Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 11

message: Just a point on the name. She is only Elizabeth II in England, in most (if not all) other commonwealth relams she is Elizabeth I —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.107.151.4 (talk) 01:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh not this again. She is not "Elizabeth II of England" - there is no longer a separate kingdom of England. She is Queen of "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" (plus all the rest). A lot of monarchical numberings carried over when the country formed out of previous countries - for instance the first king of Italy was Victor Emmanuel II. Curiously no-one so far is arguing on that article's talk page that "Victor Emmanuel II" should only apply to Piedmont. Timrollpickering 17:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Elizabeth II

message: 'Personality and image' and 'Views and perceptions' seem to me to have a great risk of overlapping. JMcC 18:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Muddled structure

message: My attention has been drawn to this article following a CfD discussion. Although this ended with a consensus to rename the category  to , I was reminded that the UK is only one of the realms of which she is Queen. I was wondering, therefore, whether Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth Realms would be a more accurate title, but guess that's already been discussed somewhere within this talk page's archives. If so, I'd appreciate someone pointing me to the crux of the discussion; if not, what do folk think...?  Thanks, David Kernow (talk) 06:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I feel it should be renamed, but we have discussed it many times in the Page Archives Brian | (Talk) 06:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I think I've seen the problem now. Thanks, David (talk) 02:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am in favour of a name change to reflect the Queen being monarch not just of the United Kingdom, but also of 15 other nations. I am curious to know people's opinions on Paramount Chief of Fiji (specifically side bar), since this seems to be just as valid as having, say, one page for Elizabeth as monarch of the 16 different realms. Lofty 13:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also favour a shortening of this article's title to "Queen Elizabeth II" ...Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ)  • 16:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Beginning with Queen Victoria in 1877, British monarchs were also styled "Emperor/Empress of India" and signed themselves that way (e.g., Victoria R. I. = Victoria, Queen and Empress).  However, this practice ended when India gained its independence in 1947:  George VI was the last Emperor of India, and his consort, the late Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, who died in 2002, was the last Empress.  So the present Queen is not an Empress, and it would be inappropriate to refer to her as such now that the British Empire has transformed itself into a voluntary Commonwealth of Nations. Textorus 00:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a perfect response! Thanks - it would be nice if this could be added to the article. Jhamez84 00:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: George VI was titled as Emperor because he reigned over the Empire of India, not because of the British Empire, which was never an explicit, legal entity.  By the time he ascended to the throne in 1936 it was already accepted that, as Elizabeth II now reigns as Queen, he reigned as King in each of the Crown's Dominions separately, though he still only held separate, distinct titles for the UK, Ireland and India.  Thus, he was George VI, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India; or: King of Great Britain, King of Ireland, King of the British Dominions, and Emperor of India.  So, the current wording of the paragraph in question here is misleading - even if the title of Empress still applied to EIIR, it would not be because of the territories she reigns over around the world, but only because she was still Empress of India.  As India became a republic during her father's reign, the information about the shift in title belongs on his article, not here, and is already covered there, though perhaps not in enough detail. --G2bambino 16:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything you say is true, G2.  Everything I said is true.  Have it your way.  God save the Queen. Textorus 19:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Everything you say is indeed true, Textorus.  But, if anyone disputes the point that information regarding the loss of the title of Emperor should go on the George VI article and not here, by all means, let's discuss it. --G2bambino 21:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: oops, sorry you're right! I was wrongFurtive 02:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: As part of this, is the Queen an Empress then? She is head of state for several territories, though I understand she chooses not to hold the title of Empress. 
I requested a few weeks ago for clarification of this in the main article (as it would be useful for readers), though this was swallowed up by some swift archiving. It may be most helpful for mentions of this in the Constitutional role section. Hope someone can help. Jhamez84 14:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Beginning with Queen Victoria in 1877, British monarchs were also styled "Emperor/Empress of India" and signed themselves that way (e.g., Victoria R. I. = Victoria, Queen and Empress).  However, this practice ended when India gained its independence in 1947:  George VI was the last Emperor of India, and his consort, the late Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, who died in 2002, was the last Empress.  So the present Queen is not an Empress, and it would be inappropriate to refer to her as such now that the British Empire has transformed itself into a voluntary Commonwealth of Nations. Textorus 00:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a perfect response! Thanks - it would be nice if this could be added to the article. Jhamez84 00:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: George VI was titled as Emperor because he reigned over the Empire of India, not because of the British Empire, which was never an explicit, legal entity.  By the time he ascended to the throne in 1936 it was already accepted that, as Elizabeth II now reigns as Queen, he reigned as King in each of the Crown's Dominions separately, though he still only held separate, distinct titles for the UK, Ireland and India.  Thus, he was George VI, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India; or: King of Great Britain, King of Ireland, King of the British Dominions, and Emperor of India.  So, the current wording of the paragraph in question here is misleading - even if the title of Empress still applied to EIIR, it would not be because of the territories she reigns over around the world, but only because she was still Empress of India.  As India became a republic during her father's reign, the information about the shift in title belongs on his article, not here, and is already covered there, though perhaps not in enough detail. --G2bambino 16:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything you say is true, G2.  Everything I said is true.  Have it your way.  God save the Queen. Textorus 19:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Everything you say is indeed true, Textorus.  But, if anyone disputes the point that information regarding the loss of the title of Emperor should go on the George VI article and not here, by all means, let's discuss it. --G2bambino 21:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: oops, sorry you're right! I was wrongFurtive 02:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Empress

