Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 1

message: The Declaration of 1917 granted the title of Prince or Princess to the children of the sons of the Sovereign. Why, then, is the daughter of HRH Prince Edward called Lady Louise Windsor? As the child of the son of the Sovereign, she is entitled to the title of Princess.
:Technically she is, read the article Lady Louise Windsor. According to the BBC, it's because she's the daughter of an 'Earl'. Our article says more. --Jiang 06:58, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Be bold! Feel free to correct it "Although rumoured..." --Jiang 08:58, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titles of grandchildren of Sovereign 

message: Today, she has approximately 125 million subjects in the nations in which she is head of state. If you include the all of the Commonwealth realms (including those that are republics), this number swells to 1.71 billion (or 1.87 billion if one counts the suspended Pakistan).
The second statement seems to confuse Commonwealth realm with membership in the Commonwealth of nations. The first is those nations that acknowledge QEII as Head of State; the second just signifies ties with the British Empire. By definition, a Commonwealth realm can't be a republic. Furthermore, the statistic is itself irrelevant, but may be relevant as the total membership of the Commonwealth. I have removed the line in the article. Ambarish Talk 16:42, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commonwealth of Nations vs. Commonwealth realms 

message: Does anyone have reliable documentation about the Queen's political views?  In this edit, the sentence, "she is believed to hold centrist, even slightly left of centre views" was removed from one section and the sentence "Her private political views are probably 'moderate Tory'" was added to another.  Is there any reliable evidence about which is correct?
Acegikmo1 20:27, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queen's political views 

message: This page is 37kB long. I say let's remove the list of PMs. They have little to do with her biography. It's irrelevant. Stuff on her ancestry could go to the royal family article. --Jiang 06:21, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: length 

message: "It is therefore not correct to refer to Canadians, Australians etc as "subjects" of Queen Elizabeth. Rather they are citizens of countries of which she is head of state."
I'm not sure this is correct. It is my understanding that we in Canada are citizens rather than subjects by virtue of the Citizenship Act of 1948 (or thereabouts) and not because of any constitutional arrangement vis-a-vis the Queen. Also, didn't the Bill of Rights and Act of Settlement establish that it is Parliament that ultimately has the right to determine who becomes King or Queen? In practice the hereditary principle is at play but that is only because it is written into the Act of Settlement. If Parliament changed the rules so that the Queen Elizabeth's successor was to be the winner of the next Big Brother then that would be that. 
As well, since the Act of Settlement specifies that one must be neither Catholic nor married to a Catholic can we really say that in Britain the succession is purely a matter of heredity since someone who would be a rightful heir according to strict rules of heredity (say male primogeniture) could be disqualified for religious reasons by virtue of British constitutional law? AndyL 05:30, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hereditary in the sense of legal inheritance, which is not equivalent to biologicial heredity. The law treats male and female, first-born and last-born, Protestant and Catholic, and the legitimate and the bastard unequally in defining this particular inheritance. - Nunh-huh 05:42, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: When the Queen dies her heir will be accepted as head of state in the Commonwealth Realms by virtue of the constitutional law of each of them, rather than by hereditary right. It is therefore not correct to refer to Canadians, Australians etc as "subjects" of Queen Elizabeth. Rather they are citizens of countries of which she is head of state.
As I said, it is my understanding that in Canada we are citizens by virtue of the passage of Canada's first Citizenship Act in the late 1940s, not "by virtue of the constitutional law" and that prior to 1948 or so we too were "British subjects". AndyL 07:38, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Subject vs citizen also constitution vs hereditary succession