen Vic's bio says her reign was "marked by a great expansion of the British Empire", so decolonisation should be mentioned at Liz's)
expansion of the Commonwealth (that's what many scholars say her reign will be remembered for and reportedly that's what the Queen considers her greatest achievement)
total number of realms (there are 32 of them. I don't think we should break them into groups in the first sentence like total realms, and how many were there at time of death. It is trivial and creates a lot of clutter, and the lead already says that "the number of her realms has varied over time as territories have either gained independence or become republics". We already have the infobox for exact dates of reign in all realms.)
total number of prime ministers (her relationship with prime ministers is very much talked about in the media, more than any other monarch in my view. And she has seen quite a lot of them. Monarchs like Bhumibol Adulyadej and Akihito also have mention of total PMs in lead. I know it is not in their opening sentence, but I kinda used that info to present the total number of realms in the introduction.) Peter Ormond 💬14:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't think any of the prime ministers or decolonisation or whatnot should be in the first paragraph. Leave that for the rest of the lead. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Then the last sentence may be removed and the 32 realms may be mentioned in the lead's third para, like: "The number of her realms varied over time as territories gained independence and some realms became republics. All in all, Elizabeth served as monarch of 32 independent nations of the Commonwealth." Peter Ormond 💬16:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
I think that the lead paragraph that should be in the article at the time of Elizabeth's death should be the following. If anybody wants to add or remove anything, we can continue to hash it out, but I think it is for the best that we should come to a conclusion soon as this discussion has gone on for over a month. I have mashed together all the suggestions into the paragraph below, which, hopefully, we can all somewhat agree on.
What's the reign in "in the course of her reign"? There have been 32 reigns (one each in all 32 realms), 17 of which have ended. Peter Ormond 💬11:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
All but one editor commenting in the discussion are essentially agreed on this outline. It's bound to go through some further modification at the time, as will the rest of the article, but this appears to have consensus for now. It's unnecessary to get hung up over nuances at this stage. DrKay (talk) 13:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
I think today or tomorrow may be it. I feel this page is going to experience a lot of traffic and a lot of editing, so perhaps a good draft is to be penned and then the page locked until further information? AlienChex (talk) 13:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Shame to see and hear about all of this, as someone who loves the monarchy and British history. This isn't confirmed, but I've had sources from inside the Green Party tell me that she has already passed. This could be a very sad day for Great Britain.
(88.202.138.186 - Not Logged In) 15:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.202.138.186 (talk)
Agree, a real shame see and hear about. The Queen is an iconic part of the country's history and it will be sad to see her go. --88.108.44.8 (talk) 16:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Why was the intro that got consensus above not used as the intro section upon her death? I think it should be as it is much more accurate then what is currently being used. Can someone make that change? Max3218 (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
I.e “ Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; 21 April 1926 – 8 September 2022] was Queen of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms from 6 February 1952 until her death in 2022. She was queen of 32 realms at the start of her reign and monarch of 14 of them at the time of her death. Her reign of 70 years and 214 days was the longest of any British monarch and the second-longest recorded of any monarch of a sovereign country.” Max3218 (talk) 22:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Seconded. Now that she has passed the lead should be changed to “Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; 21 April 1926 – 8 September 2022] was Queen of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms from 6 February 1952 until her death in 2022. She was queen of 32 realms at the start of her reign and monarch of 14 of them at the time of her death. Her reign of 70 years and 214 days was the longest of any British monarch and the second-longest recorded of any monarch of a sovereign country” and any further revisions should be reversed and directed to this section of the talk page. Please may someone with extended confirmed user access make the necessary changes. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 22:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
I would support only using the death year (until her death in 2022), rather than the whole date of death in the first sentence. Векочел (talk) 02:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Yep—the consensus people reached here clears up multiple issues that have been raised throughout the talk pages. Specifically, on the date being repeated twice, that has been dealt with again though annoyingly still without the rest of the content mentioned here. Even despite there being a note specifically telling people to look at the talk pages! JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 02:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Let’s keep this page locked and under control, as well as any Royal related pages, as they will be prime targets for vandalism and false information at a time like this AlienChex (talk) 03:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
See about maybe adding the epthet of 'the Great' as politicians in the past year and particularly now have started calling her Elizibeth the Great. As well as Matriarch of the Nation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingMyrddin (talk • contribs) 11:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
We would need reliable sourcing and significant coverage (rather than scattered mentions) to avoid recency bias, though of course I would generally agree with the sentiment. TNstingray (talk) 13:56, 9 September 2022 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —Sirdog (talk) 18:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Already done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Done Cited to BBC News Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Already done CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}