message: I agree that the title of 'Duke of Lancaster' is held merely out of tradition, but the same is not true of the Duchy of Normandy.  It's only because HM the Queen is Duke of Normandy that Jersey and Guernsey are Crown Dependencies, and it is in that capacity (and not in the capacity as Queen of the United Kingdom) that HM reigns in the Channel Islands.  Bastin 11:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Source ? Astrotrain 12:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia, the Royal Family, the States of Jersey, in Hansard, etc. Bastin 12:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The queen's predecessor Henry III gave up the title of Duke of Normandy in 1259, but was still recognized as ruler of the Channel Islands.  Although the Channel Islands are a relic of the old Duchy of Normandy, and are, indeed, not part of the UK, they do not in themselves confer upon the Queen the dignity of Duchess (or Duke) of Normandy, a title explicitly renounced by her ancestor and never explicitly reclaimed.  john k 21:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Duke of Normandy (introduction)

message: "Conservative in dress, she is well known for her solid-colour overcoats and decorative hats which allow her to be seen easily in a crowd."  How can dressing "conservatively" make someone easily seen in a crowd? Lfh 00:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dressing conservatively doesn't necessarily aid in seeing her, but wearing bright solid colors and hats make her easily seen from afar. --Ibagli (Talk) 00:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't sound like she dresses very conservatively at all then.  If anybody else dressed like that they'd be called a "maverick". Lfh 13:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that they are trying to say that the style of her dresses is conservative, not the colors. Prsgoddess187 14:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dress 

message: "However, due to his wife Wallis Simpson's reproductive issues, Edward was destined not to have any legitimate heirs." - I think this sentence may need a little work not to be confusing.  I think that while it is technically correct, it assumes that the reader is familiar with the abdication and the issues surrounding it.  The sentence could be construed as correct only if Edward had been permitted to marry Wallis Simpson and remain King or if the act had been worded differently, however the act of abdication that he signed expressly disqualified any children he might have from holding a place in the line of succession, and therefore Ms. Simpson's reproductive abilities wouldn't have come into the matter. Crowdes 21:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole paragraph is pointless anyway. If Edward had remained king, he would almost certainly have had kids of his own, whether with Wallis as his wife or someone else entirely. The act of abdication did indeed disqualify any of his offspring from the succession, but he must have thought it expedient not to have any anyway. A king, on the other hand, is under a great deal of pressure to produce an heir. TharkunColl 16:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost certainly?  Even if he'd married Wallis, who was probably incapable of having children?  On what basis can you say that?  The man was 42 years old when he became king, and still unmarried.  Obviously the pressure to produce an heir hadn't had much of an effect on him as PoW.  My understanding is that by 1936 it was already thought likely that Elizabeth would one day become Queen.  And it's not as though monarchs always have children.  Among 19th and 20th century monarchs who never had any legitimate children are Emperor Ferdinand of Austria, King Ludwig II of Bavaria, King Otto of Bavaria, King Frederik VII of Denmark, King Louis XVIII of France, King Otto of Greece, King George II of Greece, King Charles Felix of Sardinia, King Louis of Portugal, King Manuel II of Portugal (although he was deposed before his marriage), King Friedrich Wilhelm IV of Prussia, King Friedrich August II of Saxony, King Albrecht of Saxony, and King Karl of Württemberg.  That's a sizeable number. john k 17:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I read it, the paragraph is correct, but I have to agree that as written it sounds fairly pointless. A reference for the fact that it was already thought likely that she would be Queen would be more helpful. JPD (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure it's fair to call it "simply false" - the paragraph makes the point that Elizabeth becoming Queen did not depend on the Abdication Act, so saying that Abdication Act removed Edward's progeny does not shed any light on it. The paragraph does not make much sense without the reproductive issues clause. However, with the clause, it is fairly speculative, and probably should be deleted altogether. JPD (talk) 14:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true but only because Edward had no children.  Had he had some, Elizabeth could only have become queen if Edward had abdicated not only for himself but also excluded his children from the succession.  In that sense, Elizabeth's accession was very much dependent on the Abdication Act.  JackofOz 09:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the whole point! The statement that she would have become Queen with or without the abdication is only true because he "was destined" to not have children anyway since his wife had reproductive problems. Without explaining the reason, the paragraph is even more confusing, and it really ought to be deleted. The only point it serves is to make some quirky point that even if he had been allowed to marry Wallis Simpson and remain King, Elizabeth would probably be the Queen today. True or not, this point doesn't need to be made, and the paragraph just seems to confuse people anyway. JPD (talk) 10:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heir 

