Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 12

Lead length
WP:LEAD is a guideline for the length of an article's lead section. Not only does it specifically state that exceptions may be made for long important articles, it is also (deliberately, I think) very vaguely worded, and so shoudl never be applied legalistically. The very fact that it describes an optimal length in terms of paragraphs, which are of variable length, shoudl give this away. The lead in this article is the length of three or four acceptably long paragraphs, and so could literally fit within the guideline simply by amalgamating paragraphs. However, to do this would be stupid, as it reads better this way. This is precisely the sort of reason why Wikipedia guidelines are usually applied with sensible flexibility. JPD (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Every GA and FA conforms to this guideline. There is no reason why this article should be excempt from WP:LEAD; the lead should be abridged so that it has a maximum of four paragraphs.


 * Stating that the article should be allowed to breach this because it's important (according to your POV) does not help. God, Universe, History, World War II all have four paragraphs max. Jhamez84 16:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not claiming that any article should be exempt from WP:LEAD - read the guideline again. It says it is a "general guideline" and definitely does not say that introductions "must be four paragraphs maximum" as you claim. I did not argue that this article should be allowed to breach it (or even have a longer lead) because it is important. I pointed out that the guideline says long articles on important topics may have longer introductions. That exemption may or may not apply to this article, but it definitely shows that you have misunderstood the guideline.
 * However, my most important point is not about whether the "four paragraphs" is a strict maximum or not, but the fact that the lead in this article is well within the intentions of this guideline. The length of the intro here is already what would normally be considered four paragraphs - it is roughly the same length as the two paragraph intro to History, one of the examples you cite. The actual number of paragraphs is not a serious indication of length. JPD (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be the same length as the leads of most FAs, it's just broken into more paragraphs. Don't worry about it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Photo
Is the photo at top of page really the best we can do? Passingtramp 09:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably - getting a free-license recent image of such a high-profile living person is incredibly hard DBD 13:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The Queen will be visiting at the White House (this week or next week). We could get a U.S. government photo.  Real96  10:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I found an image on Wikimedia Commons. Hopefully that will suffice.  Real96  21:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Much better new photo! Passingtramp 11:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent) Love the NASA photo! Coincidence that she was visiting the states. :-P  Real96  18:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The royal family's website now (don't think it did before) has a page of downloadable images, including a good official one of the Queen. It says they're for use by "individuals, communities, charities, parishes and other non-commercial organisations". Does wikipedia class as a non-commercial organisation? If so, could we use the photo? The current one is good, but this one's more formal, and so perhaps more suitable. http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page5711.asp Passingtramp 12:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * They still don't qualify as "free" licenses, and thus cannot replace a free image, even if the non-free image is of a higher quality. Indeed, uploading an image under a non-commercial use license immediately qualifies it for speedy deletion.-- Ibagli ( Talk ) 20:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I find it absolutely impossible to believe that there is no decent photo of this woman that we can use on this page. This is probably the most photographed woman over the age of 50 in the world.Unschool 17:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There is one, and it is a featured picture! Unfortunately Wikipedia has been having some image problems today, so I have purged the image and it seem to be working now. If you still can't see it, please try refreshing the page and you should be able to see it. Thanks, mattbr 18:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Asian Ancestry?
The source of this article's quote "Her ancestry includes a wide range of European and even Middle Eastern and other Asian Royal Houses.[4]" is the unsourced quote "Queen Elizabeth II's ancestry is a multicultural panorama. German and Danish in the main lines, it also includes figures as diverse as Armenian princes, Mongol warriors and Muslim leaders." I don't have a problem with the assertion (virtually NO living human is not in someway connected genetically to widely-spaced populations throughout the world because of eons of migration and mixing), but a more reliable source is needed. Kemet

Buckingham Palace statements
There are several references along the lines of 'the Palace says'; one understands that there will be statements from the Queen's 'office' and maybe 'the Palce says' doesn't need rerwording. However, 'Buckingham Palace is also reported to be considering giving the Prince more access to government papers' I think warrants a more formal label for the office at the Palace that's making the atatements (Is it always Buckingham Palace, how about Windsor, Balmoral etc?) --Brenont 05:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Queen of Canada?
Since when is Canada back under the rule of the UK? I was taught in school, and read on the Wiki under "Canada" that they are a democracy... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.42.35.210 (talk) 15:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Someone's very confused. --G2bambino 15:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hahahaha, oh dear me....I suggest you study the articles on Canada a bit more carefully. It also sounds like you are saying that means the UK is Not a democracy!

The UK isn't a democracy, it's a constitutional monarchy, they just happen to share a lot of the same characteristics. (MJC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.195.8 (talk) 18:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * A constitutional monarchy and a democracy are not mutually exclusive. The UK is both.

From the wiki page on constitutional monarchy: "Although current constitutional monarchies are mostly representative democracies (called constitutional democratic monarchies..." Andrew McIntosh (talk) 03:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I think to all practical purposes the UK operates as a democratic state, so i actually don't dispute what you say and i think constitutional democratic monarchy is a reasonably effective working description. However it is something of an oddity that we should satisfy ourselves with the assumption that Britain is a democracy simply because one third of the legislative power is a representative body, but this is more to do with definitions of Democracy, rather than the practical implications of British government which does follow the common usage understanding of a modern democratic state. (MJC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.195.8 (talk) 14:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Canada is an independent sovereign state. The UK government has no power in Canada since the early 1980s. The UK and Canada do share the same head of state, which is only right and long may it continue. It is the main difference Canada has compared with the USA and is an important part of its identity. The country was founded by British loyalists who never wanted a republic. They were North American settlers loyal to the Crown. If you want to live in a republic then move to the USA. Canada is an independent British nation and will remain so! YourPTR! 06:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * As it says on the Canada article, Canada does have the Queen as head of state. But it could just be someone vandalizing the two articles, just like the other Wikipedia controversies. D'you think that it's vandalism?

--GoldenPhoenix 09:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Overseas Territories
User:JPD, why do you keep reverting the addition of the Overseas Territories? Queen Elizabeth II is the reigning monarch of the OT's and the article completely omits this fact. As stated in British overseas territories, the OT's are " not part of the UK itself, although under UK sovereignty". Nor are they Commonwealth Realms.

If the article is going to enumerate Commonwealth nations such as Australia and Canada, then to be factually accurate it needs to either: (a) mention the OT's by name, such as Cayman, Bermuda, etc., (see list of UK OT's or (b) at least provide an inline Wikilink to British overseas territories, in the interest of Lead succinctness. I have been a resident of Bermuda for the past five years, and your insistence on omission of the fact that HM is the reigning monarch of Bermuda and the other OT's is an insult to Bermudians. HM is on our currency and postage, and the Royal Governor delivers the Throne Speech in Her name. I have corrected this once again.

Also, please explain why the article should ignore WP:CAP?  JGHowes talk  -  16:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * To deal with the minor issue first, WP:CAP is a guideline that says the name of the photographer is generally not included in an article. Saying that the name must not be included is stretching it a bit. However, I do apologise, as the most recent time I replaced the caption was unintentional - it really isn't worth edit warring over.
 * As for the British Overseas Territories, yes, the article should in one way or another make it clear that she is Queen of the British Overseas Territories. However, it is not so clear that this should be in the first couple of paragraphs. To include the Overseas Territories, but not Crown Dependencies such as Guernsey, Jersey, Isle of Man (which are also not part of the UK), let alone other overseas territories such as Christmas Island, the Cook Islands, etc. is an insult to residents of those areas. Leaving all of them out and listing only fully independent realms, however, is neutral, as the criterion for inclusion is quite clear. Including them all would obviously be even more unwieldy than the current list.
 * The Queen reigns over Bermuda, etc. directly because they are British territories and ruled over by the person with the title Queen of the United Kingdom, so Bermuda is already covered by the intro. Similarly, the Cook Islands are ruled by the Queen of (the Realm of) New Zealand. There is possibly more of an argument that the Crown Dependencies are not covered by the intro, but either way, none of these places should be mentioned before the realms. JPD (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your quick reply. I had contributed a photo I took of Catherine Zeta Jones with attribution in the Infobox caption and got my wrist slapped for it, so I've become highly attuned to this "guideline", shall we say.
 * I admit it's not imperative by any means to mention the OT's in the Lead paragraphs, and am greatly relieved that we can agree that a mention somewhere in the article is warranted to inform the reader that she is Queen of the British Overseas Territories etc. In Bermuda, we find that many visitors (mostly from the U.S.) are quite uninformed on this aspect. To avoid my being reverted again, where would you suggest this be placed in the article? Regards,  JGHowes talk  -  19:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have tim eright now to think about this fully, but perhaps the simplest option would be to have a single reference to the overseas territories of all the realms later in that same paragraph, after the list of sovereign realms. Out of curiousity, do visitors really not realise that she is Queen of the BOT, or is the problem simply that they don't realise Bermuda is a British Overseas Territory? After all, being under the Queen is really what UK sovereignty means. JPD (talk) 09:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, how about the second paragraph is reworded to say (emphasis added for illustrative purposes only): "Apart from the United Kingdom, Elizabeth II is also Queen of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, and Saint Kitts and Nevis, and the British overseas territories, where she is represented by Governors-General. The sixteen countries of which she is Queen are known as Commonwealth Realms, and their combined population is 128 million"  JGHowes talk  -  19:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's good, but ignores the British Crown Dependencies and the territories of the Cook Islands and Niue, which are under her sovereignty as Queen of New Zealand. Is there anything particularly wrong with the opening sentence and its statement "Elizabeth II (born Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; 21 April 1926) is Queen of sixteen sovereign states and their overseas territories and dependencies..."? --G2bambino 20:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Nothing wrong with it, I'm just trying to find a way to wikilink somewhere to British overseas territories. Also, not to be critical, but could there be a better choice of words than "more directly involved"?  JGHowes talk  -  21:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

All of this discussion ignores one salient fact which makes the article correct: There is NO separate monarchy for the BOTs, either individually or as a group; they are under the UK's monarchy, even though they are not legally part of the UK itself. That is different from the other 15 Commonwealth realms, whose monarchies are legally independent and merely in personal union with that of the UK; any of them (even the UK) could leave that union by declaring another monarch, by independent changes in the law of succession which are subsequently invoked, or by abolishing their monarchy, though to date only the latter has happened. If any dependency of any Commonwealth realm belongs in this list, it is the Cook Islands, whose monarchy is de jure independent of New Zealand's, just as New Zealand's is from that of the UK. --RBBrittain 13:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The Queen reigns in the Crown Dependencies as Queen of the United Kingdom, she also has the additional titles there: Lord of Man and Duke of Normandy but she still reigns as Queen of the UK just like in the BOTs. YourPTR! 06:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.135.97.101 (talk)

Lead
Hi everyone. Although I'm an American, I admire the Queen and respect her, so with her recent trip to the states, I thought I would check out her article. This one thing really popped out to me: the second paragraph in the lead, which states: "Apart from the United Kingdom and its overseas territories, Elizabeth II is also Queen of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, and Saint Kitts and Nevis, where she is represented by Governors-General. The sixteen countries of which she is Queen are known as Commonwealth Realms, and their combined population is 128 million."

Is it really necessary for the lead? According to WP:LEAD, leads are supposed to be short and summarize the article, and I don't know what the point of the above paragraph is in the lead. Maybe it could be put in the "Life as Queen" section, but as far as I'm concerned, it shouldn't go in the lead. Happyme22 03:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it is, because the single most important fact in the bio of a living head-of-state is which state(s) he/she heads  JGHowes talk  -  03:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I also believe it should stay, we have had long debates in the past, on the wording of the intro, lets keep it as it is. The Queen is not just HoS if the UK, so we need to introduce her as such. Brian | (Talk) 04:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, ok. If you guys say so. Happyme22 04:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with the original poster. The current wording only leads to confusion, relegating the UK to just one of more than a dozen or so countries of which she is queen. For those in the Commonwealth Realms who refuse to understand the difference between legal technicalities and actual fact, may I suggest a new and radical solution. Let's create 15 new articles (Elizabeth II of Australia, Elizabeth II of Tuvalu, etc.), and invite people from those countries to try and pad out articles based on information about the Queen's involvement with that particular country. TharkunColl 08:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, we could also make articles about her role in former realms. I can imagine it now, Elizabeth II of Pakistan, Elizabeth II of Fiji, Elizabeth II of Trinidad and Tobago, Elizabeth II of Nigeria... (I do still think the current realms should remain where they are though, as actual fact is that she is the head of state of all of them, and being head of state of a country is generally considered to be a somewhat important fact.) -- Ibagli ( Talk ) 21:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes indeed, the fact that the Queen is still head of state of quite a few former members of the empire is a very important fact. Please go and look up the difference between de jure and de facto to understand what I'm trying to say. TharkunColl 23:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm very aware of what you're trying to say, I just don't agree that it's completely true, as she is the de facto and de jure head of state in all of those countries (at least the ones I'm most knowledgeable in). -- Ibagli ( Talk ) 23:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * She is de jure head of state in all those countries, but only de facto in the UK. Look at the article on de facto head of state and you'll see a nice picture of the current Governor General of Canada. TharkunColl 11:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

