Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 7

message: I have arranged the order of the Commonwealth nations of which Elizabeth is Queen in order of precedence as at her coronation oath:  "Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?" --pidd 12:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As soon as the Commonwealth Realms start paying for the Queen and her family, we might take their arguments a bit more seriously. Whatever legal fiction might say, she has no power whatever in any of those countries, as all such powers are exercised by somebody else in her name. The fact that she holds the position of head of state in those places is a hangover from imperial days, and is part of the gradual process of winding down the British Empire. TharkunColl 07:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the Queen is represented by a Governor General in the other Commonwealth Realms, but that doesn't mean she has doesn't have any power. These are all Canadian examples, as that's where I'm from :). The Queen often personally provides royal assent to bills when she is visiting the country. The Governor General may choose to reserve legislation for the Queen's personal approval. The Queen has the power to overturn legislation that the Governor General has approved (within one year of royal assent, if memory serves). The Queen appoints, and may dismiss, the Governor General. Finally, there is the ability to temporarily appoint 4 or 8 temporary addtional members to the Canadian Senate. When this is done (as it was in 1990 to pass the GST), the Queen's direct approval is required. --Q Canuck 14:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Commonwealth Realms

message: I have previously deleted this template once because it appeared to be vanadlism - not least because it has been inserted in line with (and displaced) the following section heading.
It has subsequently been reinstated by User:Fishhead64 with the comment "Deleting stuff from the talk page isn't kosher."
I agree that it is not normally correct to delete from talk pages, except in special circumstances, and I did consider that before making this deletion.
I maintain that this item is not appropriate on this talk page for the following reasons:
*Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines:
**"keep discussions on talk pages on the topic of how to improve the associated article" - this item was not a discussion, nor commnet on the associated article.
**"Sign your posts" - this item was not signed leading to the assumption that it was vandalism.
**"Avoid HTML markup" - this item was full of HTML markup.
**"Avoid deleting comments on talk pages" - this item was not a comment.
*Wikipedia:Etiquette:
**"Sign and date your posts to talk pages" - see comments above
*I note that the user who reinstated this template describes himself as a "deletionist" (see User's page), a term I had not come across before, but I note the definition:
:"Deletionism is a philosophy held by some Wikipedians that favors clear and relatively rigorous standards ... . Wikipedians who broadly subscribe to this philosophy are more likely to request that an article that they believe does not meet such standards be removed, or deleted."
:I maintain that the template did not meet the "clear .. standards" for talk pages and therefore deleted it.
TrevorD 09:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd simply point out that there are many, many comments strewn throughout the talk pages of wikipedia that do not meet one or all of these standards.  I think it is dangerous to pick and choose which comments one is going to delete.  "Deletionism,"  which Trevor references, typically refers to a disposition concerning the proliferation of articles on non-notable subjects, not to the deletion of comments that do not meet the recommended guidelines.  That sort of judgement borders on the capricious.  This, however, is not my ditch in which to die.  If you want to roam Wikipedia talk pages deleting comments you don't think are comments, or use HTML, or are unsigned, or are off-topic - go wild.  There are plenty out there.  Fishhead64 15:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moreover, there is a process for deleting articles - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion - but blanking comments on a talk page is a matter of the discretion of an individual editor. Fishhead64 16:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Template for those who love Her Majesty

