Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 8

message: In the Introduction George something-or-the-other is claimed to be her father, in the article per-se it is said to be a Prince Albert. This should be corrected. 213.204.48.68 12:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it's worth reading sometimes. -- tasc talkdeeds 12:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Prince Albert, Duke of York, became King as George VI in 1936 upon his older brother Edward VIII's abdication. john k 15:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who's her father? 

message: I took the liberty of archiving old discussions, covering January through March. Fishhead64 17:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archived

message: Why is the birth name of Elizabeth II and her predecessors treated differently from other monarchs (e.g. Wilhelm II, Juan Carlos I, Louis II, etc.)?  I thought wikipedia convention was to bold the proper names of the subjects of its articles when they initially appear. Fishhead64 15:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Her name

message: I was just passing through and I noticed that this page seems to be under constant attack from vandals. Maybe it would be appropriate to block non-registered users from editing? This seems to be the case with other pages such as God. I'm not sure how to go about doing it, but maybe a more prolific contributor to this page could do it. Just a suggestion. Phileas 02:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I've given up reporting the vandals because they all seem to come from shared IP addresses (schools and the like) and reports either get ignored by admin, with no feedback, or they get blocked for a few hours at most, which achieves nothing. -- TrevorD 08:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree as well. Fishhead64 14:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: How do we go about getting this page protected?  Perhaps an admin could comment / act? -- TrevorD 12:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blocking non registered users from editing 

message: Is there any Wikiproject or similar for British royals? I find the current naming conventions rather odd - no mention of the title 'Queen' in the title, for example, and then you get names such as Victoria of the United Kingdom, which could refer just as much to Victoria Beckham as to Queen Victoria! I was wondering if these were decided upon by a project, or just by one user... — SteveRwanda 09:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royals project 

message: The page claims her reign is the third longest after Good Queen Vic and George III but weren't James I and Henry III's reigns longer than hers? GusF 12:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Henry III reigned for 56 years, and James I for 22 years in England, but 58 years in Scotland. TharkunColl 11:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but wouldn't she be the fifth, counting James I since, as you said, he ws king for 58 years? GusF 13:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is arguable of course, but since most of his 58 years only applied to Scotland it may be misleading to include him. After all, whoever first put that sentence in had no problem in including George III, even though the "United Kingdom" as such was only set up after he had already been on the throne for 41 years.TharkunColl 14:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But the kingdoms had been de facto joined under Geo III.  In James' case, Scotland was a distinct, independent political entity prior to accession to the English throne. Fishhead64 15:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. And that's why it is reasonable to include George III, but not James I (since his reign in England was only 22 years). TharkunColl 15:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However, there doesn't seem to be much reason to include Henry III, but not James VI. JPD (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: England - Great Britain - United Kingdom: the historical continuity between these entities is plain, even down to the enumeration of monarchs. But once we start including places that were once independent but were later annexed, such as Scotland, where does it end? TharkunColl 15:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - see the extended and somewhat surreal discussion above concerning whether the Queen should be Elizabeth I of Canada or Elizabeth II of Canada. Fishhead64 16:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, that discussion made it quite clear that the numbering of monarchs is not a good guide to use. I also agree that there is no clear place to end, but it seems to me that listing English but not Scottish kings is controversial enough that the version we had before this discussion is probably the best option, as long as it makes it clear it is speaking of rulers of the whole of GB. JPD (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Third longest reign

message: A while back this article had a picture that was more regal. Can we have it back please? Chicheley 19:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The licensing situation of the picture was rather poor. Furthermore, it showed her wearing the insignia of only one of her realms (Canada) and was rather a peculiar choice as a result. -Splash - tk 19:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I preferred the old picture