De jure simply means 'in law'; literally 'regarding law'. According to law, the Queen is Head of State in the Commonwealth realms and in the United Kingdom. De facto means 'in fact', that is, 'for all practical purposes', but not accordingly to law. A de facto head of state would be one who governs practically but without due process of law, such as the leader of a coup or a usurper. Even when a country is presided over by a person acting as a regent, such as the Prince Regent George who became George IV, or a Governor-General in the Commonwealth Realms, the reigning Sovereign remains de jure Head of State. Tharkuncoll appears to misunderstand the technical distinction betweeen de jure and de facto Please let us not resurrect the awful discussion about who  Elizabeth is really Queen of. It took up pages and created a lot of heat and bad feeling. If editors are proud to have Elizabeth as their country's sovereign, why can't they just share that pride?--Gazzster 13:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You are incorrect. De facto means "in fact", so also applies to most de jure situations. TharkunColl 23:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Gazzster imo describes the situation quite well. Brian | (Talk) 23:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to see this lead has been changed. I'm infavour of the British Queen title, getting prominence over the British Commonwealth titles. GoodDay 20:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm getting tired of these 'Commonwealth nationalistic pride' edits. Elizabeth II is primarly known as Queen of the UK, not the Commonwealth Queen. In Canada (I'm a Canadian), we don't see her as equally our Queen (compared to the UK), we don't have an official residence for her. So again, enough with this Commonwealth nationalistic pride, afterall it's the British Commonwealth. If ya don't like that, petition your country to leave the British Commonwealth. GoodDay 21:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But any 'British nationalistic pride' edits are perfectly acceptable? Please, we've been through this inane argument at length already and the intro as it is was agreed on - with compromise from both camps.  POV about who she's "seen" as "belonging" more to is irrelevant to the actual fact that she's the legally established monarch of each country equally.  Further, Rideau Hall is her official residence in Canada, and the "British" Commonwealth hasn't existed for a good few decades - it's Commonwealth of Nations now. --G2bambino 21:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If that's the compromise, so be it. Trust me though, it looks crappy, the way it is. Why not move the page to Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth of Nations, it's basically the same thing. OK, I've blown off enough steem. GoodDay 22:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I really don't think you quite understand the all-pervading role the monarchy has in the UK. Please try and understand the difference between what is true in law, and what is true in practice. This is not a constitutional treatise. TharkunColl 21:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * We do understand the role on the monarchy in the UK. You don't understand the role it has in the other realms. It is true that the UK is her oldest realm, the realm she lives in, the realm she is most active in, and the realm she is most widely known as monarch of. That's why the UK is mentioned first, and is in the title. The truth of these points does not dilute Her Majesty's role in the other realms, which you continually relegate to the status of juvenile asides for the Queen. Go to Canada and look around sometime. You'll see portraits in both government and private buildings; portraits on currency; her name on roads, schools, and civic buildings; her name spoken with pride by new citizens. That is what is true in practice in at least one Commonwealth Realm. -- Ibagli ( Talk ) 22:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * God, TharkunColl, you've tried this line over and over again. I understand clearly the role the Monarchy has in the UK.  So what?  This isn't an article about the British Monarchy.  The opening sentence as it was - the format agreed to after we went through this stupid debate ad nauseum months ago - outlined perfectly both the legal and practical realities of how Elizabeth II serves as monarch of sixteen countries. --G2bambino 21:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * But that's just the point, because it didn't. The version you are referring to made it seem as if her roles in the UK and elsewhere are essentially similar. Consensus can change, by the way. I think it's time to re-examine this. TharkunColl 22:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it didn't. It said clearly, and right up front, that she is more directly involved with the UK - whether that means with government, culture, ceremonies or whatever. --G2bambino 22:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in the politics of this, I do understand the Queen's relationship with Commomwealth Nation members (I'm not aguing that). All I'm saying is, in publications, television coverage even encylopedias, Elizabeth II is recognized as the Queen of the UK first, Commonwealth of Nations second. When was the last time, her family was referred to as the Commonwealth Royal Family? Again peoples, give up these nationalistic pride edits. I'm just calling for the 'most common' title she's known as. GoodDay 22:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As noted below (in the UK section), I've waved the 'white flag'. An 'Edit War' isn't worth it (I was pushing Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom and Head of the Commonwealth, as the opening sentence). 'Edit Wars' only get conflicting editors blocked & battleground pages protected. Here's to a Canadian Republic. GoodDay 20:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Opinion in Introduction
Editprotected

The Fourth Paragraph Reads: "She is presently the world's only monarch who is simultaneously Head of State of more than one independent nation. In practice, however, she personally exercises very little political or executive power, especially outside the UK, but not little enough."

I believe "but not little enough" should be omitted as it constitutes somebody's opinion, it was probably an appendage to an otherwise good sentence.


 * I've removed it. TharkunColl 13:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Not the First Monarch to Travel Around the World
The Travels section reads "From 1953 to 1954 she and Philip made a six-month, around the world tour, becoming the first monarch to circumnavigate the globe." King David Kalakaua circumnavigated the globe in 1881.

From his wikipedia article "In 1881, King Kalākaua left Hawaiʻi on a trip around the world to study the matter of immigration and to improve foreign relations. ... The King first traveled to San Francisco where he was given a royal welcome. Then he sailed to the Empire of Japan ... He continued through Qing Dynasty China, Siam, Burma, British Raj India, Egypt, Italy, Belgium, the German Empire, Austria-Hungary, the French Third Republic, Spain under the Restoration, Portugal, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and back through the United States before returning to Hawaiʻi. During this trip, he met with many other crowned heads of state, including Pope Leo XIII, Umberto I of Italy, and Victoria of the United Kingdom. In this, he became the first king to travel around the world." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mitcheca (talk • contribs) 05:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Mitcheca 05:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I second this comment... see this biographical page : "In 1881, Kalakaua distinguished himself once again by being the first monarch to circumnavigate the globe." See also Kalākaua's obituary (pdf file) from the New York Times, January 21, 1891.  I suggest the line should be edited to read From 1953 to 1954 she and Philip made a six-month, around the world tour, becoming the first British monarch to circumnavigate the globe." Sfg101 (talk) 06:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

historically indigenous?????

 * Queen of sixteen sovereign states and their overseas territories and dependencies, holding each crown and title equally. However, she is more directly involved with the United Kingdom, where the Royal Family resides, and the Monarchy is historically indigenous.

Historically indigenous? Except when it has been imported from the Netherlands, Greece, Germany, Denmark, Scotland or Normandy? What a crazy statement - please rewrite.--Docg 23:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Indigenous is the wrong word. --G2bambino 00:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Quite. Utterly so.--Docg 00:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

While 'historically indigenous' is an awkward phrase, it is born out of a discussion in which many editors felt the special identification of the sovereign with the UK needed to be mentioned in the introduction. The phrase, and the entire sentence, is unecessary to the introduction. But for fear of provoking a long edit war, it is perhaps wise to discuss a substitute phrase on this page. I suggest 'however, she is more directly involved with the United Kingdom, where the Royal Family resides, and wher the Monarchy is historically identified with the Kingdoms of England, Scotland, and the former Kingdom of Ireland.'--Gazzster 07:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, fine. But "historically indigenous" isn't just awkward - it is quite patently factually wrong.--Docg 08:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

UK
Please stop attempting the relegate the UK to just one of 16 realms. The monarchy is British. If you want separate pages for Elizabeth II of Australia, etc, then create them - but good luck with finding enough specifically Australian information to fill the article. TharkunColl 07:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No. Whilst the British dimension is paramount, this is the article about the person not office of the British monarch. The title is simply that the convention is to use the senior royal title. If you look for James VII of Scotland you'll find his bio under James II of England - that simply for convenience. This bio should reflect the person of Elizabeth Windsor who is Queen of many nations (although granted the UK is certainly the most significant to understanding her).--Docg 08:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Doc.We have had this exchange with TharkunColl and others before. I fail to see anything in the edit I have suggested that demeans the status of the United Kingdom. And his attempt to score points off the citizens of other monarchies ('good luck with finding enough specifically Australian information to fill the article'), is not only unmannerly, but puerile. I trust we don't need to go down this path again.--Gazzster 09:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)Give it up, Tharkun. This article isn't about the monarchy (see British Monarchy, Monarchy in Canada, etc, which are as you suggest, separate) it is about the person. Yes, this means the UK is given more significance, but it doesn't mean there should be silly waffle about being the "de jure" Queen and so on. The notion of the GG as "de facto head of state" (not widely accepted, and usually only used to push some sort of agenda) does not all change the fact that QEII is the Queen. Her involvement with the UK is and should be emphasised without making cryptic implications about arrangements in other realms.
 * As for the material Gbambino removed from the lead, it really should stay. The lead is a very appropriate length, and if anything needs to do a better job of actually summarising the article, not a worse one. JPD (talk) 09:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, well, just to clarify: it was info I moved from the lead to elsewhere in the article. It just seemed to me that the details behind her ascension to various thrones she no longer holds would have been better placed in the "Evolution of the Commonwealth" section, as with her ancestry info going to the section on her ancestry; helped reduce the length of the intro. --G2bambino 14:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right that it should be covered in the body as well, but my point was that the length of the intro doesn't need reducing. The intro should summarise the article, not jsut say she is Queen of X, Y and Z. JPD (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The lead 'Queen of sixteen nations' contradicts the article title. If we keep the current lead, then the article should be Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth of Nations. When will the pro-sixteen equals, give it up. I'm Canadian, I don't mind 'UK and fifteen other nations. Let go of the national pride, peoples. GoodDay 22:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Firstly, there is no contradiction. The title is just one of her titles, and for better or worse it is used for the title of this article, as happens in similar situations all over Wikipedia (see above for one example). It doesn't mean that she isn't Queen of anywhere else, and she definitely isn't Queen of the Commonwealth of Nations, only sixteen of the Commonwealth's members. I don't particularly care whether it says sixteen sovereign states or UK and 15 others, but it seems quite petty to insist on the longer form when the title and rest of the first paragraph already put an emphasis (correctly) on the UK. JPD (talk) 10:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I too support Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, as the title. Sorry, my previous posting was meant for the 'Lead' discussion, above. GoodDay 17:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's fine for the title - at least, it's the best it seems we can do - but we're not debating the title here. JPD's quite correct to point out that the opening sentence need not repeatedly mention the UK, especially in relation to her crowns and royal titles, which she holds equally. Saying Elizabeth II is Queen of the United Kingdom and fifteen other sovereign states and their overseas territories and dependencies. She holds each crown and title equally, however she is most directly involved with the United Kingdom, her oldest realm and the place of residence of the Royal Family is as ridiculously redundant as saying Elizabeth II is Queen of Tuvalu and fifteen other sovereign states and their overseas territories and dependencies. She holds each crown and title equally, however she is most directly involved with the United Kingdom, her oldest realm and the place of residence of the Royal Family. --G2bambino 17:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Remove She holds each crown and title equally, however she is most directly involved with the United Kingdom, her oldest realm and the place of residence of the Royal Family. It's way too cumbersome and over-explainatory. GoodDay 19:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And Elizabeth II is Queen of the United Kingdom and fifteen other sovereign states and their overseas territories and dependencies gives undue weight to her British crown, causing unknowing readers to think the non-UK realms are still under her as Queen of the UK. The most succinct and accurate thing to say would be Elizabeth II is Queen of sixteen sovereign states and their overseas territories and dependencies.  However, some objected to only this as it didn't mention anything regarding the differences in how she reigns over the UK vs. the other countries.  Thus, the she holds each crown and title equally, however she is most directly involved with the United Kingdom, her oldest realm and the place of residence of the Royal Family part was added.  It may be slightly cumbersome, but what can one expect when trying to sum up the realities of one woman who's actually sixteen queens? --G2bambino 19:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I got one better Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britan and Northern Ireland, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. Again, publications, television coverage, encyclopedias give the UK prominance. The opening lines of this article, should reflect this fact. As a pleaing anti-monarchist, pleased don't add the 'sixteen commonwealth' thing again. GoodDay 19:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Why just her British title? She has fifteen other ones, you know. And when she's in Canada the media doesn't give the UK much prominance.  Besides, why let ignorant journalists guide Wikipedia content? --G2bambino 19:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to remember, who's the Governor-General of the UK (representing the Queen)? when the Queen is on her foreign trips? Let's see 15 Commonwealth members have a GG, 1 member doesen't. Interesting. I'm pleading with you, let go of your 'nationalist pride'. GoodDay 19:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh? Answer these questions: Is Elizabeth II not Queen of Canada?  Is Canada subordinate to the United Kingdom?  Did the Balfour Declaration not say the realms "are... equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown."?  Consider them before again making edits here that give the UK your own imagined prominance. --G2bambino 19:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently, you don't respect the 'External Links' of this article (which back my views). I don't want this to become an 'Edit War', the 'sixteen commonwealth thing' still looks contradictory to the Article name. It would go better with Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth of Nations. Sigh, Have it your way. PS- I know your edits are 'goodfaith', as were mine, (we can agree to that) and you may want to reverse my edit at Charles, Prince of Wales. GoodDay 19:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What's to disrespect? I see a couple of links to an American media outlet that writes about her as the Queen of the UK.  Well, she is Queen of the UK; how could I dispute that?  But, it seems you don't want to note the other links (including the gov't of Virginia site) that call her simply "the Queen" or "Queen Elizabeth II," nor the Canadian media links that explicitly refer to her as Queen of Canada.  Anyway, there's a wealth of better sources than magazine articles to confirm that she's sovereign of sixteen countries equally. Beyond that, I never assumed your edits were made in bad faith - far from it - but they certainly are misguided. --G2bambino 20:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm waving the 'white' flag. I don't want an 'edit war'. GoodDay 20:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Can we restore the opening sentences, then? Right now they've morphed back to the format that months ago launched a long debate over their re-composing into something more readable yet accurate. --G2bambino 20:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Howabout Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom and Head of the Commonwealth?? Just kidding. Put the opening sentences anyway you wish. GoodDay 20:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Involvement
I'm moving this discussion here from my talk page --G2bambino 16:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC):

