Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 10

message: Why everytime I try to add this under "Religion" :
"Most of the Rastafari Movement recognize her as Whore of Babylon. This is due to fact of Jamaica colonization by British. Pauperized black inhabitants of Jamaica associated all evils of slavery and white regime with the person of Queen Elizabeth II."
It is then erased? See Rastafarian vocabulary —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.55.119.98 (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  (untitled) 

message: The Statute of Westminster, or some such provision, states that no realm is allowed to unilaterally alter the order of succession, and that any such change must be made by all the realms, correct? In that case, how is it that some of them have been allowed to make the most drastic change of all in the order of succession, by abolishing the monarchy altogether? TharkunColl 08:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is only mentioned in the preamble to the Statute, saying that all the realms needing to agree would be in accord with the established constitutional position of the realms, so it is not clear how binding it is. Apart from that, it is quite clearly only intended affect how succession to the Crown is determined, not whether any realm decides to break it's allegiance to that "symbol of free association". JPD (talk) 09:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably this is a rather one-sided restriction - the UK must consult with the other realms if it wanted to change the order of succession.  I assume that if Canada decided it wanted to make the Duke of York heir to the throne, say, it would not require any consultation with the other realms (not that this is likely to happen). john k 11:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, Canada would have to consult the other Realms before making any change (as difficult as any change would be, due to the constitutional amending formula) as the Statute of Westminster is a patriated part of the Canadian Constitution.  In a 2003 Ontario Superior Court ruling, the judge affirmed just such a thing, saying that Canada could break from the symmetrical relationship under the Crown, but would be in breach of the convention set out in the preamble to the SoW, which he likened to a treaty amongst the Commonwealth Realms. --gbambino 14:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I understand exactly what you are saying.  What would it mean for Canada to be "in breach of the convention"?  john k 15:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what the repercussions would be.  Conventions, unlike written law, are created and can be broken as new situations present themselves through the course of history, and, as far as I understand it, it's up to the courts to decide whether the government's actions were lawful or not in a certain circumstance.  So, the only consequence I could see for Canada breaking the convention and creating a line of succession different to that of the other Realms would be that the Crown would be fractured, and the Supreme Court could possibly rule that the government had acted illegally. It all depends on the conditions, I suppose. --gbambino 15:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Are we saying that in order for the UK to abolish, say, the sexist or anti-Catholic clause in the succession law of its own monarch, it would have to ask the Canadians, Australians, etc. to go through a process of constitutional amendment? Sounds a bit crap to me. TharkunColl 15:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: In essence, yes. The issue was raised in the UK Parliament just a few years ago. --gbambino 15:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: England included Wales at that point. And much more importantly, by far the most important reason for annexing Scotland was to force them to accept the Act of Settlement, which was for this reason written into the Act of Union. England feared a Scotland dependent on France, and sought to prevent that by incorporating it into the kingdom. TharkunColl 00:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A constitutional question for our legal expert