message: :Image:Queen of canada wob.jpg
Ive noticed that the Queen wears a particular crown in nearly all of her official Golden Jubilee portraits, and also during all of her Golden Jubilee appearances. She is wearing this crown in the photos provided on the Golden Jubilee of Elizabeth II page.
What is this crown? I saw a documentary on History International about the last Russian royal family, and it was mentioned that many of the last Russian Empress's jewels eventually found their way to the U.K. monarchy's private collection - they showed a photo of Queen Elizabeth II wearing this crown, then they showed a photo of the last Russian Empress wearing this exact same crown some time around 1909.
I have not been able to find any info on the web about this crown....what is this crown?
The crown used in the actual coronation ceremony is supposed to be the crown of King St. Edward the Confessor (reigned 1042-1066), who is the patron saint of the British royal family (as far as England is concerned).
--Mrlopez2681 10:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is known as the Grand Duchess Vladimir Tiara. The tiara can be worn with either the pearl drops, emerald drops or nothing in the loops. For more information, check here. Prsgoddess187 12:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ellizabeth II's crown 

message: Just to let you know, I altered the first paragraph to show the Queen as "Queen of Canada", "Queen of Australia" etc - to directly link it with the relevant specific pages (the Monarchy in Canada, the Monarchy in Australia etc). 
I guess we'd better get to work fleshing out the "Queen of Tuvalu" page, eh guys?
---Oz.
:I don't think this is really helpful. Even if having links to [[Monarchy in Canada], etc. were helpful, the sentence should not be so clumsy. I think those links are best (as they are) in the see also section. JPD (talk) 11:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Queen of... links

message: The BBC reports that the French PM did propose a merger between the two states in 1956, but there is no indication of what form this union would take, online or in other reports. Saying France would have been a "commonwealth realm" is guessing. When this proposal was rejected, he suggested joining the Commonwealth, which isn't necessarily becoming a commonwealth realm, either. I don't think we should mention the phrase in relation to France. In fact, I don't think this proposal is particularly relevant to this article, which should be focussing on the Queen, not consitutional arrangements that didn't happen. JPD (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're probably right on the Realm part, but this is relevant to Elizabeth because it was she whom the French PM said could become Queen of France.  I thought I'd left out most of the other info that wasn't specifically related to this article. --G2bambino 18:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that she is relevant to the story, rather than the story is important enough to be relevant to a biographical article. On a related note, apparently Churchill suggested something similar in 1940. JPD (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The media has misrepresented the term 'headship', which (I have been told) was used in the released document.  In this case, it may mean (nay, probably means) 'Head of the Commonwealth', rather than 'Head of State'; since the 1949 London Declaration, the two have been separate statuses, which is a distinction completely lost on the media, most of whom still insist on calling the Commonwealth of Nations the 'British Commonwealth'. Bastin 19:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It's a possibility - though, if France and the UK were to align in a union, as it seems they were looking at various options to that end, then HM would be the French head of state, one way or another. According to the article in The Guardian, it was only after proposals for an outright union were dismissed that they looked at the possibility of France becoming a Commonwealth member. If indeed true, I would suspect that it would be relatively important for a biographical article that the subject of said article was once considered for the headship of France. --G2bambino 19:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Union with France 