What is wrong with admitting that the only place the Queen has a direct role in govt. - weekly meetings with the PM for example - is the UK? Signing one law in 1982, or whatever, does not constitute a direct role in govt. Indeed, the constitutions of the dominions specifically excludes a direct role, vesting such powers in the GG. I was attempting to make the wording more encyclopedic, because as it stands it's too informal. TharkunColl 16:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No - that's too general a statement. For example, the Canadian constitution (and I only raise it because it's the one I know most about) still gives the Queen all powers of government.  True, the ability to exercise those powers has also been granted to the GG either through statute law, convention or letters patent, but the Queen's powers remain the same.  Hence, she can, and has, signed Canadian bills into law - your '82 Canada Act example is an appropriate one.  Beyond that, she, and only she, can appoint a Governor General, and only she may create extra Senate seats, as she did in 1991.  So, it's disingenuous to say her role in government is limited to only the UK. --G2bambino 16:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've changed it to take account of your concerns. I still think weekly meetings with the PM are a few orders of magnitude greater. TharkunColl 16:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I noted your changes, however, as I explained in my edit summary, the Queen is involved in more than just government. In fact, on the whole she's involved more often in non-government affairs of a more ceremonial nature.  Perhaps the details of her meeting with British PMs as opposed to other Realm PMs could be covered elsewhere? --G2bambino 16:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You appear to be under the misapprehension that the word "government" can only ever refer to a specific government, whereas in fact - especially with a small "g" - it is a general term. TharkunColl 16:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh? I said "the Queen is involved in more than just government" - clearly also using the general term.  Your proposal focuses too specifically on her governmental role, when in reality she's more so, on a day-to-day basis, involved in cultural and ceremonial roles. --G2bambino 16:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Then change "government" to "government and the community" or whatever. But can we at least alter that first paragraph? It does not read like an encyclopedia at all. TharkunColl 17:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if it is necessary to be so hair-splitting in the intro. An introduction summarises a topic in the most general of terms.--Gazzster 21:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's my thinking, as well. --G2bambino 21:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I was absolutely bewildered to find the quote "In practice, she exercises virtually no executive power." What idiot wrote that in there? Its completely untrue. When she signs a bill, she exercises executive power. When she dissolves parliament she exercises executive power, when she appoints the Prime minister she exercises executive power! So to quote her using virtually no executive power is a gross under statement and a huge misjudgment. I'm quite sure none of you are actually involved in British central government and i am also quite sure not a lot of you are really up to scratch with your constitutional knowledge. Her Majesty is hugely involved with the running of government in the United Kingdom more than anyone actually realises. TJJ 1/8/07 17:10 (BST)


 * But in virtually all cases she does so on the advice of government - there would be a major constitutional crisis if the monarch refused to give Royal Assent to a bill which has gone through parliament (hasn't happened since Queen Anne I believe), or (except in very narrow circumstances) if she asked someone other than the leader of the largest party to form a government, unilaterally dissolved Parliament (or refused a dissolution requested by the PM). Look at the fuss caused by the dissolution of the Gough Whitlam government in Australia (although this was by a Governor General rather than the monarch), William IV was apparently the alst monarch to unilaterally dissolve parliament.  David Underdown 08:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It could be interesting as hung parliaments (which would be the main source of problems here, not upper/lower house conflicts) are rare in the UK. But in February-March 1974 there was a) a Prime Minister whose party was no longer the largest in the Commons initially remaining in office (and that's a different thing from getting a new commission) trying to secure a majority (not very different from how Mackenzie King behaved in Canada in 1925); and b) speculation about where HM would refuse a dissolution request from the new PM very early on, especially if the first confidence vote of Parliament defeated the government (in the end the Conservative Opposition made discrete enquiries and learnt the Queen would grant a dissolution if it happened, so they didn't force a vote). The problem with the Westminster system is that when politicians are playing fast and loose with the rules themselves (as did Heath, or for that matter King & Meighan, Whitlam & Fraser & Lewis & Bjelke-Petersen & everyone else, and others) various conventions start getting ignored and the monarch/Governor General is left in the hopeless position of trying to be an umpire with the remains of a theoretical rulebook and little political consensus as to what are the appropriate actions (e.g. in a hung parliament situation do both parties "deserve a chance" to form a government or does the first unsuccessful one have the right to seek a new election at a time of its chosing; and is there a time limit for giving the other side a chance first?). That's not to say that Kerr acted wisely (although I think Byng made a respectable decision as the parliament was less than a year old and it was clearly not beyond the realms of possibility that an alternative government could command confidence - a very different thing from Australia in 1975). Timrollpickering 11:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You're at it again. Please stop it!
Stop attempting to demote the UK to just one amongst 16 places of which she is queen. This is not a legal treatise. Her involvement with the UK is qualitively different from those other places. This is all highly insulting to the people of the UK, who support the monarchy with their taxes - unlike anywhere else. TharkunColl 15:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Stop attempting to demote the 'other' realms to just 15 pseudo-monarchies of which the law says she is queen, but are really just colonial hangers-on. Her involvement with the other realms is qualitatively different from that in the UK, but is still quite significant. This is all highly insulting to the people of the other realms, who do indeed in some cases support the monarchy with their taxes, which is irrelevant to Wikipedia as funding does not determine fact. -- Ibagli ( Talk ) 15:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)What about the people who don't pay tax? If you stopped treating this as a personal matter, rather than an attempt to write an encyclopedia article, it might make a bit more sense, TharkunColl. The article should emphasise the UK, and it does (even in the first paragraph) in both of the versions recently seen. The only difference is whether the UK is first singled out (after the title) in the first or second sentence, and how many time the UK is repeated in the first paragraph. Which is more important: readibility, or having every single sentence point out that the UK has a special place among the 16? JPD (talk) 15:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've decided not to get into an 'edit war', so I'll just stick to the 'talk page'. The External Links & indeed the Queen's own official title calls for Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Nortern Ireland, Head of the Commonwealth and Defender of the Faith. By having the opening lead as Queen of sixteen... is misleading, it contradicts the article title and the infobox discription. Please let go of these Commonwealth 'nationalistic pride' edits. It's the 'most common usage' that's called for. I'm a Canadian anti-monarchist, if can agree to this (UK and 15 other...) whya can't everyone? Heck, Encyclopedias, even back me. GoodDay 16:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Nortern Ireland, Head of the Commonwealth and Defender of the Faith is only her title in the UK. --G2bambino 16:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * For the three millionth time, Queen of sixteen sovereign states does not contradict anything at all, it just tells you more than the title or the infobox. A G2bambino ponts out, the Queen has more than one official title, so claiming officialness means nothing at all. (Even if it did, you are omitting "and her Other Realms and Territories".) Most common usage is only relevant to the title, and doesn't stop the article from giving a better picture. Leave all the pseudo arguments aside and take a step back. Do the different versions of the first paragraph as a whole communicate the situation well? Yes. What's the difference between them? One is easier to read, the other goes to extra lengths to emphasise the British POV. I don't feel there is a problem with emphasising the British POV in this case - apart from the readability issues, it woudl probably be more easily accepted if those pushing it hadn't said so many stupid things on this page already. JPD (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * For the three millionth and one time, the internationl community recognises Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Head of the Commonwealth and Defender of the Faith. This isn't a 'constitional' issue with me, it's a 'common usage'' with me. Check the 'External Lnks', if they're 'incorrect' remove them. GoodDay 16:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Firstly, you're plain wrong. Even in the UK, she is Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, not your shortened version. I can't see which external link you're referring to, but even if there is one that mistakenly backs you up, that is not a reason remove it. Secondly, I don't care what it is "with you". It should be an encyclopedic issue to all of us, and while common usage is the overriding factor in deciding titles of article, it isn't the only issue determining content, not even the content of the first sentence. Lastly, assuming your actual point is that she is predominantly known in the international community as the Queen of the UK, yes, I agree. I just don't think that if anyone is actually reading the intro, rather than reading one sentence at a time, changing between "sixteen sovereign states" and "UK, fifteen other sovereign states" actually makes any difference to how well that fact is communicated, so why is anyone arguing about it? JPD (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Imagine when (if) Charles succeeds the thrones?? He'll be attending 16 seperate coronations, in 16 seperate 'national capitals' (pack your bags, Charlie). JPD your edit earlier ..UK and 15 other.. was good. I hope this dispute dosen't have to go to a Mediation Comittee hearing. GoodDay 17:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well the first thing to do to avoid mediation is simply to "declare a truce", it's to make sure the discussion is about understanding the points being made, rather than ranting. The irrelevant comments about coronations just turn this more and more into an emotional argument, rather than a factual and practical one about how to make the article better. I have made edits with the intention of making each version more readable, as I think this is more important than which version is used. JPD (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Excuse my 'coronaton' joke (it wasn't meant to be sarcastic). All I'm supporting is -most common usage-. Sure hate to see this debate become a nationalistic pride thing. Again, your edit was alright ...UK and 15 other.... Sure hope, the 'Edit Wars' don't heat up again. GoodDay 17:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, me too. We've already been through this. Let's remember that the versions we agreed upon did involve compromise on either side. The few editors who are protesting now did agree to the final edits (at least tacitly), didn't they?--Gazzster 22:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This is all quite weird. Why would countries that have already become independent, wish so vociferously to have the British monarch as their head of state? It really does seem a bit odd. At the end of the day, you can't really have it both ways. TharkunColl 22:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Guess we'll have to accept the current sentence. Afterall, it could be worst, this page could've been moved to Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth. GoodDay 23:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The English have fought, and died, over hundreds of years to limit the powers of the monarch, and get the monarchy they want. If the colonies really do want independence, then they should have the courage to do so, and not remain under the apron strings. TharkunColl 23:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

TharkunColl, that is something you simply cannot understand, can you? You are so convinced the Windsors belong by right to the British alone that you cannot recognise the legitimate attachment of many other peoples to them. OK, try and look at the royal family as many citizens of Commonwealth nations see them. I'm not asking you to agree or sympathise. Just try and understand. Countries like Australia, New Zealand, and Canada rightly pride themselves on their independence and sovereignty. Now, you talk about the struggle of the British people for freedom. You're rightly proud of that. Well, other nations have their history too, of which we're proud. And the British heritage, including the monarchy, has been part of that. Consider if the monarchy didn't exist. Where would be the cultural heritage of Britain? As you say, the United Kingdom has defined itself by hundreds of years of struggle for freedom. The monarchy has been part of that. Without the monarchy, the UK would have to radically redefine itself. Many of these sovereign monarchies who have Elizabeth II as their queen would face a similar dilemna; even more so, since they are young countries and do not have your history. Notice the number of Commonwealth or former Commonwealth nations that are now republics; India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Ireland, etc. They all have centuries of tradition as peoples independent of Britain. Other nations do not have that history, but are proud of their sovereignty. In time they will probably become republics. My own country attempted to several years ago, but we are not quite ready yet. In the meantime, respect the dignity of these countries. Respect their independence, and the sovereignty of the queen over them. I am a republican at heart. The republic will come in time. In the meantime, why am I proud to own Elizabeth as the 'Queen of Australia'? Because she, not the United Kingdom, of which she happens to be queen as well, is the guarantee of Australia's sovereignty. --Gazzster 23:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And if your country became a republic, the position of the monarchy in the UK would be unaltered. But if the UK became a republic, the monarchy would end everywhere. And yes, the Windsors do indeed belong to the UK. We pay for them, and we, through an act of parliament, can get rid of them at any time. TharkunColl 00:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, article lead sentence certainly evokes 'passionate' political views from both sides (British side & other Commonwealth side). GoodDay 23:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * And so they should, they are the most importanour openiong statements, SqueakBox 00:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the compromise will have to do. At least the page itself remains Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. This is a community encyclopedia, which naturally has many PoV's, we have to accept that. GoodDay 00:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

(Reply to last post of TharkunColl) Yawn. Actually, your Parliament would find it hard to abolish the monarchy. The monarch would have to sign off on the Act of Parliament, right? And I think you'll find that according to the Statute of Westminster the deposition of the monarch would require the unanimous consent of all the monarchies. Indeed we do pay for the Queen of Australia. Aussie taxpayers pay for her visits, and the Governor-General, who is the Queen in Australia, is paid for out of the public purse. OK. I've said my peace. I've had enough.--Gazzster 00:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The Statute of Westminster may indeed say that, but it would only require an act of parliament to repeal it. The UK has no written constitution, and parliament has the power to pass or repeal any act it likes. Abolition of the monarchy would likewise only require an act of parliament, and by convention the monarch has to sign all acts of parliament. If she refused (which she wouldn't), she would be declared incompetent as George III was. As for Australians paying for the Queen only when she visits, we in the UK have to pay for her entire household every day of the year. And your remark that the GG is the Queen in Australia is preposterous - you pay for your GG like you would pay for your President when you finally decide to have one. You do not contribute towards the Queen's income. Imagine how quickly a republic would be declared if you were suddenly required to do so!


 * If the colonies really do want independence, then they should have the courage to do so... Well, I think that pretty much lifts the veil on TharkunColl's thinking: the Queen's realms besides the UK really are still colonies to be relegated to secondary status behind the glorious mother country. Sorry - wrong.  I suggest you do your research on the 1931 Statute of Westminster and the repercussions of it, along with the history of patriation of each non UK realm's constitution.  Maybe then you'd come to understand the principal of equality of all the countries under the shared Crown.  You also might not make such inane statements about the monarchy ending everywhere if the UK abolished the Crown within its borders. --G2bambino 01:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't get me wrong here - I think it's nice that the colonies, decades after achieving full independence, choose to retain the Queen as their head of state. But make no mistake about it, the Queen, and the monarchy, are British. I must, with great weariness, yet again ask you to try and appreciate the difference between a legal truth and an actual truth. TharkunColl 09:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

TharkunColl, the language you use in your first statement is a little condescending, but hey - I know what you're trying to say. But it's not simply a matter of it being 'nice'; sentimental, nostalgic. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II by the Grace of God, etc, etc, is Queen of other nations in law as well as fact.I don't know how you make this strange distinction between fact and law. Obviously, if HM is Queen of a nation in law, she is in fact also. Actually, you are quite correct. The monarchy is British. Elizabeth is Queen of the United Kingdom. The monarchy is also Australian, because HM is Queen of Australia in her own right. The monarchy is also Canadian, because she is Queen of Canada in her own right. The same goes for New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, etc, etc, etc. We are talking about separate monarchies. The monarchy is not a United Kingdom monarchy shared about.Why is it so difficult for you to understand that? Oh God, I'm getting a headache.--Gazzster 09:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not difficult to understand - it is simply preposterous. It is little more than a legal fiction concocted to ease the tortuously long and drawn out process of the end of the British Empire. She may well be all those things you mentioned, Queen of Australia, etc., but the real question is why? Why is she Queen of Australia? Could it possibly have something to do with the fact that Australia was once a British colony? TharkunColl 09:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to thank you TharkunColl for showing us your true motives. You are not having difficulty grasping the concept of separate monarchies. You are not even willfully ignorant. You understand very well. You are contributing out of personbal motives biased in favour of an outdated (and irrelevant) Anglocentric world view. 'Presposterous'? 'It is little more than a legal fiction concocted to ease the tortuously long and drawn out process of the end of the British Empire'? That is not only ignorant, but grossly insulting. I am sad you cannot see why. If respond anymore, it will be on your talk page. --Gazzster 10:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * A monarchy where the monarch only visits once in a blue moon, where the monarch has no power or influence whatsoever, and where the monarch is head of state of another country on the other side of the world, is no monarchy. TharkunColl 10:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

