Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 5

message: A similar discussion is occuring at Talk:Commonwealth Realm concerning the use of the term "British Crown" for NPOV reasons rather than using only "The Crown" which assumes readers are not Danish, Swedish, Dutch, Swazi etc. Please go to Talk:Commonwealth Realm. Homey 17:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Commonwealth Realm

message: Shouldn't we introduce this as Queen Elizabeth II, not just Elizabeth II? This would make more sense as articles like Anne of Great Britain are now simply introduced as Anne, which doesn't make much sense to me. --Matjlav(talk) 21:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Under that logic, we should introduce articles like Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall as Camilla (b. 1947) is the Duchess of Cornwall, etc". Which isn't what we do. --Matjlav(talk) 16:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

text: My opinion is that just saying "Anne" or "Victoria" is not specific enough. We do not need to introduce someone like George W. Bush as President George W. Bush, because there aren't many other George W. Bushes. However, there are countless Annes and Victorias, so it just seems proper to add the designation Queen. --Matjlav(talk) 21:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro paragraph 

message: Firstly, the Queen is not Commander in Chief in all realms. Secondly, I removed this, and the reference to Defender of the Faith, because they belong better in later parts of the article. The Commander-in-Chief role is one of the functions of her positions as Queen of realms already mentioned, so belongs in the "role in government" section. The Defender of the Faith is a title, not a position, and is described in the titles section. It is a title given to the person in positions already mentioned (Queen of UK, Canada, Supreme Governor of CoE), and doesn't describe anything extra, so does not belong outside the titles section. JPD 10:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Positions/titles in intro 

message: *"She is the fortieth monarch since William I, the Conqueror." No, she isn't. From William I to Anne there was a Kingdom of England, which no longer exists. Elizabeth is Queen of the United Kingdom, which has only existed since 1707.
*"She is known as 'Lilibet' to her close family." Who calls her this today? Her children? Her husband? I doubt it. Even if they do, the sentence is speculation. Adam 03:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, no, the united (lower-case - i.e., not part of the name) Kingdom of Great Britain was created in 1707.  The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was created in 1801. john k 04:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, yes, you are right. But the point is that the Kingdom of England ceased to exist in 1707 and was replaced by another Kingdom, so I am right about that. Adam 04:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

text: This is the key point, which you haven't answered. Adam 04:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I am not advocating saying "she is the fortieth monarch since William I," so I don't see why I should have to defend that.  john k 06:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent. Then I will delete it. Adam 06:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

text: She is the fortieth monarch of England.  You are being purposely difficult here.  I am not saying that the person is ethnically English, just that they reigned over England.  Whenever Queen Anne is given a reign of 1702-1714, which she almost always is, people are assuming a continuity between pre-1707 (England and Scotland) and post-1707 (Great Britain, later the UK). George I may not have been King of England, but he was king of England. john k 04:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes, but he was also king of Kent, but we don't call him that, because Kent was not a Kingdom (although, like England, it once was). The key question, still to be answered, is "40th monarch of what?" And the answer is, of nowhere: not England, not the UK. So the statement is incorrect. Adam 04:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, yes, but he was also king of Kent, but we don't call him that, because Kent was not a Kingdom (although, like England, it once was). The key question, still to be answered, is "40th monarch of what?" And the answer is, of nowhere: not England, not the UK. So the statement is incorrect. Adam 04:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

text: The status of England within the UK is rather different than the status of Kent. It seems rather tendentious to me to pretend that what happened in 1707 was really the creation of a new kingdom, rather than the annexation of Scotland by England, which then took a new name. This is certainly how it was viewed by Scots for most of the 18th century, and by most English people until well into the twentieth century. Lists of the "Kings of England" always start with William I, and continue without a break through Anne and the Hanoverians to Victoria and her successors. Sure, this is technically incorrect. But it also acknowledged a larger truth, which is that the Kingdom of Great Britain, and the United Kingdom which has succeeded it, are successor kingdoms to the Kingdom of England, which remains by far the dominant part of the kingdom. This is not only true of the monarchy - the Westminster parliament is the direct successor of the English parliament; many of the Great Officers of State still hold their position specifically over England, and not over the United Kingdom; and so forth. That said, if you want to remove it, go ahead - it's not terribly important. But the pedantry over this point (usually a pedantry supported by furiously angry Scottish people, although obviously not in this case) can become rather grating. john k 06:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Fair enough. john k 04:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Do you think we should count English monarchs from William the Conqueror and Scottish monarchs from Kenneth MacAlpin?  Or from Malcolm Canmore? john k 17:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Two quibbles

message: It should be noted that the anon who removed "Windsor", referring to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies), himself added the relevant guideline to that page earlier today . — Dan | Talk 20:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For visual clarity, an article should begin with the form "{royal title} {name} {ordinal if appropriate} (full name (+ surname if known, but not for monarchs)" with the full name unformatted and the rest in bold (3 's). In practice, this means for example an article on Britain's Queen Elizabeth should begin "Queen Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary)".
Should we for some reason ignore it? 217.140.193.123 20:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Windsor" surname 