message: Hello everyone. This article is very good and the amount of work that has gone into it is superb. However, there are several citation needed tags especially around the first half of the article; the facts need to have references to back them up or else I will be forced to fail the article. Other than that, I'd say it was ready for good article status. I'll take another look seven days from now, on the 25th of January. If I forget, please could somebody leave me a message. Thanks! Wikiwoohoo 22:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that there are too many citations needed, and I'll try and add what I can within a week. However, a lot of this section seems like original research, to me at least. Does anyone care to re-write it and remove the stuff that can't be sourced? Or should the section be removed and have the legitimate parts be placed elsewhere in the article? --Calaschysm 22:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is this up for GA anyway?  The GA criteria clearly state that FA status is more appropriate for articles longer than 25kB.  At 85kB, therefore, this should be peer reviewed, then nominated for FA (if given the right references), not nominated for GA. Bastin 15:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not a hard and fast rule. There are 100's of GA's that are well over 25kB. Once this article is peer reviewed and trimmed down a bit, it will be fine for GA. RHB Talk - Edits 19:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on what the nominator wishes to do. I am happy to continue reviewing the article after the 25th of January unless the nominator would prefer to put the article up for peer review and then go on to nominate for featured article status. Wikiwoohoo 22:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good article nomination

message: About :Image:Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom.jpg aka :commons:Image:Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom.jpg. Just a couple.
First of all, the description on the flickr page states quite clearly, "Photo taken by Adrian Sturgess." Yet the image page names Richard Gifford as the author, as do at least two Wikipedia articles I've seen, including this one. (BTW, I believe that referencing the author right under the image is not necessary for cc-by, just on the image page.) Second, while the original picture was quite clearly a crop from the flickr picture, the current one, uploaded a month later, definitely is not a crop or an edit of the original picture, though it is more than likely taken on the same occassion. There is no source specified for the second image. Should something be done? --74.109.173.23 02:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture concerns 

message: This fine woman is NOT the Queen of Canada.  There is no Queen of Canada.  She is not on the money anymore.  No more God Save the Queen in schools.  Keep up with the times people, that was years ago!!
Sheen
Warp2hype 15:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved this comment from the top of the page.  This comment is obviously wrong, and doesn't really warrant rebuttal. Cleduc 15:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe she's on the loonies and toonies too. --Ibagli (Talk) 03:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: In any case, whether a person is a country's monarch is not determined by whether or not they're on the currency.  JackofOz 09:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misguided comment 

message: I've just finished a minor revamp of the article, for the most part shifting existing sections around for better flow and consistency; it also removed some repetition.  What I also did, however, was remove a large section of the "Government role" element, as that information was not particular to Elizabeth II, instead being more associated with the role of all British/Canadian/Australian/New Zealand/etc. monarchs.  The same applied to the "Religious role" section, which pertained to the Sovereign's role within the realms as opposed to Elizabeth's particular beliefs, etc. This also cut down the size of the article substantially.
I hope these moves are acceptable.--G2bambino 21:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My recent edits 

message: I tried to find who her children are, and except for mentioning Charles as her first son, and saying (see below) in the same paragraph, I can not find who her other children are. And I'm not Brittish, so I realy do not know.
-- AdriaanRenting 15 febr 2007
:They are under issue (see wiktionary:issue for a definition). mattbr30 12:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Her children? 

message: Under the section "Early Life", it says:  As a child her close family knew her as "Lillibet".[2]  
I read the archive at Talk:Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_4#Lilybet_versus_Lilibet which mentions it should be Lilibet (not Lillibet). I have just read The Little Princesses a book by Marion Crawford, her nanny/governess. All throughout the book, reference is made to Lilibet (no double L). Should the main article be corrected to remove the extra "l"? Linnah 17:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It probably should be corrected. It appears that 'Lilibet' is the way she herself spells it, as well.    --Ibagli (Talk) 20:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lillibet versus Lilibet 

message: A section of the Queen's prtrayal in popular culture could be added. For instance, a mention of the Sex Pistols classic single "God Save the Queen" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.241.213.108 (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A very good idea, although it would have to be done extremely selectively. This might spiral out of control, considering the sheer quantity of cultural material that references her in some way. For example GSTQ was arguably more of a general anti-government anti-establishment song than about Elizabeth II personally, if it had been another monarch on the throne the song would have probably still been the same. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.146.47.250 (talk) 22:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queen in popular culture 