At first I responded to this gem of a comment on his talk page, as I said, but I think it really needs to be repeated here:

OK. So from saying that the monarchies of the non-UK realms are true, but inferior, nay 'preposterous' monarchies, you are saying they are no monarchies at all. Let us put aside the issue of your ignorance. Let us put aside the issue of whether a monarch is any less a monarch because her realm is 'on the other side of the world'. (By your logic, HM is only half ruler of Gibraltar and hardly at all of the Falkland Islands) and ask ourselves how much influence the Queen has in the United Kingdom? Not a lot, I suspect.--Gazzster 10:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As I have said before, I doubt weather people from the Commonwealth Realms really understand the all-pervading presence of the monarchy in the UK. To them, the monarch is some remote figurehead, but here the monarch and her family are in the news every single day. You asked how much influence the monarch has in the UK - well, she has meetings with the PM every week. Prince Charles is notorious for bombarding government ministers with questions and suggestions, to which they have to respond, no matter how inane they are. Harry goes to trendy nightclubs in London dressed as a Nazi, Anne gets a speeding ticket, blah blah blah all the time. The monarch has a great deal of influence in the UK. She is the fount of the honours system. She advised Ted Heath to resign in 1974 (I know there was also some constitutional impasse in Australia around that time, but that was resolved by the GG, not the Queen). The Queen lives in the UK, as do her family. People sometimes bump into lesser royalty in pubs, etc., and everyone knows someone who has a story like this. The Queen and her ancestors stretching back some 1500 years are rooted here, this land has nurtured them as it has nurtured us all, the English have fought against their kings for liberty, and have fought alongside them against outside enemies. The monarchy is ours. TharkunColl 11:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

And Prince Harry dressing as a Nazi makes Australia 'no monarchy' how?--Gazzster 11:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Australia is a monarchy in name only. It doesn't actually have a monarch of its own, who lives there and shares in the daily life of Australians. TharkunColl 11:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Once again you show your ignorance. We have our own monarch. She's called Queen of Australia. Gee! We even have an article about her. Following your logic, HM is Queen of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Mann and the Channel Islands 'in name only.'--Gazzster 11:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You're not really listening to what I am saying, are you? I know what the legal position is, and I know that constitutionally she is Queen of Australia. What I'm saying is something rather different. The only place where she is actually a monarch, for all practical purposes, is the UK - in the other places she is simply a constitutional figurehead. But I don't know why you would say that her role is lesser in Scotland - the family lives there part of the year and one of them - often Anne apparently - is on hand to sign acts of the Scottish parliament. TharkunColl 11:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The Queen signs Acts of the Scottish Parliament in the same way as she does for Acts of the UK Parliament. Thunderwing 18:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Mate, I know what you're saying. You are saying that the monarchy plays a greater public role in the UK than elsewhere. That has never been in dispute on this page. In fact, the article was edited to show it. But you have stated on this page that my country is 'no monarchy.' You have publicly insulted the non UK monarchies. Kindly recognize that HM is dear to many nations, not just your own. Practically she plays an important part in the Australian Constitution. Without her, Australia would not exist. You can't get any more practical than that. And for the record, she is a 'figurehead' in your country too.--Gazzster 12:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * She is indeed a figurehead in the UK, but she is also a great deal more - unlike in the other realms. I'm not sure what you mean by saying that without the Queen, Australia wouldn't exist - except if you mean it in a sort of symbolic sense, in that the Queen symbolises the British nation, and that without the British, Australia wouldn't exist (which is so obvious that it hardly even needs saying). If, on the other hand, you mean it in a constitutional sense, then does that mean that if Australia becomes a republic, it would cease to be Australia? TharkunColl 12:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh my God, this is just too easy. As to your first sentence, I repeat: that has never been in dispute. Can't take yes for an answer, can you? As to the second, the Queen of Australia is Head of State of Australia (see Australian Constitution. So yes, if the Queen ceased to be Queen of Australia, the realm of Australia would cease to exist. If the UK abolished the monarchy, it would cease to be the Kingdom of the UK, wouldn't it? It would become another entity. And I repeat my accusation, you have accused Australia, and, by implication, other monarchies, as being 'no monarchies'. Do you stand by that?--Gazzster 12:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * A change in the form of the head of state does not mean that the state itself ceases to exist. But anyway, I have already answered your question. Australia is a monarchy in name only, because it has no monarch who lives there and interacts with the Australian people. It is a monarchy in law, but not in practice, where it is already a republic, with its head, the GG, apointed by elected ministers. TharkunColl 12:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's 10 pm here, and I'm getting tired, but really, your ignorance continues to astound. But I should be grateful I suppose that you have retracted the absurdity that my nation is 'no monarchy.'Kindly define a monarchy 'in name only'. I'm not familiar with that term in constitutional law. We are 'already a republic'? I see. You'd better email the G-G and John Howard. I don't think they know yet. And for your information, our GG is not 'appointed by elected ministers'; he or she is appointed by the Queen of Australia on the advice of the PM. --Gazzster 12:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There you go, talking about constitutional law again. I'm talking about actual practice. A republic is a state that has an appointed or elected head of state, rather than one who inherits the position. The GG of Australia is appointed, by elected representatives. Do you really think the Queen would choose someone other than the person chosen by the PM? Australia is therefore already a de facto republic, because the GG performs the duties of a head of state. TharkunColl 12:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

And how am I to define the government of my country? By the Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom Talk Page? Of course I'm going to refer to my nation's constitution. And there you again demonstrating an ignorance of the constitutional law of other realms. As I have already said, the GG is not appointed by elected reps, but by the Queen of Australia upon the advice of the PM. That the Queen of Australia following the advice of the PM makes Australia a republic, how? Would you rather she didn't?--Gazzster 13:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It is called "advice", but that is a legal euphemism. It is actually completely binding, and the Queen's appointment is just a rubber stamp. As for what I'd rather, that is supremely irrelevant, as we are talking facts here. My own personal opinion is that it's nice that the old colonies still choose to retain the Queen as their head of state, but so what? And they can even call her "Queen of Australia" if they want, as if it makes any practical difference. My preference here is that they should just be honest and call her Queen of the UK, because that's what she is, and her other titles are just legal niceties. For all practical purposes Australia is already functioning as a republic. TharkunColl 13:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Your first statement: I agree. I would not want the Queen of Australia to veto any act of the PM of Australia or the Parliament of Australia. I presume you would say the same for the Queen of the UK and the PM and Parliament of the UK. So if you expect the Queen of the UK to follow the advice of her elected ministers, does that make the UK a practical republic? You're a little confused, I think. As to your 'personal prefertence', that is perfectly irrelevant for this article. Thanks for admitting that.--Gazzster 13:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

As an Englishman, and proud of it, I can see no problem with head of 16 states as intro currently stands. She is my Queen, but I am more than happy to shere her with all who recognise her. thanks. (Bilbobee away from home, forgot to sign)\

You are a just and magnaminous man, Bilbobee.--Gazzster 13:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You asked for my opinion, so I gave it. This article should deal in facts. And facts do not necessarily conform to law. The UK does indeed have some republican features in its government, but is not a republic because the monarchy is a very important part of daily life here. And as for whether the Queen should be able to veto an act of parliament, yes - if a government began acting in an unconstitutional and dictatorial style. Without a written constitution, the UK relies on the reserve powers of the monarch for these things, a system that has proved to be infinitely flexible over the centuries. TharkunColl 13:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall asking for your opinion. I do remember you dictating it to me.'Facts do not necessarily conform to law'? Then do you suggest this article avoid questions of law when it conflicts with what you have already admitted is your personal opinion? What your discourse about the Queen of the UK's reserve powers has to do with the debate I do not know. --Gazzster 13:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It pains me, to see what I've re-started. Had I'd checked this page's 'older' discussions & compromise. I wouldn't have protested the Sixteen... opening line. The strong political & nationalistic views (on both sides), has turned ugly. If the Commonwealth of Nations bickered this way, it would've dissolved 'long ago'. Strong PoV arguments will always be stalemated. GoodDay 16:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of TharkunColl's comments are completely irrelevant, because he is addressing the question from the point of view "Why should all these indepedent countries want to have the Queen", whereas an encyclopedia simply reports the fact without commenting on whether it is logical or not. It does not matter whether users approve of the constitutional arrangements, simply whether the article correctly reports them. It is true that there is a good argument that Australia is a "crowned republic", and that the crown is less important there than in the UK, but not that the crown is not relevant at all. JPD (talk) 19:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Too long
This article is 100k – far over the desired article size. I propose splitting off at least the entire "Life as Queen" section to Elizabeth II's life as Queen or something of the similar. If there are no objections in the next three days I'll make the split. Suggestions for a better new article name would be nice too.

I've already moved the "Personality and image" section to Personality and image of Queen Elizabeth II, as that was less controversial than my above proposal. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 22:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The UK does have a superior status amongst the monarchies
Here is a quote from the PM of Canada in 1953 :

"Her Majesty is now Queen of Canada but she is the Queen of Canada because she is Queen of the United Kingdom. . . It is not a separate office .. it is the sovereign who is recognized as the sovereign of the United Kingdom who is our Sovereign. . ." Hansard. February 3, 1953, page 1566.

A very frank and interesting statemant that flatly contradicts a great deal of the nationalist POV that has been incessantly pushed around here. The Queen is Queen of Canada because she is Queen of the UK. It is not a separate office. TharkunColl 12:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "The Queen is Queen of Canada because she is Queen of the UK" is true on many levels. "It is not a separate office" does not follow from that, and, more to the point, is not relevant to anything in the article, whatever arguments may have been pushed on the talk page. Can't we all give it a rest yet? JPD (talk) 12:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The PM of Canada made a point of saying that it is not a separate office. The monarchies of the dominions are derived from, and dependant on, the monarchy of the UK. We really do need to say this in the article, otherwise we are giving misleading and false information. If the UK had no monarchy, those other monarchies would not exist. But the converse is not the case. TharkunColl 14:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't want to get into the inevitable discussions about the fact that the constitutional situation in various places is not the same as it was in 1953, or whether a PM is always right, but I will say: If you think the article doesnt' communicate the derivative nature of the non-UK arrangments, you need to learn to read. JPD (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph just mentions, as if as an aside, that she happens to live in the UK and is therefore more directly involved with it - almost as if she could move to Australia tomorrow, sack the GG, and become monarch in person. But we know she couldn't do this, because the Australian constitution would not permit it (and we must also suspect that the Australian people would not pay for her, either). The very first sentence needs to single out that she is Queen of the UK, because this better reflects reality. TharkunColl 14:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the only one of those that she couldn't do is become the monarch, because she already is, but we know that what you mean is that there would still need to be a GG (and that she might need to take a pay cut - at least she'd have a nice stagecoach). If you think the article (or even the first para) implies otherwise, you have quite an imagination. Maybe "her oldest realm" could be elaborated on a bit, but I think the big issue here is that you expect the first sentence to do everything, and that's just silly. JPD (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The Balfour Declaration, which predates St. Laurent's comments, states that all the realms "are autonomous Communities... equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown..." Further, by the time of St. Laurent's speech to the House of Commons the Statute of Westminster was already in effect, and Canada had already passed the Succession to the Throne Act, demonstrating that clearly just because the UK said someone was king or queen did not mean the same applied automatically to all the other realms.  There is one Sovereign, who is Sovereign of Canada and the UK, and many other countries, thus there is one "office"; but it is divisible in that it operates within sixteen completely autonomous jurisdictions.  If one realm were to unilaterally alter the line of succession within its borders, then the "office" would become separated.  Dr. Richard Toporoski put it somewhat better than I can:
 * "'I am perfectly prepared to concede, even happily affirm, that the British Crown no longer exists in Canada, but that is because legal reality indicates to me that in one sense, the British Crown no longer exists in Britain: the Crown transcends Britain just as much as it does Canada. One can therefore speak of 'the British Crown' or 'the Canadian Crown' or indeed the 'Barbadian' or 'Tuvaluan' Crown, but what one will mean by the term is the Crown acting or expressing itself within the context of that particular jurisdiction... But there is a danger that this concept of the 'divisibility' of the Crown, which, given the manner in which the legislative independence of the Queen's realms in the Commonwealth has developed, I must admit is a fact, can lead to the idea that the Crown is at present 'divided'. This is not true, but it would immediately become true if, let us say, an alteration were to be made in the United Kingdom to the Act of Settlement 1701, providing for the succession of the Crown. It is my opinion that the domestic constitutional law of Australia or Papua New Guinea, for example, would provide for the succession in those countries of the same person who became Sovereign of the United Kingdom. But this would not be true in Canada. There is no existing provision in our law, other than the Act of Settlement 1701, that provides that the King or Queen of Canada shall be the same person as the King or Queen of the United Kingdom. If the British law were to be changed and we did not change our law..., the Crown would be divided. The person provided for in the new law would become king or queen in at least some realms of the Commonwealth; Canada would continue on with the person who would have become monarch under the previous law...'"
 * So, there you have it. --G2bambino 15:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Can we please not start debating the constitutional arrangements unless it is clearly directly related to a question concerning the article? JPD (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

How about this legal ruling from 2003 (my bold, see link above):

''In the present case the court is being asked to apply the Charter not to rule on the validity of acts or decisions of the Crown, one of the branches of our government, but rather to disrupt the core of how the monarchy functions, namely the rules by which succession is determined. To do this would make the constitutional principle of Union under the British Crown together with other Commonwealth countries unworkable, would defeat a manifest intention expressed in the preamble of our Constitution, and would have the courts overstep their role in our democratic structure.''

