Talk:Royal Family Order of Elizabeth II

Orders, decorations, and medals Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of orders, decorations, and medals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Orders, decorations, and medalsWikipedia:WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medalsTemplate:WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medalsOrders, decorations, and medals articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sarah?

One wonders if the honour was ever bestowed on Sarah, Duchess of York? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

classes of the Order?

Are there classes to the Order as there was to King George V's Order? If there are, does anyone know what determines the 'class' of a particular member, say the Duchess of Cornwall or Princess Royal is in? 74.69.11.229 (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the two sizes of the order are illustrated on page 35 of Risk, James; Pownall, Henry; Stanley, David; Tamplin, John (2001). Royal Service (Volume II). Lingfield, Surrey: Third Millennium. The size 1 badge is from Princess Margaret, it previously belonged to Queen Mary. The size 2 badge was from Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester. The latter is the badge illustrated on the top right of this wiki page.

[1]https://i.pinimg.com/originals/55/49/71/554971b87998ffcdf8332e3df44c5456.jpg is the size one badge DWStudham (talk) 14:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Royal Family Order of Queen Elizabeth II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Royal Family Order of Queen Elizabeth II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Diamond Jubilee of Queen Elizabeth II which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Styles upon conferral or styles now/later

I have, yet again, got into an editing war, this time about whether the conferees should be styled as they were at the time that the order was presented to them or how they are now (or became later, or, even, how they are best known). For instance, in 1952, 'Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon' was 'The Princess Margaret', having not yet married; likewise, Princess Alexandra did not gain the extra designation 'The Hon. Lady Ogilvy' until 1988, having had the 'plainer' 'The Hon. Mrs Ogilvy' between her 1963 wedding and then.

Rather than just stand by idly while policy is enforced in the manner that it has been, I figure that the *democratic* way of handling this is to open it for discussion here. ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with simply using article titles or common names. DrKay (talk) 17:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, which is why I have raised it on this page to see what other people think. ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 21:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the list should use the individuals' best known or common names, which are likely to be the titles of their articles. Using their names as of conferral is more likely to cause confusion, as well as ambiguity among individuals who might have held the same title at different times (I don't know if that's the case for any of the listed recipients). I'm not sure that the current version is treating this consistently. However, it seems that this dispute really focuses on the use of honorifics, which the manual of style dictates we should not. ZeroAlpha87, you seem to be confused between titles (such as "Queen" and "Princess") which are part of a person's name, and honorifics (like "Her Royal Highness" and "The Honourable") which are not part of the name and should not be added. There's not really anything to debate on that point: policy says no honorifics. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that there needs to be a uniform approach - either they're all "then" styles or they're all "now"/"later" styles. Across those articles (Edward VII - Elizabeth II) there's too much variation. The policy does say not to use honorifics so it looks like ZeroAlpha87 got confused or just didn't know but I don't think that was the point of their argument. In reverting it DrKay's done away with the changes that I reckon are fair enough - if only the unnecessary honorifics had been removed instead of a direct revert we probably wouldn't be having this discussion! 92.30.78.108 (talk) 14:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]