message: Why isn't this in the succession box? From its declaration of independence on 11 November 1965 until the establishment of a republic on 2 March 1970, Rhodesia recognised the queen as its head of state. That the queen failed to reciprocate is supremely irrelevant, and highlights the absurdity of claiming that an absentee monarch is just as much a monarch as one who actually lives in the country. Be that as it may, the queen was queen of Rhodesia from 1965 to 1970 whether she liked it or not. TharkunColl 11:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems open to dispute. john k 13:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "That the queen failed to reciprocate is supremely irrelevant, and highlights the absurdity of claiming that an absentee monarch is just as much a monarch as one who actually lives in the country." I fail to see how it is irrelevant, or what it has to do with being absent. This claim is ridiculous. JPD (talk) 13:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the idea is that the role of the Queen as head of state of Rhodesia, a role which she refused to accept, was actually basically the same as her role as head of state of Canada or Jamaica. john k 13:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Rhodesians proclaimed Elizabeth II Queen of Rhodesia, but according to the law of the United Kingdom and its Dominions, she held no such title. I would say that it would be endorsing the POV that Rhodesia was independent from 1965 if the title Queen of Rhodesia was to be included. The Southern Rhodesia Act 1965 made it quite clear that no actions taken by the Southern Rhodesia Legislative Assembly and the Ministers after November 11, 1965 had any force in law. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 13:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not POV to claim that Rhodesia was independent from 1965, because it clearly was. The POV would be to express an opinion on whether it should have been independent. TharkunColl 15:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It most certainly is POV to say Southern Rhodesia was independent from 1965. It was run by a rebel régime that had no legal legitimacy and was never accorded diplomatic recognition by anyone. The United Kingdom remained responsible for the activities of Southern Rhodesia until April 1980 according to the United Nations. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If Rhodesia was not independent, then how come Ian Smith was able to run it without recourse to the British government? TharkunColl 15:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is North Cyprus an independent state today?  de facto states are a tricky issue.  john k 15:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is North Cyprus able to act independently, or is it, in effect, completely dependent on Turkey? TharkunColl 18:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Was not Rhodesia largely dependent on South Africa? john k 20:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now we are getting into deep politics - they were certainly dependent on South Africa's military aid from 1972 to 1976 (when the South Africans started to withdraw it in circumstances recounted in my featured article P. K. van der Byl. They were also dependent to some extent on Mozambique being friendly, and when it turned hostile in 1975, it wasn't long before the Rhodesians realised that cutting a deal would be a better option than military defeat. Sorry to divert everything but this is one of my favourite subjects. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 23:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I understood that TharkunColl was suggesting that the role as Queen of Rhodesia was basically the same as the role as Queen of Canada, but that is a patently absurd notion. It only makes sense if we assume that the lack of reciprocity is irrelevant. The fact that the Rhodesians were in practical terms able to act as though it was irrelevant may say something about absentee monarchs, but it doesn't make TharkunColl's statement any more reasonable. JPD (talk) 13:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rhodesia

message: We need to provide a citation from an official source for the appropriateness of the term "personal union". Historically, personal unions have come about through wholly different circumstances than those pertaining to the UK and the other realms. Basically, a personal union occurs between two previously existing sovereign states simply through a process of inheritance. England and Scotland is the obvious example, but later we also have Great Britain and Hanover. Often, personal unions will lead to political union, as with England and Scotland. Sometimes, however, they are simply dissolved, as with Great Britain and Hanover. In themselves, they are always transitory. A special class of personal union is exemplified by that which occured between England and Normandy from 1066 to 1204 - although a result of conquest, it was claimed by William that the motive was dynastic.
The situation between the UK and the other realms is fundamentally different. Those realms were not pre-existing sovereign states with their own monarchs, but rather were colonies of the UK with the British monarch as their sovereign. There never was any independent monarchical tradition in those countries (obviously, I'm not talking about the indigenous peoples here, but the colonists). TharkunColl 11:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As i understood it, "personal union" is a term concerning consitutional arrangements, not the history behind them. Anyway, since the article doesn't use the term "personal union", we don't need a source (of any sort, let alone official) for the appropriateness. JPD (talk) 13:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal union?

message: One of the monarchs of Andorra is also head of state of France. I'm sure this has been brought up before. TharkunColl 11:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Andorra doesn't have monarchs, as "monarch" means "sole ruler". If anything, they're diarchs. Proteus (Talk) 12:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are called monarchs, just like William and Mary in England, even though there were two of them. The etymology of a word does not necessarily correspond to its usage. TharkunColl 13:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway the article says "She is presently the world's only monarch who is simultaneously Head of State of more than one independent nation," so that does not exclude Andorra's heads of state.Richard75 17:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It says "She is presently the world's only monarch who is simultaneously Head of State of more than one independent nation."  Hence, the debate over whether or not the Princes of Andorra are considered monarchs. --gbambino 17:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: She is not the world's only monarch to be head of state of more than one nation