So there you have it. TharkunColl 15:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right, JPD. My bad. --G2bambino 15:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * So you won't even answer my point? It is directly relevant to the article, because the present first paragraph reduces the UK to just one among many. Whilst I find it touching that you love our Queen so much, you should at least acknowledge who she is, and what she does. TharkunColl 15:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What point is there to address? You're living in the realms of fantasy, and despite being presented with ample evidence to the contrary, you continue to push your imagined reality.  I and others already went through an extremely lengthy debate at Talk:Monarchy in Canada about this whole "Canada is still subservient to the UK" garbage, where the antagonist similarly misconstrued Justice Rouleau's comments.  Please read through it before continuing here. --G2bambino 15:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I have said nothing about Canada being subservient to the UK. But the Canadian monarchy is an adjunct of the British monarchy. It is surely only nationalistic pride that refuses to allow you to see this, and that has no place in an encyclopedia. TharkunColl 15:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The Canadian Crown is either equal to or subordinate to the UK Crown. I argue the former, you argue the latter.  If the Canadian Crown is subservient to the British Crown, then Canada falls under UK sovereignty, which is patently false.  I guarantee that you cannot find one respectable legal scholar who will argue that Canada remains under British sovereignty, thus, who's the one being unencyclopaedic? --G2bambino 15:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It is you who introduced sovereignty to the debate, not me. The Canadian crown is not subordinate to the British crown - it is part of it. TharkunColl 15:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you mean "British Crown" as the traditional way to refer to the shared Crown, or "British Crown" as in the Crown within the jurisdiction of the UK parliament? --G2bambino 15:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The Crown is completely within the jurisdiction of parliament. That's why British people fought and died in the Civil War, and why we had the Glorious Revolution. TharkunColl 15:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Then you are arguing that Canada is subordinate to the UK - our crown is your crown which is under the jurisdiction of the UK Parliament. Wrong; the Crown in Canada is not within the jurisdiction of the UK Parliament, it is completely within the jurisdiction of the Canadian Parliament, as established by 75 year old constitutional law. --G2bambino 15:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The British parliament is sovereign in all matters, because we are not burdened by a written constitution. We could abolish the monarchy at any time. What would happen then to the "Canadian Crown", do you think? TharkunColl 16:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Nothing would happen, because Canada is not under the sovereignty of the British Crown - as in, the Crown within UK jurisdiction. --G2bambino 16:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * So the Canadians would keep the monarchy, even though it had been abolished in the UK? If you really believe that, then I'm not surprised you can't tell the difference between legal theory and actual fact. TharkunColl 16:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't say we'd keep it - who am I to predict the future choices of Canadians? But if the UK abolished the Monarchy Canada's status as a constitutional monarchy would not be affected.  Do your research on the Statute of Westminster please. --G2bambino 16:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, until every last province decided along with the federal Parliament that the monarchy was no longer needed in Canada, it would stay. -- Ibagli ( Talk ) 17:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is a good example of the difference between legal theory and practical fact. The British parliament cannot bind itself - therefore any law it passes can be just as easily repealed at any future date (hence the impossibility of imposing a written constitution). The British parliament, according to its own rules, could therefore repeal all the acts granting independence to the dominions and once more bring them under its control. In legal theory this is perfectly true, but in practice it would never happen. Likewise, in legal theory the crowns are equal, but in practice they are an adjunct of the crown of the UK. TharkunColl 18:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Neither legal theory nor practical fact allow this. As the other realms are not under the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, Acts of the British Parliament (and the repeal thereof) have no effect other than to make the British government of the time look unrealistically imperialistic. -- Ibagli ( Talk ) 19:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * They can only repeal any laws within their own jurisdiction - and as the Statute of Westminster is now a part of Canadian constitutional law, within Canada it would still state that no Act passed by the British Parliament has cause or effect in Canada. This is why the non-UK crowns of the Commonwealth are not under British sovereignty. --G2bambino 18:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * For the sake of this article, I suggest this dispute be taken before the 'Mediation Committee'. This tug of war isn't going to end. GoodDay 18:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think an RfC is the first step. However, we've already had very lengthy debate on this topic with many people weighing in, and TharkunColl remains the only one with any strong (and biased) objections. --G2bambino 19:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's have an RfC then. If the majority opinon (no matter what it is) is later disrespected (by any editor, through causing an 'edit war'). Then the offending editor shall be reported to an Administrator (for ignoring the RfC results). This dispute must end. GoodDay 19:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * An RfC isn't binding on anything, it's merely the debate being brought to the attention of a wider audience to garner more opinion. Because it doesn't demand any editor conform to general consensus (if any is reached) if anyone still objects after RfC, the dispute then goes in front of a mediator. The process works sometimes, but it seems ridiculous to go through it just because one editor wrongly believes that fifteen independent, free standing kingdoms are still colonies of the British Queen. --G2bambino 20:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Have the RfC anyway. The more opinons on this matter, the better. It can't hurt. GoodDay 20:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The only editor who continues to object in this matter is TharkunColl (GoodDay objects also, but respects the discussion we have previously had on this page). I hardly think mediation is necessary for TharkunColl's sake. In fact he has shown himself to be insulting to the non-UK monarchies. He has found himself pursuing nonsensical and contradictory arguments. With G2bambino he has argued that the Canadian crown is part of the UK Crown, and then said the former is not inferior to the latter. He cannot have it both ways. In an exchange with myself a week ago he said that non-UK monarchies were 'preposterous' monarchies. He later went on to say that were 'no' monarchies at all. Then he implied that the validity of a monarchy depended upon the distance of a nation from the place she resides. He described Australia as a republic on the basis that the Queen of Australia is a figurehead there and respects a democratically elected government. Then he realised that he had just described the UK monarchy as well! On top of this, the UK is the supreme monarchy, apparently, because Prince Harry has dressed as a Nazi and the Princess Royal runs up parking tickets there. When forced to pursue his own arguments TharkunColl trips over himself and is forced to contradict himself. And he has stated on this page that his arguments about the superiority of the UK Crown are his own personal arguments. I do not think we should allow TharkunColl to hijack this discussion. We have talked about this. We have settled on an edit which acknowledges the special role of HM in the UK. The edit is accurate and fair. Let's stick to it.--Gazzster 21:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * How dare you make such a biased and trivialised precis of my arguments. Who is this article about? And what is her full time job? These are questions that you refuse to even countenance, let alone answer. TharkunColl 23:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean to say, 'you didn't give me the answers I wanted.' And I do not trivialise. That is what your arguments sound like. And isn't it hypocritical to accuse me of that when you 'trivialise' the dignity of 15 sovereign nations, many of whom are represented by editors on this page? If you're waiting for an answer, this article is about Queen Elizabeth II. Her full-time job is being Queen of 16 realms. No, she isn't part-time monarch of Australia and Canada. If you need to continue, I invite you to go to my talk page.--Gazzster 04:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't call a few days visiting every couple of years a "full time job" - do you? And please provide an example of when I contradicted myself, because I assure you I haven't. The Queen and her family live in the UK, and are in the news every day. The nature of the monarchy in the UK is qualatively different from that of the monarchies in the other realms. In fact, as far as the other realms are concerned, the Queen is an absentee monarch. TharkunColl 12:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well then, if his 'edits' and objections are disruptive, report his actions to an Administrator (for going against a 'previously' reached compromise). Otherwise, do the following: 1)RfC then 2)'Mediation Committee'. If we don't, this will eventually head to the 'Arbitration Committee' itself. Block'em or Don't argue with him. GoodDay 22:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

My point is that mediation should not be necessary on the basis of one editor's disruption. Editors simply need to show a common face in favour of the agreed upon edits. Taking administrive action only gives the attention he wants.--Gazzster 22:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Very well. GoodDay 23:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Just my 2 cents/pence etc. We need only look into history and not what might happen when UK abolishes her monarchy. The monarchy shared between Luxembourg and the Netherlands split after William III of the Netherlands died. Luxembourg's succession law only allowed the crown passed in the male line. As such the office of Grand_Duke_of_Luxembourg was separated completely ever since.
 * If any of the realms decided to change their succession law or abolish constitution monarchy, there would probably be no effect in the UK. But if the UK decided to abolish monarchy, it will depend on whether the realm's constitution provide any mechanism to choose a new monarch. Will the realm able to continue the line of sucession in the realm or pick a monarch from another constitution monarchy in the extremely unlikly case, say Denmark, or Japan even. Of course there is always the option to abolish the monarchy altogether in the realm. --Kvasir 04:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I think most, if not all non-UK Commonwealth realms have the Act of Settlement as part of their constitutional law. At least, I know that is the case in Australia. That would mean that only a non-Catholic descendant of Electress Sophia Dorothea of Hanover, whose spouse was not Catholic could succeed, as in the UK. Of course, any sovereign nation could legislate to choose any monarch it wanted. Any change concerning the succession of the common monarchy would require the agreement of all the realms, according to the Statute of Westminster. But I suppose any realm could unilaterally annul the Statute of Westminster. After that, who knows? An interesting hypothetical scednario. --Gazzster 05:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't you mean Sophia Dorothea's grandmother? Sophia of Hanover?? GoodDay 22:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Good call, mate. SD was the mother of George I.--Gazzster 22:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, SD was the daughter of George I. It's Sophia-GeorgeI-Sophia Dorothea. GoodDay 22:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Right again. George's mother was Sophia of the Palatinate?--Gazzster 23:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It was true when the PM said it but it isnt now. Since then the UK lost its last remaining legal links to Canada and the Canadian Crown became patriated in law in 1982.

Coronation
If the Queen's role as Queen of Canada, Australia, etc. really is completely distinct from her role as Queen of the UK, then why wasn't she crowned as such? Those places weren't even mentioned during her coronation. TharkunColl 13:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes they were. From Coronation of the British Monarch: "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?" Passingtramp 15:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, fair enough. But there's still no hint that those places have separate crowns. In typical British fashion, the whole thing is left ambiguous. TharkunColl 16:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it isn't ambiguous. It is a matter of law and practice.Now it would be impractical and ridiculous to crown the monarch 16 times with 16 different crowns. The poor woman wouldn't be out of the abbey until the evening.In any case, most monarchs these days aren't crowned- the UK monarchy is about the last to have a coronation. The rite of coronation is just that, a ceremony, and does not actually make a monarch. So no coronation does not mean no monarchy.--Gazzster 21:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that all her titles should be included. And I do not recognize that this article needs to be summarised. I particularly enjoyed this article, and condensing it would remove a lot of detail. 125.239.6.184 04:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

If the Queen is equally the Queen of the other realms as she is of the UK, as some have suggested, then wouldn't it be more likely for Charles to be crowned in a country other than the UK? Of course not! He will first be King of the UK, and then of the other nations. Jleonau 07:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope, he simultaneously becomes king of every country immediately upon the death of his mother. It's not the coronation that makes him king. (And, as an interesting side note, EIIR was proclaimed as queen in Canada first. Does that make her primarily Queen of Canada?) --G2bambino 13:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it makes her primarily Queen of the UK because that's where she exercises the functions of monarch in person, that's where the monarchy that she embodies was created, that's where she receives her income from, and that's where she and her family live and interact with their subjects on a daily basis. TharkunColl 13:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * So you keep saying. --G2bambino 13:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And does that he "keep[s] saying" make what he says less true? DBD 16:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What makes it less true is the content, not the frequency.-- Ibagli ( Talk ) 04:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact it's already been said a million times is a pretty good reason not to repeat it whether it is true or not, especially in response to a tongue in cheek reply to a silly question. JPD (talk) 10:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Proclamation is not required to become king or queen either. I do know that coronation is not required to become king, for E VIII was not crowned. That is beside the point. Where do you think the coronation of the 'King of Australia' will take place? In Australia? Where do you think the King of Oz will live? In Australia? Will the King of Oz 'grace' us with more than a few days living here while on a 'royal tour'? When was the last time it appeared in a British paper 'QE2 visits the UK' (other than the ship of course)? Jleonau 13:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you have a point? G2bambino 14:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

