Talk:Elizabeth II

VE Day celebrations?
This article https://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/reports/a46126585/real-story-queen-ve-night-out/ contains an account by the Queen’s cousin, Margaret Rhodes, which implies that Princess Elizabeth was among a party that dance the conga at the Ritz Hotel on VE Day. "For some reason, we decided to go in the front door of the Ritz and do the conga," Rhodes recalled. "The Ritz has always been so stuffy and formal – we rather electrified the stuffy individuals inside. I don't think people realised who was among the party – I think they thought it was just a group of drunk young people. I remember old ladies looking faintly shocked. As one congaed through, eyebrows were raised." Is this a credible? Corsac Fox Kazakhstan (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Also found https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_-Gs0CIDf0 Corsac Fox Kazakhstan (talk) 08:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not clear what changes you want to make to the article. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I was suggesting adding a sentence that describes Princess Elizabeth's celebratory conga at the Ritz on VE day. Though I was a bit wary as it is quite thin evidence. This would give a non-fictitious account, contrary to the vulgar fiction of dancing the jitterbug with GIs in The Crown on Netflix (see my comment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Crown_season_6 ) CorsacFoxWiki (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Surname
A death certificate from a reputable source is sufficient evidence for a surname. Even the official website says that surnames have been in use since 1917. It's not clear what @DeCausa's reason for reverting is. Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 22:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This was already discussed before & the consensus was to exclude any surname, in the intro. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Titus Gold, it should be clear to you because you raised the exact same point here on 8 December 2022. A lengthy thread ensued. Have you forgotten? DeCausa (talk) 06:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Consensus can change. It's not uncommon to revisit a discussion from over 12 months ago. Particularly one where 'I don't like it' triumphed over 'multiple sources say this'. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Previous consensus was not the point raised or referred to. DeCausa (talk) 13:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "This was already discussed before & the consensus was to exclude any surname" = previous consensus raised and referred to. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * apologies, I thought you were replying to me. DeCausa (talk) 18:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok fair enough; thanks for the link. I didn't recall that there had been an RFC since it was a while ago. Just saw some royals' full names come up recently in the news. No problem. Titus Gold (talk) 13:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Main Photo
I would be in favour of changing the image of Elizabeth II to a photo from sometime in the middle of her reign, as that’s what most people will remember her as.

This photo is on the Commons: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Her_Majesty_Queen_Elizabeth_II_of_the_Commonwealth_Realms.jpg Waverland (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I must admit, I have never liked the current photo from 1959 so I'd be mor than happy for it to be changed. Although, I must admit that the 2015 Photo looks better and should be reinstated https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Queen_Elizabeth_II_in_March_2015.jpg Pepper Gaming (talk) 23:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * can we not open a new RFC to discuss this? Pepper Gaming (talk) 11:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's unlikely everyone's changed their minds after the very deliberate discussion that was only a year ago. Remsense  诉  11:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 18 months ago now, but I agree. Choice of photo for an infobox can be subjective, so I’m not keen on re-opening the issue once a consensus was reached. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Completely understand that, and if a consensus was reached then that must be accepted. I just think that the photo of the 33 year old Queen is not a good representation for how the majority of the public will remember her, but as you say it is definitely subjective. Waverland (talk) 14:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with @Waverland, But I think it's time to open an RFC. I've never liked the portrait for many reasons (The fact that it is a Painting, rather than an actual photograph is one of those reasons). I'm still not budging from my original opinion (an opinion I formed 18 months ago when the image was first changed). And I feel like it should be changed to at least a Photograph of the Queen rather than a Painting Pepper Gaming (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It isn't a painting. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If it isn't a painting, then what is it? Pepper Gaming (talk) 20:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I'm stumped. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Turns out it's an early colour photograph. But it also looks like a painting at the same time. It's so confusing Pepper Gaming (talk) 10:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * While i agree with you, it’s not a painting, the portrait of the Queen Mother is but this one is an actual photo. Waverland (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So it's an actual Photograph and not a Painting? I've always thought of it to be the latter Pepper Gaming (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I’ve just checked and it was take by Donald McKague in December 1958, published in 1959. Waverland (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Pepper Gaming said:
 * "But I think it's time to open an RFC. I've never liked the portrait for many reasons (The fact that it is a Painting, rather than an actual photograph is one of those reasons). I'm still not budging from my original opinion (an opinion I formed 18 months ago when the image was first changed)."
 * Thank you for letting us know that you reject WP:CONSENSUS and will continue to raise this issue until you get your own way. Duly noted. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The last RFC voted for this one by a vote, as I recall, of 16 to 12. A year is long enough for minds to change or new views to come from new editors. I see nothing wrong with a new RFC.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * +1, consensus can change over time. A new RfC would not be against policy.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We've already been through this, multiple times. The 1959 image is what got consensus. PS - I highly doubt you'd get a consensus to replace the image, with a portrait. GoodDay (talk) 10:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * completely understandable, but I think you misunderstood what was being said. there was no discussion to replace the current photo with a portrait, rather confusion over whether the current image was a photograph or a painting. Waverland (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * All that is needed is the same level of consensus that got this on the page, that is a majority vote in a preference poll. Wehwalt (talk) 16:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @GoodDay Can I ask what you mean by "I highly doubt you'd get a consensus to replace the image, with a portrait"
 * Do you mean with replacing the current (1959) image with a Painting/Drawing?
 * (And to clarify, part of the reason why I was opposed to the 1959 image in the first place was because I originally thought it was a Painting/Drawn portrait Pepper Gaming (talk) 11:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * A photo is better than a painting. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree, I was opposed to the 1959 image for a long time because I thought it was a Painting or a Drawn portrait. Pepper Gaming (talk) 10:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * A photo is also better than something that's easily mistaken as a painting. Ric36 (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So I guess we're still getting nowhere with this. Ric36 (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I support a change to something in the 2020s Pharaoh496 (talk) 18:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Religion
Specifically Church of England. Any other Protestsnt would not be allowed. 2001:8003:2605:E500:5C68:C162:D520:11FA (talk) 06:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There is also Church of Scotland in the UK. Keivan.f  Talk 22:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Broken link "The requested page could not be found"
The link

https://www.royal.gov.uk/HistoryoftheMonarchy/The%20House%20of%20Windsor%20from%201952/HRHPrincessMargaret/Marriageandfamily.aspx

has rotted.

Suggest

https://www.royal.uk/encyclopedia/princess-margaret CorsacFoxWiki (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The rotted link is archived on the Wayback Machine here. This could also be added.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That seems excellent. CorsacFoxWiki (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * sorry for the misunderstanding. 2A02:6B6F:F8D1:C600:F599:76B5:D2B2:7728 (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)