message: Is she not Elizabeth I of Scotland?  Didn't see any mention of that...
:No. Proteus (Talk) 08:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To expand Proteus's answer, see the lengthy discussion in the Queen of Canada section, which takes up the Scottish example as well. -- Jao 12:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This has been discussed to death on various pages. The conclusion being that logically she might be Elizabeth I of the UK, Canada, Australia, etc. but that legally she is Elizabeth II of the UK, Canada, Australia, etc. And if it's good enough for the courts, it's good enough for Wikipedia. She could only become Elizabeth I of Scotland if Scotland became independent and even then she would almost certainly choose to be called Elizabeth II. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with calling her what the courts decide, but she is the first Elizabeth of the United Kingdom. The first Elizabeth did not rule over the United Kingdom, but just England and Wales. Historically, the term is incorrect. She's Elizabeth II of England, but Elizabeth I of the United Kingdom. Rshu 23:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been determined that the highnest ordinal is to be used. That being said, it is not incorrect. Charles 23:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, well, would this be true? If there is another King James, he will have to be James the IX of the United Kingdom. Even though there was never a James III in England, the monarch goes by the highest numeral, right? Rshu 02:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: He would be James VIII, if you accept the Glorious Revolution and its aftermath. He would be James the IX and IV if you don't. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Despite the legality of her "II of the UK" status, the post boxes weren't the only things in Scotland which didn't entirely fall in line. I've added a note about the Royal Mail vehicles (also no "EIIR") and the different issue with red telephone boxes, which were designed to have the wrong (for Scotland) crown at the top, and were modified to have interchangeable ones. Have a look at a K6 box; if it's from before the early 1950s it will have a solid crown, if it's later, under the layers of paint you'll see the crown is on a swappable square plate. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 14:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably a foregone conclusion that no future British monarch will ever use a name that yields a number different to the English number. In other words, we'll never have any monarchs named James, Kenneth, Constantine, Donald... etc. TharkunColl 16:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a persistent rumour that Charles wanted to call his first son Arthur, but was blocked from doing so. Not Wikipedia-esque, just thought I'd throw it into the conversation ;-) – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 16:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been at least two Arthurs who should have succeeded to the English throne, but died young. Seems like there will never be an Arthur "II". TharkunColl 16:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scotland

message: Hello everyone - I was wondering why is the word "issue" to mean "children" of female royalty in the wikipedia template?  It's a bit archaic, perhaps it is a tradition when discussing this subject?  It is not used on the pages describing male royalty (see Edward VIII) 
:Hi anon user. The use of "issue" is fairly standard in genealogy and is an acceptable (and sometimes encouraged) encyclopedic format. That being said, it is especially traditional when discussing royalty as it is heavily based on ancestry and descent. It is not applied evenly, however, although I feel that it would be better to do so. It is not restricted to females. Charles 01:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of the word "Issue"

message: All monarch bio infoboxes (why isn't there a template?) use spouse. Wouldn't consort be more fitting to the context? Paul C 17:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it really would be. Charles 19:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spouse/consort? 

message: The Good article nomination for  has failed    
:(Lots of Places in need of citations and even in the with them, their one siddedness may indicate POV issues in specifically in terms of the queens motivations toward Diana (not getting her, why she bowed, etc.)
 TonyJoe 01:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Article nomination has failed 

message: Is there any info on the total area of the Queen's realms and territories? Would it make her the head of state with the most territory in the world? Astrotrain 19:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding up all the areas of the Commonwealths Realms, it comes to about 18,726,720km² (7,230,427mi²). As you know she's head of state of each one separately so the award naturally goes to Putin. However as a person, I guess this would make her head of state with the most territory on a collective basis. Craigy (talk) 19:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: No. The above calculation doesn't include other overseas territories and crown dependencies either, so adding all those to the above result (as well as Akrotiri and Dhekelia) would give 20,140,386km² (7,776,246mi²). This all adds up to almost 7.5% of the Earth's land mass, or almost 25.5% of the Earth's total surface area. Craigy (talk) 11:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In your calculations, you've included only the United Kingdom's Antarctic Territories.  Far more important to the total land area is Australian Antarctica (Australian Antarctic Territory), which, at over 6,000,000 km², is almost as large as Australia itself.  There's also New Zealand Antarctica (Ross Dependency), which is larger than New Zealand, although 'only' 450,000 km².  Thus, including those, the figure's something like 27,000,000 km². Bastin 16:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Area of realms and territories