My point is that if the relationship between the monarch and each realm were equal, then it would be less likely (chance 1 out of 16) for the next monarch to be coronated in the UK than it would be for him to be coronated somewhere else (chance 15 out of 16).Jleonau 12:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay. Your "point" is noted. --G2bambino 15:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The verb, by the way, is "crowned", not "coronated". --  JackofOz 14:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I know I'm only an American, but it seems to me as an outsider with no natioanl agenda to push that the phrase "Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith" is a good compromise. Listing all 16 crowns she holds would be a bit much. And while she is Queen of all sixteen Commonwealth monarchies, it is also true that her historical homeland, the land of her ancestors, and the land where the crown originated is the UK. So the phrase noted above seems like a fair compromise. Just the opinion of a lowly Yank, and since Bush no one likes us anymore anyway. ;) RockStarSheister (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's already been settled, but that wouldn't be a compromise at all. It promotes one country (using an official title from only one) while completely removing the other 15. I think the current lead is good. It shows that the UK is where she resides and is where the crown originates without completely removing the other realms.-- Ibagli rnbs ( Talk ) 21:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems that since it's her official title, it's the best solution. I think people in commonwealth countries/former colonies are being a bit too touchy about this entire subject. RockStarSheister (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not her official title in 15 countries, though. She has a different official title in every country she is Queen of. This matter was solved a long time ago, however. Your idea has as much validity as only mentioning Tuvalu.-- Ibagli rnbs ( Talk ) 00:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, you sure are mistaken, but I'll give you points for being proud of your country. Calling Elizabeth the Queen of the UK and her other realms and territories is infinitely more sensible than calling her Queen of Tuvalu. Does she live in Tuvalu? Did her father George VI, or grandfather George V, or great-grandfather Edward VII? Does she speak English with a Tuvalu accent? Did her coronation take place in Tuvalu? National pride is all fine and dandy but let's not be blinded by it. With regard to the Commonwealth of Nations, the UK will always be Primus Inter Pares, first among equals. Did Tuvalu export its language to the UK or was it the other way around? Did the traditional Tuvalu monarch become monarch in the UK, or does the tradional UK monarch reign in Tuvalu? A little common sense goes a long way in situations like this. I can go anywhere in the world and mention Queen Elizabeth of the UK and people know who I mean. If I were to mention Queen Elizabeth of Tuvalu, they would ask who is she, some local monarch or tribal queen? That may not be politically correct, but that's what the reaction would be. I'm not going to discuss it anymore, as national pride seems to be blinding your common sense. RockStarSheister (talk) 06:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not "national pride" since I'm not from a Commonwealth realm. It's fact. The Queen is Queen of 16 countries. To deny that is strictly Original Research and a single Point of View. It is, however, perfectly fine to state that the Queen carries out the vast majority of engagements in or on behalf of the UK, and that she and her family live there, since that can be verified by outside sources. It cannot be verified by outside sources, however, that the Queen's role as Queen of the UK takes precedence, because that is a matter based solely in opinion. This matter has been settled by consensus (many months ago), however, and it would be foolish to open up this Pandora's Box again.-- Ibagli rnbs ( Talk ) 19:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Next time you want to argue against what I write, I suggest you actually read my words. If you had, you would see that I did not deny she is Queenof sixteen nations. What I said is that her role in the UK is more important than her role in the other nations. The Prime Minister of only one of these sixteen nations meets with her on a regular basis. Care to guess which one? Hint: It isn't Canada or VulatuRockStarSheister (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia cannot write about what is "more important." It can only report facts. That the PM of the UK is the only one that meets with her is a verifiable fact and is (or at least was at one point) already mentioned. That the Queen lives in the UK and carries out most engagements is a fact and is mentioned. That the UK is "more important" is not a fact. It is a single POV and cannot be in the article. That she is Queen of 16 countries is a fact and is reported.-- Ibagli rnbs ( Talk ) 22:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it's rather an opinion. If (God forbid) the UK sank into the North Sea tomorrow the monarchy would die everywhere. No UK, no monarchy. But on the other hand all 16 monarchies are equal in dignity. But this whole issue is just not worth raking up again.--Gazzster (talk) 22:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again, you have failed to read my words correctly and you are arguing against a point I did not make. I never said the UK was more important than any of the other fifteen nations she reigns over. I said (and read this carefully lest we go through deja vu all over again) that her relationship with the government of the UK is more important than her relationship with the government of the fifteen other realms. That is not an opinion, it is a fact shown by such things as her weekly meeting with PM of the UK and her daily perusal of "the box" containing state papers (overwhelmingly concerning the UK). Therefore, her reign over the UK is more significant, and yes more important, than her reign over the other nations, which tends to be more in name only as opposed to the more active role she plays in the government of the UK. I never said the UK itself was more important than any other nation. Stop being so defensive. RockStarSheister (talk) 23:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying. And I'm going further. In relationship to the monarchy the UK is more important than the other realms. No UK=no monarchy, anywhere! But this horse has been flogged so much it's looking like minced meat. And frankly, it's not important. The article is nicely balanced.--Gazzster (talk) 00:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section.
I do not see any criticism here. And is not her real last name Saxe-Coburg-Gothe. Where is the mention of how the whole familiy is really German? Xavier cougat 16:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The whole family is German? Why do you leave out English, Scottish, French, Greek, Danish, etc., etc.?  Beyond that, I'm not sure how much criticism of EIIR there's ever been - but if something can be sourced I don't see why it shouldn't be added. --G2bambino 17:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well in large part German. Very little British. How about here distaste for Diana? How about how she was upset when they asked her to pay taxes? She gives little to charity. She lives off the government. She does little for the country she owns. She is a drain on the taxpayers. Now I have read all of this. Should not some criticism be in the article too. Xavier cougat 20:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Provide reliable sources, please. --G2bambino 21:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761556932/Elizabeth_II.html here is where she just started paying taxes after public opinion got after her. can I put that in the article?Xavier cougat 21:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The fact that she started paying taxes is not the same thing as "she was upset when they asked her to pay taxes." If the article doesn't already mention something about her being the first monarch to pay taxes, then add it to the appropriate place with a properly formatted footnote. --G2bambino 21:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"Also in 1992, part of Windsor Castle was seriously damaged by fire. An announcement that the approximately $100 million needed to repair the castle would come from public funds set off a furor about the monarchy’s exemption from the tax code. As a result the queen and Prince Charles agreed to pay income taxes on their personal income, the first time the monarchy has done so"

How about 'QE had not paid taxes until 1992 when a public furor occurred after the announcement that public funds would pay for the Windsor Castle that was damaged by fire. After the public's reaction QE agreed to pay taxes'?


 * At British Royal Family it says: "Though always voluntarily subject to the Value Added Tax and other indirect taxes, the Queen agreed to pay taxes on income and capital gains from 1992, although the details of this arrangement are both voluntary and secret. At the same time it was announced that only the Queen and Prince Philip would receive civil list payments. Since 1993 the Queen's personal income has been taxed as any other Briton. The Queen's private estate (eg shareholdings, personal jewellery, Sandringham House and Balmoral Castle) will be subject to Inheritance Tax, however bequests from Sovereign to Sovereign are exempt." --G2bambino 21:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Secret agreement? sounds fishy to me. Should be in the article about her and her son. Xavier cougat 22:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Whatever you want. Just make it within WP guidelines. --G2bambino 22:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have heard critisisms of the Queen and a monarchy as a whole. Why is the Queen only portrayed as a good person?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.174.79.228 (talk) 23:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom - "Not Queen of Pakistan"
hi, This is a wrong piece of information which could be misleading to the readers. Pakistan got its independence from British Empire on August 14, 1947.


 * Right, but it didn't become a republic until 1956.Doops | talk 00:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth II of England but the first Queen Elizabeth of Scotland
Hence why you will never find a post box in Scotland with QEII (or QE2) as a mark - they are all shown as a Crown !!


 * Did you even read the article? There's a whole section detailing this controversy, and explaining why HM is QEII of the UK. DBD 14:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

'She's been on the throne 50+ years. Of course its going to be a long article. Whats wrong with that?'

Absolutely nothing. But what section are to commenting on? And please sign your contributions, which are welcome.--Gazzster 12:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect statement
She is currently the third longest reigning British monarch after Victoria, who reigned for sixty-three years and George III, who reigned for fifty-nine years.

And what about Henry III of England, and James VI of Scotland? The above statement is misleading at best, and simply false at worst. TharkunColl 18:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How so? Henry was King of the Kingdom of England and James of the Kingdom of Scotland the British Monarchy was not created until 1707. --Barryob  Vigeur de dessus  18:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That's not true. The British state from 1707 was a continuation of the English state. Hence the numbering of monarchs. TharkunColl 23:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It is misleading to refer to Britain as 'a continuation of the English state'. Britain was a forced amalgamation of Scotland and Ireland with England, which was the strongest of those states.Scotland and Northern Ireland retain their separate identities, even more so in these days of devolution, and it is certainly not correct to identify these nations with England.--Gazzster 23:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not going to get into a pointless debate with you the English monarchy ended in 1707 along with the Scottish one and became the British one, and we have an article dealing with the numbering of monarchs List of regnal numerals of future British monarchs
 * I do not mind if you do get in a debate with me, pointless or not. But what about? You seem to forget what I was commenting on. Tharkuncoll said Britain was a continuation of England. I said that was misleading. You seem to be one with me on this point so I do not know why you are having a go at me. And we were not talking about the English crown but the English state. You would not I assume say that the England no longer exists? And my point referring to the initiative of the English crown and Parliament in the Union is a valid one. --Gazzster 05:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, returning to the point: the issue isn't whether or not the "third-longest" statement is *factual*, it's whether or not it's *useful*. I think a strong case can be made that including Henry III and James VI are is useful, so I'll do so (making sure to use unambiguous wording, of course). Doops | talk 05:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Except that its incorrect. Henry III and James VI were not monarchs of Britain. Henry III was King of England. James VI was King of Scotland and later James I of England. The latter unofficially called himself King of Britain but Parliament and foreign powers did not recognise the title. You seem to be referring to Britain as a geographical entity. But I believe the article refers to it as a political one.--Gazzster 06:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Who's "you"? I never referred to either of them as "monarchs of Britain". Doops | talk 07:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No you didnt. But associating them with a list of long reigns of British monarchs was irrelevant and confusing. Your latest edit is fine.--Gazzster 07:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * In that case, it should be pointed out that the UK was not formed until 1801, and most of George III's reign (1760-1820) took place before that. In other words, he shouldn't be on the list either. To include him is just double standards. TharkunColl 07:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

For once, Sir, I agree with you. Cheers!--Gazzster 07:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It's extraordinary the things we end up debating, isn't it?--Gazzster 08:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry Gazzster I was not talking to you I was taking to TharkunColl in his statment that the English state still exists. --Barryob  Vigeur de dessus  11:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No worries, mate. You're cool!--Gazzster 08:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The English state does still exist. What do you think happened in 1707? TharkunColl 11:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It merged with the Scottish state and became the Kingdom of Great Britain they even gave the new state its own flag. --Barryob  Vigeur de dessus  12:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The flag had been in use for a hundred years already. And if it was a "merger" (rather than, to use corporate language, a takeover), then why were all the English institutions of state completely unaffected, but the Scottish ones abolished? TharkunColl 12:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If it was a real takeover then it would still have been called the Kingdom of England but alas it wasn't and as for Scottsih insitiutions being abolished Scots law anyone? --Barryob  Vigeur de dessus  12:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Not all Scottish institutions were abolished, and as an administrative unit Scotland remained distinct from England. Scots Gaelic was widely spoken and the Scots used their own dialects of the English language. The clan system was not abolished in 1707, though it was bloodily repressed after the Jacobite Wars. Scottish law remained distinct from English law. The monarch in Scotland is not head of the Scottish Church. Scotland had its own Secretary of State in London until 1999. Since then it has its own executive and Parliament. Likewise, England, and for that matter, Wales, Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands and Man are distinct political entities with their own laws, customs and institutions. True, the Crowns of these different entities have been merged into one: the Crown of the United Kingdom. But let's not confuse the single Crown and the several, distinct states under the crown. They remain distinct. They have not been absorbed by England.--Gazzster 13:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Bollocks! The UK is one nation, albeit with constituent countries of distinct cultures etc, but they are not distinct as nations, we are a United Kingdom! DBD 15:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not say they were separate nations. I said they were 'distinct states' or 'entities'. And I clearly made the point that they are united under one crown; not absorbed by England. You apparently agree with me. --Gazzster 21:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've changed the paragraph in question to remove any mention of the contentious "British" issue; she's the third longest reigning of the UK, I don't think that can be disputed. --G2bambino 15:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The UK was formed in 1801. Most of George III's reign took place before that. So to be consistent, we should list all of them, or just Victoria. And as for the other point, Scotland still existed after 1707, but most of its institutions of government (parliament, executive, officers of state), did not. The English institutions just carried on as normal. They didn't even bother holding a new election - a small group of appointed Scottish MPs just turned up at parliament one day, took their seats, and that was that. There is continuity in England that was broken in Scotland. TharkunColl 16:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I see re. Kingdom of Great Britain to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Now that I think of it, why do we need to try and impart this information at all?  It's awkward, and even somewhat irrelevant, especially for the opening paragraphs.  She may be the second longest of the UK, fourth longest of the British Isles, but she's also longest of Australia, Canada (though, Victoria was on the throne at Confederation), etc., and then what of Europe, the world, etc.?  Should we just eliminate the sentence all together? --G2bambino 16:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, all this is so needlessly complicated; there's so much barking up a wrong tree. All the sentence is trying to do is talk about length of reign. The fact that the constitutional status of his territories altered during the course of George III's life doesn't mean that the poor guy had two reigns: he had one. He didn't stop reigning one day and start again the next; he kept reigning. Furthermore, there's really no need to rehash the whole series of constitutional changes here on the talk page: I'm pretty sure we all know it like the back of our hands. The point is, although these changes certainly occurred, and although they are certainly important, they don't amount to a blank slate starting all over again. There was lots of continuity (in laws, in institutions, in regnal numerals, etc.) during each change. I don't see why so many people are unwilling to grasp the quite simple concept of a successor state.