message: Why is her descent from Egbert notable?  And shouldn't her descent from Kenneth McAlpin also be noted in that case?  I also note that the number of generations depends heavily on how you count.  There are a number of ways to do it, and in particular there are three notable ways to get from Edward III to Margaret Tudor.  To wit:
#Edward III - Lionel of Antwerp - Philippa of Clarence - Roger Mortimer, 4th Earl of March - Anne Mortimer - Richard, Duke of York - Edward IV - Elizabeth of York - Margaret Tudor (8 generations)
#Edward III - John of Gaunt - John Beaufort, 1st Earl of Somerset - John Beaufort, 1st Duke of Somerset - Margaret Beaufort - Henry VII - Margaret Tudor (6 generations)
#Edward III - Edmund of Langley - Richard, Earl of Cambridge - Richard, Duke of York - Edward IV - Elizabeth of York - Margaret Tudor (6 generations)
I would suggest that this "fact" be removed. john k 16:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Descent from Egbert 

message: I find the recent rewrite of the Role in Government section by 69.209.235.81 less informative than the previous version. Should we revert it, or possibly merge the two versions? JPD 09:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted the section. If the older version is missing soemthing, it could be merged, but please try to avoid writing as though trying to justify the system rather than explain it. JPD 14:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Role in government 

message: Her Brittanic Majesty and Her Canadian Majesty: is there a distinction for Austrlalia and New Zealand? Craigy  (talk) 09:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: HM distinctions

message: In reference to the photo added today, showing a bunch of people watching a car coming out of a gate... I do not see what this adds to the article.  You can't see the Queen or Princess Anne (or at least I can't; I am sure they are the vague and shadowy figures behind the driver, but if you didn't read the caption you would not know who the passengers were.)  It is mostly a photo of a car, albeit a very nice car.  I think a similar photo where you could actually see the Queen would add something to the article, but this does not.  Zeutron 20:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, taken a few seconds later and we may have had a near-perfect GFDL image but this one isn't really any help to this article. Perhaps it should be removed? Craigy  (talk) 00:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Ah yes, good idea Astro; with a caption like "Crowds gather at the gates of the palace as Lizzy and Anne embark on one of their many mystical and magical trips to Tesco for the afternoon." - or something like that. :-P Anyway I suppose it is better of at the Buckingham Palace article than here. Craigy  (talk) 22:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo added by Hsandy 

message: Can someone please tell me why when one types in "Brends", don't ask why I was typing in "Brenda", one is redirected to this article! What's the name Brenda have to do with Queen Elizabeth II? -- Anon
:"Brenda" is the name that the satirical magazine, Private Eye, uses whenever it discusses Queen Elizabeth. -- Derek Ross |  Talk 17:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why? 

message: I have twice added to the list that HM is Queen of Gibraltar and Falkland Islands only to have it deleted for no apparent reason. It is a simple statement of fact that she is the Sovereign of those and other Overseas Territories, and there would appear to be no valid reason for excluding their mention. While they may be possessions of the United Kingdom, they do not form part of it, and therefore are excluded from the list. 
I fail to see why this is contraversial. I also do not think it right for someone to make a perfectly valid addition to an article, i.e. it is factual, and NPOV, and someone can just come along as delete it willy nilly. If you think a particular fact should not be included, why not say so on the discussion page, and give a valid reason? 
WP is indeed a free site, and if I wish to add other territories to the list why should that bother anyone as long as I am factual, and NPOV. I agree that all OT's should be added to the list, and intend to do so. Anyone having a valid reason to object now's your chance.--Gibraltarian 19:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overseas Territories 

message: Just suppose that Elizabeth II is still alive when the Prince of Wales (Charles) ascends to the throne and becomes King. What would her title be then? 'Dowager Queen Elizabeth??'
It's an unlikely situation I know, as the Queen has said herself she will only stop her duties when she dies and won't abdiciate - but just suppose this happens. Anyone out there have at least a small clue at to what she might be called?
Thanks. :) ----Lyly-Kim, January 21 2006
: If she abdicated, I believe she would revert to Her Royal Highness Princess Elizabeth (as she would be entitled as the daughter of a monarch), just as Edward VIII reverted to HRH Prince Edward.  He only became Duke of Windsor because George VI granted him that title.  Whether King Charles III (or George VII, as I've heard he would prefer to be known) would grant his mother a title would be up to him.  Of course, Princess Elizabeth would still be entitled to be called the Duchess of Edinburgh by virtue of her marriage to Prince Philip the Duke of Edinburgh.  So I guess she'd be Her Royal Highess Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh.  She would certainly not be known as Dowager anything.  That term applies to the widows of title-holders, not to ex-title holders themselves.  The Queen Mother was technically a Dowager Queen (consort) after the death of her husband George VI, but she never used the term.  JackofOz 06:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: When Charles acsends to the throne...