message: In the film The Queen (film), I was interested to hear the Queen mention that she had been a mechanic during WWII. However, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom says, "She joined the Women's Auxiliary Territorial Service ... and was trained as a driver." Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom#Military_career. Can anyone clarify her actual training and service? Thank you. -- 201.51.231.176 17:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The famous photo of her in the Army shows the future Queen changing a tyre, and I assume being a driver involved having to do at least some maintenance on your vehicle as well. It would make sense that every driver would learn at least some basic repair procedures, if a vehicle broke down in the field it might be impossible to reach any kind of support services. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.146.47.250 (talk) 22:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WWII service: Driver / Mechanic? 

message: Hello
I enjoyed reading the Wikipedia article on Queen Elizabeth ii,however i would like to point out a small error which i feel will need to be corrected.
under heading "Reduced Duties".
It is stated that if Elizabeth ii lives until 21st December 2009 she will become the longest lived monarch in British and commonwealth history.I think this date should be 21st December 2007 by which time the queen will have lived longer than Queen Victoria and King George iii who each lived to the ages of 81yrs 7mths.Elizabeth ii will surpass both on 21st December 2007 at 81yrs 8mths.
Thanks
80.41.22.241 00:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have checked the List of British monarchs by longevity and found that it is true that the Queen will become the longest living monarch in British history in 2007. I have corrected it in the article.--Joshua Chiew 09:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Longevity 

message: In the section on Marriage, the wiki states that "The couple [Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip] are second cousins once removed: they are both descended from Christian IX of Denmark - Elizabeth II is a great-great-granddaughter through her paternal great-grandmother Alexandra of Denmark, and the Duke is a grandson through his paternal grandfather George I of Greece."  Prince Philip is in fact a great-grandson: Christian IX => George I => Prince Andrew of Greece & Denmark => Prince Philip.  (If here were merely grandson, then they would second cousins twice removed.  If somebody with appropriate access to update the main thread would please do so....) - Talanpoe 00:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have checked the Christian IX of Denmark and George I of Greece articles and found out that it was indeed true. I have corrected it in the article.--Joshua Chiew 02:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marriage 

message: EX  [değiştir]Citrat!. Forgiv lang,pleese. News=
Prince harry is a direct descendant of Mohamed = he comes from Princ Zayda who married keeng of castilia, c 102?, Zayda's grand-gt father was in Cairo, Khal of Cairo, and 13 to Mohamed. =news, pleese direct to news, thank, pleese,21:58, 6 Mart 2007 (UTC) Unitsabout 21:59, 6 Mart 2007 (UTC)
News is news, so did you think Brit kings should blood of Mohamed, can this be said?Unitsabout 22:36, 6 Mart 2007 (UTC)
it iss blood, this is blood, formidable truth, desired of all texts :
"connection is based on some rather dubious data. However, for what it is worth I will try and describe the line. It is well documented that xxiss are both descended from King Edward IV via two different lines of descent. Edward's geat grandfather was Edmund Plantagenet, the son of King Edward III. Edmund married Isabel of Castile in 1371. She was the daughter of King Pedro 1 (Pedro the Cruel) of Castile. Taking several steps at a time, Pedro 1 was the great great great grandson of Alfonso IX of Castile who was, in turn the great great great grandson of Alfonso VI of Castile." 
"This is where the supposed Moorish connection "begins". Alfonso IV married Zayda, daughter of Mohammad al-Mutadid (1040-1095), the Emir of Sevile. He was the great great great grandson of Isma'il al Mansur (~901-952) kalif in Egypt. This person is allegedly 13th generation descent from Mohammad, himself," 
This tells you so pleese see 'xxxxxxxxxxxxx' who is 'xxxxxxxxx's, is Mohamed's child, by pass fromcZayda of Seville, daughter of +/- x 20 x2 ex-Mohamed, one married Castile, one children married to Ingle. If one Brit 'xxxxxx' is not then brit , one xxxxxx is not blood.
I know no more, this is infototalle or infantie, or politic . Stop...?
finito, pleese. Thank Unitsabout 23:47, 6 Mart 2007 (UTC)
dan alındı
Sayfa kategorileri: Aktif olmayan kullanıcılar | Kaynakları eksik olan maddeler
:If Prince Harry is descended from Mohamed, then so what? He is also descended from Dracula (i.e. Vlad the Impaler). TharkunColl 08:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New