The point is this: we want to talk about length of time reigning. Did George III reign longer than Elizabeth II or not? Of course he did. If we don't say so, we're muddying the waters pointlessly. By all means, let's use accurate language; I would never advocate inaccuracy. But the length-of-reign sentence should be about length-of-reign, not obsessed with constitutional questions. Doops | talk 17:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree totally. I was not arguing for the exclusion of George III, but the inclusion of Henry III (James VI is a bit more problematic, since most of his reign was in Scotland only, and the UK is a successor to England in a much more real and practical sense than to Scotland - but nevertheless, I would include him). On the other hand, all we need to do is wait a few more years and the problem will go away, one way or the other. TharkunColl 17:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Seeing as it was I, who inadvertantly stir up this discussion (by adding Geoge, months ago). Howabout we put, the fifth longest reignin monarch of the British Isles. British Isles would geographically and historically cover England, Scotland, Great Britain, United Kingdom etc. What say all of you? GoodDay 19:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with what we've got now? I think it works. Doops | talk 20:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's too cumbersome, but that's just my opinon. GoodDay 20:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Kiss
Ideally we should follow, in this matter as all, the KISS principle whenever we can, for a couple of reasons; to avoid cumbersome renderings; to avoid getting into long discussions over relatively unimportant points. The statement as it stands is OK. But really, the only intention of the paragraph is to inform readers that EII is one of the longest reigning monarchs of Britain. To be really simple, it would only be necessary to say something like, 'Elizabeth II is one of the longest reigning monarchs of Great Britain. She has reigned for years. Only Victoria (---yrs) and George III (---yrs) have longer reigns.' I believe the original statement was as simple as this. But we had to complicate it by references to James VI. Henry III, etc. I really do not think the public needs this additional information (certainly not in an introduction) & is likely to be confused by it.--Gazzster 22:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I entirely agree with the merit of simplicity; it should be one of our highest goals. But one of the few things more important is not misleading our readers; and I think omitting James VI and Henry III on a technicality would be just that. Doops | talk 23:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Look, I can certainly see how one could include those two sovereigns (and others) but to do so strays unecessarily into contentious waters. Look how much time we spent on the topic. I admit, I have been an offender in this matter. But Ive said my piece. I dont want to rake it up again.--Gazzster 02:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Heh. Don't stress about it, certainly! But, yeah, I just think that readers aren't as attuned as we are to the constitutional complexities, and so if we said "third-longest" they'll be overly impressed by it -- they won't stop to realize that that isn't actually a very impressive achievement, considering how young the UK (as such) is. Doops | talk 02:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point m8!--Gazzster 04:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I think people should stop referring to the UK as a continuation of the English state. Regardless of what one's personal views are, it was techincally a union of the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland to form the Kingdom of Great Britain which later becomae the United Kingdom. To incorrectly call the UK a continuation of the English state is unfair and insulting to all Scots. Yes, I know parliament is based in London, but I might counter with the fact that James VI, the Scottish monarch, claimed the English throne. An English monarch did not claim the Scottish throne. Technicalities such as this can be argued as infinitum, so why not in the future refer to the union as it truly was, a union of kingdoms and not the takeover of one kingdom by another? RockStarSheister (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath awards
Hi everyone. I have a question: why were the mentions of the Queen awarding former American Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Buah, as well as former Polish Leader Lech Walesa, the Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath removed? I think that saying that would greatly enhance the "Relations with foreign leaders" section, for it demonstrates not just a friendly relationship with the Queen, but a working relationship also. I propose adding that back in, but I wanted to get some thoughts on this page first. Best, Happyme22 16:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Appointments to the Order of the Bath are made on the advice of the government of the day, rather than being in the monarch's personal gift. In order to show a specific relationship with the Queen, we'd need to be looking at awards like Order of the Garter, Companion of Honour or Order of Merit, as these remain in her personal gift.  David Underdown 07:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The Order of the Companions of Honour is awarded by the government as well. The only personal awards are the Orders of the Garter, the Thistle and Merit, and the Royal Victorian Order.-- Ibagli ( Talk ) 15:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Andorra
I was under the impression that Andorra is not actually an independent nation, but is a joint protectorate of France and Spain. Rather like Monaco being a French protectorate, and San Marino and Vatican City being Italian protectorates. TharkunColl 15:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * read the articles on them Andorra is apparently a UN member in its own right, and the Vatican City is described as being "The world's smallest independent country" - I don't think either would like being characterised as protectorates... David Underdown 16:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Same goes for Monaco and San Marino as well. They have very close ties to France and Italy respectively, but public international law do regard them, just like Andorra, as sovereign states. The Vatican City is a bit tricky because there is a difficult distinction between the two concepts The Vatican City and The Holy See, but it's still considered a sovereign state. Also, the Vatican City is the only of the four that is not a UN member (it is a permanent "observer", though). -- Jao 16:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Andorra is most certainly an independent and sovereign state. While the Heads of State are the President of France and the (Spanish) Bishop of Urgell, these positions are merely the ceremonial heads of state, not the head of government, who is an Andorran politician. To not consider Andorra an independent nation because of this technicality would be akin to saying that Canada or New Zealand are not independent countries because Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is head of state in those two countries. The misunderstanding is a common one, but to put the matter to rest, Andorra is without doubt a sovereign state, as the UN website, Andorra's website, and any encyclopedia will tell you.RockStarSheister (talk) 22:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth
Having reviewed G2bambino's equal status for commonwealth nations edits (here and at relating pages). Doesn't it all seem to contradict this page's title? Wounldn't G2's views, demand Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom be 'moved' to Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth? I'm not critizing, just seeking consistancy. Why is it both ways? GoodDay 19:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This very question/point has been raised a number of times before; the general consensus always ends up being to keep it as it is, for one of two reasons: a) there's no such title at "Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth" or "Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth Realms," and b) it will have repercussions on other articles on monarchs who were separately sovereigns of more than one country. I'm not happy with the current title of this article, but, I can see both sides of the argument. --G2bambino 19:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand, so you do see the contradictions. Just curious. GoodDay 19:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I would see Elizabeth II, Queen of the Commonwealth Realms as a better alternative, although I would prefer to maintain the status quo right now. Nat Tang ta 02:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I see no issue with retaining the title, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom,as it is the realm most prominently associated with her in the public eye. True, as said above, Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth sounds like a title, which it isnt. She is Head of the Commonwealth. Similar, Queen of the Commonwealth Realms sounds as if it is a title. And it sounds as if the 'Commonwealth Realms' is a single political entity, like an empire or the United States. The present title of the article is fine.--Gazzster 02:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom aswell. It's just that the relating articles aren't in sinc (they stress equality among the 16 nations, not British prominance). I'm probably making to much of it, I'll drop the matter. GoodDay 19:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In sync or not, it's definitely not a contradiction. Both the equality and the British prominence are true. If the title stresses one, there perhaps even more reason for the intro to stress the other, and definitely no reason not to mention it. JPD (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I would also like to see a new name, however, coming up with that new name will be annoying. Keep the status quo for now anyway Brian | (Talk) 05:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It is probably the name by which she is most commonly known, which is one of Wikipedi's determiners for the "correct" article. The other titles (e.g. "of Australia", "of Canada" etc) could be set up as redirects to allow them to be used in articles where appropriate in context.  David Underdown 10:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, "Queen of England" is what she's most commonly known as; so we don't necessarily title articles based on predominant usage. I suppose this article does explain that the UK is her primary country of residence, however, it is still a bit misleading when a dablink at the head of an article on the Monarchy in Jamaica, for example, directs users to the article on the Jamaican Monarch titled "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom." (Ditto, I suppose, for anyone looking for info on the King of Scotland after 1603.) --G2bambino 14:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I would argue not that she's most known as the "Queen of England", but that she's most known by the phrase, "Queen of England", and that when most people say those words I think they're using "England" as a synonym for "United Kingdom" (something that happens all the time outside the UK in all sorts of contexts, especially by people in the US). -- Hux 21:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This issue is having an impact on other pages related to Commonwealth Realms. It's not just a bit misleading, it is factually wrong to describe the "current monarch" of  as "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" - she is "Elizabeth II of ". "Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth" also doesn't cut it -- there is no such title.

By far the simplest solution, IMO, would be to refer to her as Elizabeth II. That currently takes you to a redirect page that gets you here. I tried piping her through, which is effectively equivalent to this, but ran into the objection that there is a WP policy that links in DABlinks should be to the actual title of the article, and discourages pipes and redirects. Although there is also a policy allowing editors to override other policies if the particular circumstances warrant, and it seems to me completely justified to do so in this case, there was some disagreement about that. So I'm looking for another solution.

Looking at the WP history, the article about her started as a simple Elizabeth II. It was given the current title in April 2002. The justification was something to do with a WP policy on nomenclature, which I haven't seen. I imagine it says something like that an article about a monarch must be entitled " of ".

I think that decision was a mistake and should be reversed. This is one case (and historically there are others, e.g. some monarchs, like Demetrius I were peripatetic) where a single doesn't do justice to the case.

She is most commonly known as Elizabeth II, without qualification, and the name is completely unambiguous. There are no other monarchs of that name, nor are there likely to be so for a considerable time, if ever.

So, I propose moving this article back into Elizabeth II and turning Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom into the redirect. Any takers? --Chris Bennett 17:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose If we move this page we'll have a ton of requests to move others who held several thrones. The policy is at Naming conventions (names and titles). Timrollpickering 17:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe, though I suspect not. And if it happens perhaps it might be the right thing to do. Anyway, thanks for the policy link.  I note the disclaimer at the top which says "However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." and the first justification given is a need to preemptively disambiguate.  I think there is a very fair case for an exception here -- her role is historically unique, because the separation and equality of the Commonwealth realms, while already existing in practice, only really became fully apparent with her accession.  I also don't think there is any ambiguity to disambiguate, preemptively or otherwise.  --Chris Bennett 18:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support I agree Chris. This is a good idea Brian | (Talk) 19:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with others who've said that consistent naming conventions are more important that constitutional accuracy and that where there are multiple kingdoms, it's best to use the one that is most well-known. I see that this opinion also jibes with the guidelines at WP:NCNT. So in other words, I think the article title should remain as is, otherwise it throws a spanner into the works for a lot of other articles. -- Hux 21:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

As Ive said, I have no problem with the present title. But, if we must change it, Chris's suggestion is excellent. --Gazzster 21:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, it's better as Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. GoodDay 21:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This proposal got the reaction I thought it would. On Talk:Commonwealth Realm we've agreed to go with the formula "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom who is also monarch of " in the DAB link.  Unnecessarily verbose in my personal opinion, but at least it's both relevant and accurate, while also conforming to the letter of the current policy statement.  --Chris Bennett 16:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I wish there were a way to make it possible for one page to display a different title depending on where it was linked from. That would make the name of this article so much easier.-- Ibagli ( Talk ) 04:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it really wouldn't, because then people might not understand that, of the Queen's crowns, her oldest is the first among equals... I mean, gracious me, she only lives and works here! DBD 22:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that would be a idea, that could work Brian | (Talk) 01:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If we'll rename this article to Elizabeth II, Queen of the Commonwealth Realms, should we change Charles, Prince of Wales to Charles, Heir Apparent of the Commonwealth Realms? ― 韓斌 /  Yes0song  (<font lang="ko" color="#FF8040">談笑  <font lang="ko" color="green">筆跡  <font lang="ko" color="pink">다지모 ) 07:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No, because Prince Charles does not have any other "royal titles". The title Prince of Wales is the title of the heir apperent of the Commonwealth Realm monarchs and has been since the Statue of Westminister, the proclamation that caused the creation/separation of the crowns. Nat Tang ta 10:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This page should remain Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, the most worldly known title. I only brought up 'Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth' earlier, to see how editors felt about the UK, first among equals VS all are equal, in this and relating Commonwealth articles. GoodDay 17:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * However, Prince of Wales can't cover in Scotland. As you know, the alternative title in Scotland is Duke of Rothesay. ― <font lang="ko" color="crimson">韓斌 /  Yes0song  (<font lang="ko" color="#FF8040">談笑  <font lang="ko" color="green">筆跡  <font lang="ko" color="pink">다지모 ) 00:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You're aware Scotland is in the UK, right? DRoth's just another style, like the Queen is DLanc, but yet we'd never consider putting that in the page title... DBD 10:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Correct, Prince of Wales is the appointed title of the heir-apparent to the United Kingdom throne (and the other Commonwealth Realms). Duke of Rothsey in Scotland, is equal to Duke of Cornwall in England (plus those title automatically devolve upon the person, who becomes UK heir-apparent). PS- Any further discussion on this topic, should occur at Charles, Prince of Wales. GoodDay 14:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not correct actually. The Prince of Wales is a title that has no meaning in Scotland, as the Principality of Wales was a principality of the Kingdom of England, and it remains as such hence England and Wales share a legal system whilst Scotland has its own. As such, yes the title of Prince of Wales is given to the heir-apparent of the UK, by tradition, but it does not denote this. The titles of Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothsay, Prince and Great Stewart of Scotland, and others are also given traditionally to the heir-apparent but again they do not officially denote the heir-apparent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.88.64 (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Queen of Belize?
Belize is an independent nation and does not have no queen! I've noticed that wikipedia puts a lot of false statements on their pages. Belize was once a british colony but that's no longer true. If anything, Belize is slowly becoming a Latino Caribbean country, as Spanish is becoming more dominant in the country. Please learn your history wikipedia!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.247.101.156 (talk) 20:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC).

Don't spread rubbish - this is what the Belizean government has to say :

"Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is the constitutional Head of State. She is represented in Belize by a Governor-General, who must be a Belizean.

http://www.belize.gov.bz/ab_politics.html

--Bluezy 20:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Crown lands not the Queen's
It says in this article that the crown lands are "technically the Queen's" - in fact they are only hers as Sovereign, like the Royal Collection or the Occupied Palaces, not personally.
 * Quite true, they are "held by the Queen as Sovereign, in trust for her successors and ''[in the case of the Collection] the nation" DBD 22:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Passport
I know this is somewhat tangential to EIIR, but User:TharkunColl has engaged himself in an edit war at Passport and started his "all the realms are under the British Queen" argument again at the related talk page. Rather than go through all this garbage yet again, could interested people please come and put a swift end to his incessant trolling? I started an RfC at Talk:Passport. Cheers. --G2bambino 23:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This is about whether the British monarch is monarch of 15 other countries. Or whether, as G2bambino believes, such an assertion is illegitimate because of the legal separation of the crowns. To answer this question let me quote from a 2006 speech by the Rt Hon Don McKinnon, Secretary-General of the Commonwealth :


 * "We now have only 16 countries that retain the British monarch as their Head of State." [my bold] TharkunColl 23:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Someone's erroneous statement does not make it fact. Charles 23:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As long as this article remains Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, I'm content to have equal status for the Commonwealth of Nations related articles. Complexing ain't it?GoodDay 01:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I always refer to Her Majesty as the Queen of Canada, but even I would not propose moving the article away from Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom to an artificial construction such as Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth Realms. She is most known and easiest recognized as of the UK, but it doesn't mean that the UK is better than Canada ;-) Charles 03:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Why must you make this a nationalist issue? This, I suspect, is also User:G2bambino's major, though completely misguided motivation. No one is saying that the UK is better than Canada, just because Canada chooses to retain the British monarch as its own monarch. This in no way implies that the British parliament has any control over Canada. The trouble is that certain users seem incapable of distinguishing between the legal construct of the crown-in-parliament, and the actual monarch herself - perhaps because they don't see her very often. TharkunColl 07:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Get over it, really. It was merely a general comment to those who object to the form Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom on the basis that it puts the other kingdoms under the UK. Charles 21:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

G2bambino, valued editor as you are, I think it is an unwise move for you to bring your dispute from Passport to this or any other page.Especially as this particular page, having gone through several bloody edit wars, is now quiet and in peace. The language you use, such as 'garbage', 'incessant trolling', and inviting others to become involved in a dispute on another page, could be seen as unhelpfully provocative.--Gazzster 14:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * My appeal here in no way started another debate; other editors did that (and I don't understand why). The point was to end the debate at Passport as quickly as possible; Thark is putting up the same fight there as he did here, and the solutions here are the solutions that would work there.  Thus, it was my impression that bringing editors from this page, who are knowledgable about the topic, would stop the same drawn out, useless argument happening again at Talk:Passport.
 * I stand by "garbage" and "trolling." I've had it with Thark's disruptive behaviour. --G2bambino 14:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, let's end this discussion & leave this article in peace. GoodDay 21:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Lead 2
The lead section of this article is in major breach of WP:MOS, and more specifically, WP:LEAD. I'm aware this article has been site to alot of dispute, but is it possible it could be streamlined/merged/cropped/copy-editted? Not least remove the dablink mid prose (!).