message: I know this has been discussed before, but putting all the succession boxes of she the Queen of Canada etc. is very messy. It really makes a reader tired, I believe there is a better way of putting the boxes. --Terence Ong 07:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't think of a better way of doing it.  I've looked it over and it seems very clear to me, anyway. Fishhead64 08:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think they really need to be there. The precise wording/dating of several is disputable, and it's just too many boxes. Having the UK one is enough. JPD (talk) 09:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, "too many boxes" is a subjective term.  Secondl, they accurately reflect reality.  We've been around this mulberry bush before.  She is Queen of Canada, Jamaica, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, etc. in her own right, and the date that she succeeded to the crowns of those countries is known (e.g., in the case of St. Vincent, the date of independence in 1979).  To suggest otherwise in the succession boxes implies that these independent countries are British dependencies, or that their constitutional monarchies don't count. Fishhead64 16:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I acknowledge that it's subjective, but that doesn't mean it doesn't matter. Yes, we have been over all of this before, although not in the context of the succession boxes. You might notice that I opposed giving too much precendence to the UK in the intro or the article as a whole, but that doesn't mean we need a whole stack of succession boxes. Succession boxes are not essential to an article, they are extras that are meant to be helpful - when they get too unwieldy, there is no point having them. Also, the process by which the crown was regarded as in some sense separate in each realm was a gradual one, and what is there currently has been disputed, althoguh people are sick of fussing about it. JPD (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: She must have hundreds of titles for which we could have succession boxes, and obviously we can’t include all of them.  At minimum, though, I think that a person has to have a succession box for being queen of a country; that’s a pretty darn important piece of information.  I suppose you could make one box that said “Queen of several countries”, but then you wouldn’t be able to give accurate dates in it.  I say keep it as it is.  -arctic gnome 19:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree.  I think the boxes actually clarify quite well the thrones of countries of which the Queen's father was previously king, those in which she once reigned as Queen of the UK, as well as one in which she previously reigned as Queen of Australia. --gbambino 02:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Each succession box has a previous incumbent, even if the name of the title has changed.  More importantly, each box provides useful information about both what she is queen of, and when she became queen (and in some cases, stopped being queen).  -arctic gnome 04:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Messy 

message: According to the article, Elizabeth II is the 'second-longest-serving head of state in the world'. Isn't that wrong. I mean, Victoria alone reigned for 63 years. Ixistant
:It means currently, not historically. Elizabeth is the second longest reigning living monarch at present. The only longer one, AFAIK, is the King of Thailand. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second longest serving? 

message: Shouldn't she be the fifth? Henry III ruled for 56 years. Of course, Henry III was only the King of England, but then again, James VI / I never formally united his realms into anything more than a personal union. Furthermore, he was only King of Scotland, England and Ireland for 22 years. It was only in Scotland that he ruled for a total of 58. I think that if James is included as the third longest serving British monarch, Henry III should be the fourth. Or, otherwise, Elizabeth should be listed third, not counting both James and Henry. Druworos 15:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fourth longest serving British monarch? 

message: "Elizabeth is a conservative in matters of religion, moral standards and family matters. She has a strong sense of religious duty and takes her Coronation Oath seriously. This is one reason (as well as the example set by her abdicated uncle) why it is considered highly unlikely that she will ever abdicate. For years, she refused to acknowledge Prince Charles's relationship with Camilla Parker-Bowles, but since their marriage, an appearance of acceptance has been established."
This is perceptive and biased - not in encyclopedia format.
I disagree- I think this is all probably true, although the statements ought to be verified for Wikipedia, and I've marked it as such.--Slackbuie 00:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Views and perceptions 

message: "However there is some evidence to suggest that in economic terms she leans toward the liberal point of view. During the Thatcher era it was rumoured that she criticised Prime Minster Margaret Thatcher for being "uncaring" toward the poor"
- It would surely follow from the second sentence above that the alleged views tend towards *anti-liberalism* "in economic terms".  Or rather, her alleged economic views might be somewhat "left of centre"?  I'm fully aware that in the US the word 'liberal' has become synonymous with 'left-wing'  - but that kind of usage simply hasn't been adopted in the UK, the country with which she is most associated and indeed the place which the rumour in question relates to.  I would have just edited it to "... a left of centre point of view" - but unless the example is sourced, or other cited examples are given in its place, I not sure I want to clarify what looks like a quite surprising claim. --Danward 22:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: She is a one-nation conservative. Basically, according to this theory, aristocrats make the best rulers, and even have the interests of the poor at heart in a paternailtstic sort of fashion. This, at any rate, was made clear in her biog on telly last night. TharkunColl 23:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think "anti-liberal" is appropriate - neoliberalism/classical liberalism is not the be all and end all of liberalism.  Left of centre is probably better, though. john k 00:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Either way, surely the claim should be attributed to someone ... --Q Canuck 00:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  That old "liberal v left wing" semantic debate... 

message: I realise the article is rather cluttered already, but should it not include the House of Windsor infobox somewhere (as every other British monarch's page contains their respective House box?) FiggyBee 00:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  House of Windsor Infobox