message: Okay, this is starting to get rather silly now. Firstly, the term British Empire did not refer to the home country - it was a name used exclusively for the colonies, dominions, etc. Perhaps citizens of these said dominions might not quite fully realise this. We often hear phrases like: "Britain once had an empire", but never: "Britain was once part of an empire" (unless, perchance, one is talking about the Roman Empire). Secondly, the term "British Empire" had no legal meaning anyway, and was only ever an informal term referring to the territories that Britain ruled. Constitutionally, each of those colonies etc. had its own separate and unique relationship to the British state. Thirdly, if certain people will continue to insist that Britain was part of the British Empire, simply because it was one of the territories that the British state ruled, then under that definition it still is, and therefore the term "formerly" is incorrect in this instance. TharkunColl 15:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is getting a bit silly. I did not mean to imply that the UK was not part of the empire, and it definitely reads better without that qualifier. While it is conceivable that TharkunColl's meaning of "British Empire" was used to some extent, it does not fit with similar terms such as "Roman Empire". More importantly, as there are obvious differences there, it doesn't fit with the way the term was used in the dominions or by the British government when communicating with the dominions. The intended meaning clearly depended on the context. As TC says, there was no legal meaning of the term, and so we shouldn't be too fussy about how it is used here in a similarly informal sense. The third point is nonsense. Whatever the term British Empire referred to, it is not used to talk about anything that currently exists, as it was the overseas territories that made it in any sense an empire. JPD (talk) 16:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: As for the maps, they still exist, and show the Commonwealth in red - yet no one is claiming that the Commonwealth is a state (and in any case, mapmakers are not legislators). That the British Empire was not like the Roman, Akkadian, or what-have-you empires is the whole point - those empires were indeed states, which the British Empire most assuredly was not. Each "state" of the empire was governed separately from its own office in Whitehall, whereas the UK itself was governed by its own government. Yes, London was the centre of the empire in this sense, but in no way was it the capital of a huge state that spanned the globe. The British never consolidated their empire into a unified administration - indeed, all the forces at work within it were always in the opposite direction. But the basic point still remains - the UK was never considered to be part of the empire, rather, it had an empire. Your other point is purely arbitrary. If you choose to include the UK as part of the empire, then it obviously still is - you cannot pick a single year in which the British Empire ceased to exist, because it just gradually faded from everyday conversation. With Canada, Australia, etc. you can pick a year (or years) in which they ceased to be part of the empire, but you cannot do this with the UK because the term British Empire was never enshrined in law. The edit that you made to the article is therefore wholly misleading, and is why I originally wrote "former colonies", to avoid such ambiguity. TharkunColl 18:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps readers might be wondering why on earth it is that she is queen of all these widely scattered countries. TharkunColl 18:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it may be a good thing to give some indication of why there is one queen for all these countries. However, TharkunColl is wrong on several points. The "basic point" that the UK was never considered to be part of the empire is simply false. However often the term "the empire" was used in Britain to refer to overseas colonies, it was also used to include Britain, both overseas and by the British government. How administration was handled is irrelevant. The fact that you can't in fact pick a single year in which Australia, etc. left the Empire gives a hint that you shouldn't expect to be able to pinpoint when the Empire ceased to exist. The Empire was a very strong concept in everday speech of people and governments, and the fact that it was never well defined means that we should use it in the same vague manner, rather than trying to pin the meaning down or ignore it. If you are insist on such a narrow understanding of the empire as to find it problematic to suggest that the UK was part of the British Empire, then perhaps you could suggest another way of making the same point that is actually accurate. All the realms were governed by the UK, there weren't each colonies in their own right. JPD (talk) 09:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: You know, John, you really need to tone it down with the sarcastic and snide attempts to belittle.  Please.  I realise that what I stated was incorrect, and should have said that the Empire was beginning to die 20 years before Elizabeth acceded to the throne. I know full well that Britain still had colonies by the time of Elizabeth's accession, but thought that the term "empire" had been dropped after 1931, when there was a conscious effort on the part of Westminster to replace it with "commonwealth."  I suppose, now, that it was still thrown around in common usage into the 1950s.  Anyway, I'm presently wondering why we're discussing the inclusion of a sentence about the former colonial status of some countries, for the purpose of explaining why EIIR is queen of them, when the third paragraph of the article explains in perfect detail how it came to be (though it does say "as other colonies of the British Commonwealth attained independence...") --gbambino 16:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The term continued to be used into the 1960s, and it wasn't until that decade that most of the African colonies became independent. But by 1970 it belonged to a remote and half-forgotten past. There's actually a rather neat historical symmetry here: The first colonies, and the term British Empire itself, were created under Elizabeth I (it was the occultist John Dee who coined the phrase). That empire finally came to an end under Elizabeth II. TharkunColl 15:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the question of when the term Empire died out is under question, it mat be worth noting that Empire Day only changed its name to Commonwealth Day in 1958. Kaid100 11:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And the OBE - Order of the British Empire - has still not yet changed its name (a 2004 proposal to change it to "Order of British Excellence" has been quietly brushed under the carpet). TharkunColl 11:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: No, they weren't. The British Empire was the collective (and informal) name of all the territories controlled by the UK. TharkunColl 18:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The UK was NOT part of the British Empire!