message: I do not understand why certain users delete the reference to The Prince Edward being HRH.  Also, The Prince of Wales' first wife's title immediately before marriage was Lady Diana Spencer, not The Lady Diana Spencer.  For those who doubt this, please check Debrett's and/or Burke's. 135.196.23.105 18:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think some confusion was caused due to the fact that the section orginally had HRH's for everyone except Edward, and this user was just trying to correct this anomoly. Of course, now we don't usually use any styles in the main text, so it was proper for all styles to be removed, which I have done. Astrotrain 22:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why no HRH for Edward and getting Diana's title correct

message: The photo half way down the page (Queen Elizabeth with Commonwealth Ministers) has wrongly named the ministers in the picture. To the Queen's right (not the viewer's right) is Sir Winston Churchill and not the Prime Minister of New Zealand as stated. Please rectify this as I do not have the time to do so at the moment. BlueKangaroo 02:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo caption in wrong order.

message: Just a thought, are Elizabeth II (79) & Philip (84) as of 2005, the longest lived monarch-consort couple (combined age 163) in British History (English & Scottish & Welsh histories as well)? If so, could it be noted or should we wait until one of them dies. Mightberight/wrong 26 October 2005.
The nearest rivals I can think of are George III and Mrs George III, who were 80 and 74 respectively at the time of her death. I'd be fairly certain they were the longest-reigning royal couple. They were Monarch and Consort for 57 years (1761-1818). Elizabeth and Phillip have been married for 57 years, but only Monarch and Consort for 53 years. Adam 11:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Elizabeth II & Philip, longest-lived Monarch-Consort couple?

message: A while ago I uploaded this photo for Adrienne Clarkson's page; but it could possibly be made use of in this article.
:Image:ClarksonandQueen2005.jpg
Dowew 05:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is the other woman? It looks like Imelda Marcos, but I assume it isn't. Adam 11:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Adrienne Clarkson. Pcb21| Pete 11:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The other woman in the photo is The Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson, the former Governor General of Canada.  This photo was taken during the Queens recent visit to Canada when Clarkson was still in Rideau Hall.  It is not a very good pic of Clarkson but I think the Queen looks good.  It is covered by Canadian Crown Copyright as it was produced by Rideau Hall. Dowew 00:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added to photo to the page, near the section where it mentions her 2005 visit to Canada.  If any one wants to change the caption be my guest Dowew 05:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've addded that she was the GG of Canada, for those who doesn't know who Clarkson is. --Kvasir 00:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian Photo 

message: Is this photo: :Image:Queen elizabeth the second portrait.jpg usefull here?--Fir0002 07:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC
:I think it would be useful I do suggest that someone photoshops it to remove the frame.  Perhaps we could creat a page for something like "uses of the effigy of Queen Elizabeth II" or something like that for the various uses of her likeness ? Dowew 23:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official Portrait in Canberra 

message: I have a problem with the title. Despite having equally important stati as queen of Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc., the article is called QEII of the UNITED KINGDOM. This presents a problem, and also implied superiority of the UK over the other countries of which she is queen, having her other realms included as an almost afterthought. Maybe this should be changed to QEII of Commonwealth realms? User: Lofty
It should stay as Queen Elizabeth of the United Kingdom because she is the Queen of the United Kingdom and is the Queen of other countries because she they are in the Commonwealth. Britain is at the head of the Commonwealth, therefore she is the Queen of the United Kingdom. BlueKangaroo 02:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Archive 4#.28Banging Dead Horse.29 Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth Realms for what I think is the last time this came up. Timrollpickering 10:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As a compromise solution to this redirections such as Elizabeth II of New Zealand, Elizabeth II of Canada exist and these countries are included these as bolds at the top of the page. -- Greaser 00:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Couldn't it also mean that she was born, or lives, in the United Kingdom, i.e. Leonardo da Vinci? --71.112.165.248 02:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: Queen Elizabeth was also queen of Pakistan from 1952 to 1956 when Pakistan became a republic. I checked with some other wikipedia articles and this seems correct 1. I concluded that there wasn't a succession box present as that would become cumbersome to do one for each of the countries that became republics during her reign - is that the reason?
-- Greaser 00:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Too many succession boxes will make the article too cumbersome. --Terence Ong Talk 04:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queen of Pakistan 

message: With many other monarch page's, I notice quite often when one monarch rules over multiple realms, this is mentioned at the bottom where in this article it simply says "Queen of the United Kingdom" rather than also listing Queen of Australia, Canada, New Zealand etc.
Although it might be more conveniant and practical to simply say "Queen of the United Kingdom", this is unacknowledgeing of the fact that she is indeed queen of quite a number of countries, and my country along with a number of others is in no way simply sub-ordinate to the UK and therefore shouldn't be included.
:In the same vein as this, the introductory paragraph lists the UK first as if it is superior or more important than the other Commonwealth Realms. I have rearranged the order. JSIN 05:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Realms 

message: Can anyone think of a use for this image : :image:Victoriacrosscanadapostagestampimage.jpg - it is a Canadian postage stamp which bears Elizabeth's signature approving the creation of Canada's Victoria Cross. Dowew 23:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about on the Victoria Cross article.  JackofOz 08:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  signature