message: The section on HM's finances (section 5.5) refers to the Castle of Mey as a property she inherited from her mother. This appears to be at odds with the castle's own article, which states that the Queen Mother left the property in trust. Perhaps in some curious way both things are possible. Does anybody know? – Kieran T (talk) 00:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Castle of Mey 

message: The article doesn't seem very long to me!  Queen Elizabeth (II of the UK) is one of the most important and prominent persons of the 20th and 21st centuries.  How long should an article be for a world figure of this stature?  If the article were to be shortened, what would be removed?  I think that people coming here (Wikipeidia) to seek reference material on prominent people (like Q. Elizabeth) expect to find what they are looking for on the person they are looking up.  They should not have to go to supplimentary material to find what most regular people might be looking for.  Yes, scholars can go elsewhere -- no argument there.  But it isn't clear that a significantly shorter article is really serving the public for a person such as Q. Elizabeth. -Coldwarrior 00:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of article 

message: The thought of putting all the information about her majesty on a page titled with her full name is stupid, we don't do that with all the other people on the website so there is no reason what so ever that the Queen should!
:Someone has moved the original page to Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor, Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and this page needs to be deleted to move the page back. mattbr 22:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it ever comes to a vote, I vote that we move it back! JoshHolloway 22:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor, Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom or Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom? 

message: Hello everyone,
It's the first time that i am  trying to edit a wiki page. Since i am a starter i am unable to edit this article myself.i found a picture of the Queen which seems to me to be quite nice...she looks quite happy and glorious. If you would like to replace the main current picture or simply add it,here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:RFnew_Queen_introduction.jpg
Unfortunately i have no idea how to check for copyright licences or getting one. If a seasoned editor is interested, be my guest.Cobretta 01:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I remembered that the same picture existed somewhere in Wikipedia but it was probably deleted. I think it may be . For the licence, as the photo was taken from a UK government website, I think it is crown copyright. --Joshua Chiew 07:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture of the Queen

message: Hi, i've never used a discussion page before, so sorry if this is in the wrong place!
Under the Styles bit, can someone clarify the info about ma'am, because the quote is directly taken from the film "The Queen". It kind of annoyed me to see it here.
Can it be clarified, or removed. Thanks St91 20:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Posting here is right if you are talking about the article, except that new discussion usually goes to the bottom. As for your question, I see no problem on addressing the Queen as "ma'am". I could be wrong, but AFAIK, except for formal purposes, the Queen is addressed as "ma'am" in the UK. --Joshua Chiew 00:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, properly and strictly speaking, if one meets the Queen, and is to engage in conversation with her, one would call her "Your Majesty" in the first instance, and "Ma'am" thereafter. However, as far as I can tell, "Ma'am" is acceptable on its own most of the time, like informal situations (how many of those would most of us get with HM? lol) or some sort of acknowledgement. (And btw, always say both in Title Case) DBD 00:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Styles

message: Why, does it say on this page that Her Majesty is only the defender of the Faith in England and Scotland, but her title includes that phrase in Canada and New Zealand.
Braditude 09:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the phrase "fidei defensor" refers to her being head of the Church of England (and, I think, Scotland), so it would only be true to say she "is" Defender of the Faith in those two domains. However, her full style includes fid. def. wherevr she is. DBD 11:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I kinda doubt that reasoning.   The title was awarded by Pope Leo X to Henry VIII for defending the Catholic faith.  Nothing to do with the then non-existent Church of England.  Henry's successors have retained the title, paradoxically, despite the Catholic Church ceasing to be the official church in England 4 centuries ago.  It is not part of QE2's official title in every one of her realms, but that may not be pertinent as to whether she should be considered Defender of the Faith in all her realms.  The article has some good info aboit this. JackofOz 13:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the phrase in included in her title for different reasons in different Realms.  I know the story behind her Canadian title, including why "Defender of the Faith" was included, is outlined at Style of the Canadian Sovereign. --G2bambino 15:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Defender of the Faith]] 

message: I know it has been seen before, but to be correct, she is not Elizabeth II of the UK, she is, without doubt, Elizabeth I of the UK. To avoid confusion, Elizabeth I of England was Queen before the UK had been established. 
Wikipedia won't let me move the article, but I feel some serious thought ought to go into moving it to its correct title Donaldhenderson 20:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elizabeth I surely?