message: On the list of longest-serving monarchs, the Queen is fifth, not second. Samoa has the longest served (Malietoa Tanumafili II of Samoa), Thailand the second (Bhumibol Adulyadej, even though that article claims he is the first),  and then there is Saqr bin Mohammad al-Qassimi and Tenzin Gyatso, who I'm not sure are Heads of State of sovereign countries. What's the real situation then? --El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 13:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: She is considered second, after the King fo Thailand.  Tanumafili II is only counted from when Samoa became independent in 1962; the Dalai Lama certainly doesn't count, as no country recognizes Tibet as a sovereign state; Ras al Khaimah is a subnational division, not a sovereign country.  john k 13:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second longest served head of state?

message: The Personality and Image section tells us "Elizabeth's first appearance on live television was in Prescott, Ontario in 1959..."  Wasn't the coronation in 1953 broadcast live?217.154.66.11 12:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I'd thought too, but the source, from the Department of Canadian Heritage, says all HM's previous appearances on television were filmed. It says: "The first live appearance was part of coverage of the official opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway on June 26 near Prescott. All Her Majesty's previous appearances had been filmed." --gbambino 14:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure that's wrong.  It was famously the event which really kickstarted the massive uptake of (very expensive) television sets in the UK.  This site [] for instance talks of an outside broadcast.  Admittedly it does not explicitly say it was a live broadcast but it's the only possible interpretation.  It does point out that the United States (which I guess includes Canada, sorry Canadians) watched telefilms flown across the atlantic (no transatlantic simulcast in those days.)  Do you think this is referring to the first live broadcast in Canada?217.154.66.11 17:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The BBC news website states it was live with the following line "The ceremony was watched by millions more around the world as the BBC set up their biggest ever outside broadcast to provide live coverage of the event on radio and television." http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/2/newsid_2654000/2654501.stm
Maybe due to time differences the broadcast was recorded and shown later on but in the UK it was live. 
Also, to further prove there were live appearances before 1959, made in New Zeland at Christmas, the following links states the above in more detail http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/15/newsid_2906000/2906955.stm
--PrincessBrat 22:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1st live TV 

message: I came here looking for a wikilink direct to QEII's coronation. To my surprise there's no such article. Surely there's enough material to make a nice article? --kingboyk 14:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coronation 

