Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 3

message: Shouldn't this be at Queen Elizabeth II, or Queen Elizabeth, or worst case, Queen Elizabeth II (UK), per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), since that is how she is most commonly referred to? (and that's how most of the articles link here) Niteowlneils 20:40, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That page states "Convention: Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. The principal exception is in the case of naming royalty and people with titles. For details of the naming conventions in those cases, see the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) page", and that page states "Pre-emptively Disambiguate the names of monarchs of modern countries in the format "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}". Examples: Edward I of England; Alfonso XII of Spain; Henry I of France; Cleopatra VII of Egypt". Proteus (Talk) 22:37, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Article title

message: Why isn't it written plain and bold who her parents are?
[moved down here, for want of a better place James F. (talk) 01:44, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: I'm not getting involved, but I'd just like to point out that User:Gbambino/Queen Elizabeth II (1926- present) seems to have been created as some sort of fork. sjorford:// 10:21, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: moved into user subpage--Jiang 03:38, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fork 

message: I think we have 4 suggestions of where this page should go. Maybe we should see who likes what. I'm deliberately being positive and only having "supports" - and also suggesting users might wish to support more than one of the options below: jguk 17:18, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Why isn't The Queen an option?" Because wikipedia is international. Don't you think the Danes and the Dutch would be a bit preturbed at wikipedia decalring Elizabeth II "the" one and only Queen? Besides, the practice in Britain is to refer to her as "the Queen" domestically and "Her Britannic Majesty" abroad. AndyL 22:14, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhm, Morwen already pointed out the tongue-in-cheek nature of her comment. --MarkSweep 09:00, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested page titles

message: Supported by:
# sigh... — Dan | Talk 17:34, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom

message: Supported by:
#jguk 17:18, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Elizabeth II

message: Supported by:
#jguk 17:18, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Queen Elizabeth II

message: Supported by:
#--Ibagli 19:36, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth Realms

message: Why oh why can't we just stick to the conventions for royal titles and apply a consistent standard, rather than trying to impose individual practices. It is ridiculous to make this change for Elizabeth only - what about her father, uncle and grandfather for a start? Then there's the numerous personal unions cited above, to say nothing of those monarchs who's title included lands they didn't rule and so on. If there's a clear case and support for changing the convention then fair enough to change all the monarchs affected, but let's stop trying to make individual exceptions that have no clear reason to be unique. Timrollpickering 20:11, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Why isn't The Queen an option?" Because wikipedia is international. Don't you think the Danes and the Dutch would be a bit preturbed at wikipedia decalring Elizabeth II "the" one and only Queen? Besides, the practice in Britain is to refer to her as "the Queen" domestically and "Her Britannic Majesty" abroad. AndyL 22:14, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhm, Morwen already pointed out the tongue-in-cheek nature of her comment. --MarkSweep 09:00, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Could have been taken from "Hello" magazine. Refdoc 22:38, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is fine, and well written as it is. Leave it be. Kiwifruitboi 12:41, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Horrible fawning article 

message: This article has said for a while that QE2 is the most widely travelled head of state. Just now an anon has added "behind Pope John Paul II" - does anyone know which of these is true? I've not reverted for now but I'll make a note on the RC patrol pages. Thryduulf 20:23, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: reading this particular bit a little late, but a pope *is* head of state; they are the head of the Vatican State. --Vamp:Willow 15:10, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Most widely travelled head of state

message: I noticed (in a photo in the Canada article) that the the Queen wears the Order of Military Merit award (likely only when she's in Canada).  No slight intended, but I'm curious: did the Queen earn this or does she wear it because of the position she holds?  It is apparently "an award issued by Canada to members of the Canadian Forces whom have demonstrated dedication and devotion beyond the call of duty." I know she's the Sovereign of this Order, but then I would assume she's the Sovereign of essentially every order in the Canadian Forces, so maybe a more interesting question is what awards or insignias does she wear and why? --Ds13 20:17, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
Her Majesty wears these honours not because she earned them but because she is the Fount of honour and she issues the honours, But in saying this Her Majesty did serve in the British army during Wrold war 2 so she may have earned it.
Her Majesty is indeed sovereign of the Order of Military Merit, as she is Sovereign of the Order of Canada --Ibagli 23:02, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Order of Military Merit (or awards she wears)