message: At present the article says: "During the VE Day celebrations in London, she and her sister dressed in ordinary clothing and slipped into the crowd secretly to celebrate with everyone."  If it were not for the fact that the article is locked, I would mark this as needing a citation.  I have heard, but cannot cite, that at one point when the then Princess Elizabeth was in the midst of the crowd, she found herself standing next to a Guards officer.  In order to keep from being recognized, Princess Elizabeth had pulled ATS service cap forward.  The Guards officer remarked that she was improperly dressed and that when Princess Elizabeth did not adjust her headdress he stated that he could not remain in the company of a fellow officer who was not properly dressed.  I would not describe an ATS officer's uniform as "ordinary clothing" and so this story is at odds with the article.  It may be that the above account is pure fiction, but I would at least like a citation for the "ordinary clothing" remark.  Greenshed 17:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manner of dress during the VE day celebrations 

message: Here is a comment from the IMDB article about the recent film:
:From what I've read, JR, Elizabeth was eager to "join up" from the time she turned 18 (April 1944) but had an uphill battle with her parents and their courtiers about it. Wasn't the Thing To Do for the heir -- if she was female, that is. Elizabeth felt patriotically that all her peers were doing war work and she wanted to do the same -- very much in the spirit of the times.
:She finally won and was allowed to sign on with the Auxiliary Territorial Service (the women's branch of the Army Reserve) and go through a mechanic's course at Aldershot, a base near Windsor, although she didn't sleep in barracks but was chauffered back to the Castle every night. By this time it was early '45 and the threat of a German invasion of England was pretty much over. Apparently they hand-picked qualified drivers to "take" the course with her, young women whose behavior was deemed beyond reproach and who could be trusted to behave properly around the Heiress Presumptive to the Throne. These other students had to fake that they were learning the material they had already mastered and were even assigned questions to ask at appropriate points (even though they already knew the answers). Nevertheless, Elizabeth wasn't allowed to mingle with them much and was not told about the deception.
:She was reportedly fascinated, both with the work ("we've had sparking plugs all last night at dinner" her mother said) and with the exposure to ordinary people, albeit limited. At one point her Aunt Mary (the Princess Royal) visited her unit on an inspection and she got a glimpse of the frantic spit-and-polish that goes on before such an event, "something I shall never forget".
:In the end she qualified as a mechanic and driver not long before the war ended, so she didn't get much chance to do practical service. Undoubtedly the main benefit from the experience was the PR value of photographs of the Heiress to the Throne in a khaki overall, bending earnestly over the engine of a truck with a spanner in her hand.
:(posted by  lynettecon      2 days ago (Thu Nov 9 2006 06:16:30  in the thread "Your favorite tiny detail?"). 
Any comments on this? How true is it?--Filll 15:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: from IMDB article on recent film

message: Such a fervent discussion is rarely seen nowadays and seems to be overshadowing articles which tackle such issues as global warming and extreme poverty. If in any doubt, please check out relevant pages on Wikipedia and accompanying discussions. For all I can see, this whole "discussion", which has already led to the article being locked several times, is a produce of few obdurate inhabitants of the United Kingdom and Ireland, who seem to be trying to present their royalist-antiroyalist struggle in terms of life and death. There is no point, however, in everyone else bearing witness to this insular matter. If one is not sure on whether someone is queen of 16 or 15 realms, one should just ask the queen, for goodness sake. The address is simple enough: Buckingham Palace, London, UK. And move on with your lives please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.216.181.66 (talk • contribs) .
:We could of course ask the crown to update the wikipedia article themselves. :) --Filll 01:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is to create a verifiable encyclopedia article. Gwernol 02:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: By a reader of the article. You cite reliable sources that show your statements to be true. Readers can then find those sources via your citation and verify that what you wrote in the article accurately reflects the source. Oh, and please sign your comments left on talk pages - it makes it much easier to follow the conversations. Thanks, Gwernol 02:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: This is about how the article is constructed. If you want to include information that the queen is head of 15 states, you have to cite a reliable source that shows this is true - this is what verifiability means. And please sign your comments. Thanks, Gwernol 02:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I phoned Buckingham Palace about six months ago to ask a question of the press office. I was stunned at how unhelpful they were, and how unwilling to try to understand a query. Good luck though! – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 16:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ask the Queen

message: I believe that since family is singular, it is resides. What do you think?--Filll 11:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since a family is a group rather than an individual it could be said to be plural, so it should really be "reside" but it is a debatable point. Green Giant 04:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it really shouldn't. 66.87.91.36 01:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reside or Resides

message: The Sunday Times (UK), claimed the Queen may have bone-cancer. Although it's been denied, it's still could be mentioned. Can I have some suggestions? Should this be added to the article? Source on Royalty News website. GoodDay 01:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bone Cancer?

message: While I am far from a Royalist, these lyrics are offensive iin this article and should be removed.
203.220.216.128 01:52, 18 November 2006 
(UTC)
That was quick!203.220.216.128 02:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sex Pistols lyrics 

message: In the introduction,the sixth sentence states:
:" In legal theory she is the most powerful head of state in the world, although in practice she personally exercises very little political executive power."
Is there any supporting evidence for this claim of being the most powerful head of state? I've heard the term being used about the President of the USA, mainly because of the economic and military prowess of the USA, but never about any other office or individual. If there is little or no evidence to back up such a claim the sentence should be modified or removed. Green Giant 02:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest "one of the most" rather than "the most" - also, often dictators' theoretical powers are less extensive than the Queen's, even if their practical powers are greater than the queen's theoretical ones.  If that makes any sense. But I can't imagine that the Queen has notably more theoretical powers than the King of Saudi Arabia or the Sultan of Oman, for instance. john k 17:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Changing it to "one of the most powerful" would be a better statement but it would still need some evidence to show that it isn't just the editor's POV. If the sentence refers to the reserve powers it should make that clear. Now that I come to think of it, the words "In legal theory" present the same problem unless there is a reliable source somewhere. Green Giant 20:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguous sentence 

message: These are important diplomatic terms used in treaties.
:For example, in the "Mandate for Palestine" of the League of Nations.
::However, the feminine term sends one straight to the current Queen Elizabeth.
:::Can someone DISAMBIGUATE the term? I do not know how.
::::My point is that these terms, or titles, need to be explained--one should not click on the term and just get the article on the particular queen--long live Queen Elizabeth the Second!
:::Yours truly, Ludvikus 20:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "[[His Britannic Majesty]]"& "[[Her Britannic Majesty]]"

message: In the Canada national unity section the prank where a DJ called the Queen pretending to be Prime Minister is referenced. It says "Her tactful handling of the call won plaudits from the DJ" and cites a source.(http://www.monarchist.ca/mc/queenpr.htm) THat source however says nothing about the DJs views on the prank. It does praise the Queens handling of the situation but it is a piece from the group Manrchy Canada so that should be expected. In the articel it mentions numerous people including then PRime Minister Jean Chretien approved of Her Majesties handling of the interview. However it doesnt mention the DJ's views at all. THis should be fixed no?
:Someone else put in the comment re. the DJ before the info from the article was added.  I don't know where that person got the information, though the prank was covered somewhat in the media at the time. --gbambino 22:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction Canada National Unity 

message: Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure there will be an expert with the relevant technical literature who will!), but surely Elizabeth II is an Empress rather than a Queen?
If she is/is not, (an again I'm presuming this has been disscussed before now) I think it would be helpful to explain this in the article, perhaps in the Constitutional role section. Jhamez84 15:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Elizabeth II isn't an Empress, see Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. GoodDay 20:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Elizabeth II is Queen of 16 sovereign states, holding each crown and title equally. See also British_empire#Decolonisation_and_decline. --Oden 20:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Empress