I'd rather not recieve replys saying the lead is "fine as it is", and "it's ok to be a mess because its a long, important, disputed and/or complex subject" - I cite Jesus, World War II, Universe, Islam, Evolution, George W. Bush as examples of comparably seminal articles with appropriate and policy-compliant leads. I'd just like to see a quality overview of the Elizabeth II article sooner rather than later. Jza84 01:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't bring the world to an end if the UK and fifteen other... lead was used. But, a consensus was reached 'months ago' to accept sixteen... as a compromise. I doubt that consensus has changed; we could be opening another 'royal riot'. GoodDay 23:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That's not really what I meant; I think that that particular issue of muliple sovereignship/headship could be adequately covered within one well written paragraph. I'm more concerned about structure, and, in some cases (like the length of reignship) that some parts go into an amount of detail, worded in a poor way, that is unnecessary and unhelpful. Jza84 01:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I accept your idea, that's presented at my personal 'talk' page. GoodDay 14:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "sovereign of sixteen" is more concise than "sovereign of the United Kingdom and fifteen other"; so, even putting POV issues aside, the former is stylistically better than the latter. Much of what follows, though, does seem superfluous.  I know some of it was added for political reasons, other parts just for flow.  There certainly must be a way to reduce the length of the lead down to its most elemental form. --G2bambino 20:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, the 'lead' needs to be 'streamlined'. GoodDay 20:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Anyone (with more knowledge than me) want to be bold and give it a try? We need four solid paragraphs! Jza84 13:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll bite: I've just made a first attempt to refocus the lead. Doops | talk 02:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks good - thank you! I can now sleep at night! Jza84 14:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

is Mike Hastings the rightful king of England?
Is this important for the Queen?--Oliver s. 14:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Not really. Doops | talk 14:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not important at all. Parliament granted the throne to the Electress Sophia of Hanover and her heirs. Queen Elizabeth II is the current heir.-- Ibagli ( Talk ) 17:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Now my English history is very shakey but I'm pretty sure that the Tudors ousted the Yorks anyway and so even had Edward been replaced with George, the Tudors still would have lead to our own dear queen. Scroggie 20:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Oldest ruler, Richard Cromwell
Dick Cromwell was the 'ruler/former ruler' who lived the longest (nearly 86). However at the time he 'ceased to be' ruler, Cromwell was about 33. A similiar thing occurs with the American Presidency longevity trivia. Is there a better way, we can include young ruler Cromwell? GoodDay 22:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Context section - is british empire now commonwealth of nations?
I like the context section, however I slightly take issue with "As other colonies of the British Empire (now the Commonwealth of Nations)...". I'm not sure you can really say the British Empire is 'now the commonwealth of nations'? Most of the members of the commonwealth were indeed in the British Empire, but I think too strong a link is implied. Passingtramp 12:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

There is one nation Mozambique which was not a colony according to Commonwealth of Nations, so as a general description it's accurate enough it seems to me. David Underdown 12:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC

Youre right, the statement is incorrect (and unsourced, I might add).The Commonwealth of Nations is not a replacement of the BE. In fact it was created to move away from from the idea of empire. The source of unity of the Empire was a common sovereignty under the British Sovereign. The source of unity of the Commonwealth of Nations is a free spirit of association of cooperation under Elizabeth as Head of the Commonwealth. Countries which have never been part of the Empire may apply for membership.--Gazzster 00:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This seems to be a matter of interpretation of the wording, not interpretation of history. To me, saying that British Empire became the Commonwealth of Nations is consistent with the idea that it's structure changed as it did so. The fact that it has continued to change since then is another matter altogether. JPD (talk) 08:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Then to avoid the interpretation I suggest my latest edit stands.--Gazzster 10:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that's best. Passingtramp 21:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Renaming page "Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom"
Her Majesty is not simply called Elizabeth, that would be disrespectful and quite wrong. Surely this article should be at least, renamed "Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom", rarely in this article is the Queen referred to as the Queen of the United Kingdom, but quite often as the Queen of the Commonwealth Realms, firstly the Queen holds sovereignty of Britain seperately from the Commonwealth Realms, only after the monarch at the time who conquered or fought in other countries named that country a member of the British Empire, which then became Commonwealth Nations and now Realms, the Queen is first and foremost the Queen of the United Kingdom and so this article should set this clear from the outset, her first concern and worry is with Britain, as she holds most of her powers albeit limited, and all of her Royal Residences within the UK               PoliceChief 00:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Naming conventions aside, I suggest you do further reading so as to dispel your rather myopic understandings of EIIR and her realms. Also, perhaps, familiarise yourself with WP:OR and WP:NPOV. --G2bambino 02:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think Her Majesty could care less if you deem this title "disrespectful" as it is not. Her Majesty is not called "Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" in any of her realms, she is "HM The Queen" in that respect, but that is an ambiguous title. It doesn't need to be said over and over that she is Queen of the UK in the article because that is patently obvious to the reader given the title and the content of the article itself. Are you going to argue for titles of Empress Catherine II of Russia or King Juan Carlos of Spain? Also, you cannot speak for Her Majesty and say what her concerns are or aren't --- THAT is disrespectful, if anything. There are royal residences at least in Canada as well, so your last statement is wrong. Charles 00:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Firstly, the Queen's name is not "Queen", and articles are named after the people they describe. See Manual of Style (biographies). Secondly, the argument about whether HM is "first and foremost" monarch of the UK has been rather done to death. The Statute of Westminster provides that she is no more or less Queen of Canada than of Australia or of the UK or Jamaica or New Zealand, etc. Marnanel 00:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the convention in the English language is to refer to crowned heads of state by their regnal name, not their title. So we talk about 'Napoleon I', rather than, 'Emperor Napoleon I', or 'Elizabeth II' rather than 'Queen Elizabeth II'.--Gazzster 01:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. GoodDay 14:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Name in article
I've eliminated many cases of the Christian name alone in reference to the Queen, though not all of them. Although the use seems to be normal for dead monarchs and for Princes, it's far more common for the monarch to be referred to as "Elizabeth II" or "the Queen". American media often refer to her as "Queen Elizabeth". I've left the Christian name intact where the Queen's early life is mentioned or where it is sensible to avoid repitition of longer titles. --Lo2u (T • C) 00:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Died?
I have just heard on the grapevine that The Queen has died (touch wood she hasn't) but has anybody heard anything else about this? I must stress that I have been told through rumour and not through official sources. Doyley <strong style="color:#fff;background:#000;padding:0 4px">Talk 15:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, there's nothing on http://www.bbc.co.uk so I'd strongly doubt it at the moment. David Underdown 15:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Another rumour now. Apparently news stations are being told to keep the 9 0'clock space free for an important royal announcement.  Doyley <strong style="color:#fff;background:#000;padding:0 4px">Talk  17:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be anything right now.-- Ibagli rnbs ( Talk ) 20:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The only royal-related news on the Beeb tonight seems to be about a paranoid schizo who murdered someone, after previously having been arrested at the gates of the palace stating he was there to kill the Queen. I sense a chinese whisper gone wrong. Craigy (talk) 21:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, I read that story also after posting this. Doyley <strong style="color:#fff;background:#000;padding:0 4px">Talk  23:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Diamond Jubilee
Will the Queen's diamond jubilee coincide with the 2012 olympics. Diamond signifies 60 years on the throne doesn't it? I was just wondering --Hadseys 14:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, indeed. I should imagine the Diamond Jubilee will occur late winter/early spring compared to the Olympics in mid/late summer. Craigy (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The typical time for jubilees seems to be early June, though. I would imagine that that's for the same reason that the birthday parade is around that time (good weather).-- Ibagli rnbs ( Talk ) 19:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Duchess of Edinburgh and Normandy
Why is edinburgh mentioned in the infobox but normandy isnt, she's duchess of both. I added it correctly and its been reverted...--Tefalstar 18:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * She's not Duchess of Normandy, but Duke of Normandy, and, anyway, the box is a list of her primary titles through time DBD 19:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * A better note would be that the use of the title is not without controversy and should not be used in the Wikipedia article. The gender of the title is being pedantic, if she does have a Norman title, she is not incorrectly a duchess, it is just that the male form is used. Charles 19:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Duke/Duchess, she's recognised as it anyway. Its just a hang over from Henry I's reunification, but she has no more authority in the vast majority of the commonwealth than in her Duchy, and those positions make up half the article. Don't think an accurate mention about Normandy will set the world alight --Tefalstar 19:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey are part of the Duchy of Normandy, but Henry III renounced the use of the title  "Duke of Normandy" by the Treaty  of Paris in 1259, and no British  monarch has ever used the title since then.  And, as Doops notes  below, it certainly shouldn't go in the infobox. john k 23:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Be all that as it may, the point is this: that section of the infobox does not contain several titles, one per line; rather, it contains several lines, each of which includes a short title appropriate to a particular part of her life. For the last 50-plus years she's been the Queen; before that there was a period when she was the Duchess of Edinburgh; before that there was a period when she was Princess Elizabeth; and before that there was a period when she was Princess Elizabeth of York. So whether or not Duke/Duchess of Normandy is a real title or not isn't really relevant to the infobox. Doops | talk 20:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The Queen
Surely "The Queen" ought to be redirected to Elizabeth II of the UK? Although very informal Her Majesty Elizabeth II is known as "the Queen" worldwide. Even many other languages for example German uses the word "Queen" as a synonym for HM instead of their literal translation of "Königin". --Camaeron 11:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree and am willing to revert a second time. Linking to one specific person for a generic title is quite POV, I cannot imagine the outcry if "the president" linked to George W Bush, Iajuddin Ahmed or Karolos Papoulias. Each is A president, and likewise, Queen Elizabeth II is A queen, amongst many, future, past and present. Gareth E Kegg 14:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I still disagree... GW Bush is not referred to as "the President" worldwide. Also interestingly on typing in "Queen" in the german Wikipedia it comes up with the following "englisches Wort für Königin meistens synonym die amtierende britische Königin Elizabeth II." which roughly translates as "English word for Queen mostly used as a synonym for the reigning british monarch Queen Elizabeth II. --Camaeron 14:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe we should just set it to redirect to the film and call it a compromise :p mattbuck 14:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm deeply attracted to the above proposal in a postmodern way, but I still hold that my central point is true, that she is A queen, and not THE queen. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 15:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I agree she is not THE only QUEEN, the Queen has become a synoym for HM. Maybe we should agree to disagree and make a disambiguation page for "the Queen" and have a list of reigning Queens, Margarethe, Beatrix and Elizabeth are the only one that come to my mind but I must admit Im only interested in european monarchies... --Camaeron (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me many people have missed something. Are you sure all English speakers are going to assume you mean E II when you speak of the queen? It seems to me easily possible that in Thailand most people will assume you mean the queen of Thailand. Similarly with other countries with monarches Nil Einne (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

We still have a weird article called 'The queen'. I was looking for the film. 'The queen' page should still have some kind of link to Queen, where all Queens are found. I will fix that. Maybe it should also have a disambiguation to The Queen (film). Also maybe there should be a list of Queens, or a category for Queens (already there?). Queen page talks about reigning monarchs that are queens - it might be useful to have a list somewhere of all current queens, or all queens ever, regardless of status. I disagree that The Queen should redirect to EIIR - even in England there have been previous queens who were The Queen. Stevebritgimp (talk) 19:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

rastafarians
rastas believe she is the Whore of Babylon. it's mentioned on pages about rastafarians as well as the whore of babylon page. should it be mentioned on this page?

160.39.129.60 21:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

should it be mentioned on this page? I would like to see you try to get it to stick in the Whore of Babylon article first before you attempt to put it in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diegueno (talk • contribs) 04:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

too long an article
The article is too long, and also doesn not read like an encyclopedia, but like an article for a mag of royalty fans, sorry! Can someone call in a historian ? Johncmullen1960 09:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

What is the queen rights?
"Constitutionally, the Queen is an essential part of the legislative process of her Realms. In practice, much of the Queen's role in the legislative process is ceremonial, as her reserve powers are rarely exercised."

What this mean? and what is "her reserve powers are rarely exercised"? can she free someone from prison or put someone in? can she dimiss the parliament? can she declare war? can she punish someone who publicly insult her or because she hate him/her? can she pass a law or ignore the law? if she have no rights then why she is queen? (suppose) if she do a crime (incidental shock and kill someone by her car) can the govermeant put her in the prison? for someone live in the middle east where (King=God) it's hard to understand what is the ceremonial king or queen. I respect her for being a good and respected person (monarch) for 50 year!! but want to know what is exactly her rights (reserve powers)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saddon (talk • contribs) 19:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * in theory she can do virtually any of those things, however, if you read British constitution you should get an idea of how the powers are practically limited. David Underdown 09:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * To give a little more detail: some of those things are absolutely unthinkable and, even though there's no written constitution spelling it out, common consent agrees that it would be absolutely unconstitutional for the queen to do them— throwing people in jail without a trial, for example. Other things you mention, however, the queen is specifically empowered to do, and she actually does them all the time— for example freeing people from prison or dismissing parliament. However, it's been hundreds of years since a monarch has performed these acts on his/her own; today he/she always only takes these actions when the elected government recommends it. Finally, you asked about the consequences of the queen breaking the law; although I'm not a lawyer, it's my understanding that she cannot actually be put on trial, inasmuch as all courts are "her" courts — how can she preside over her own trial? But the rest of the royal family — her husband, her children, etc. — are regular citizens and just as subject to trial as anybody else. In practice, if the queen ever did break the law there would be such a public outcry that she'd have to abdicate (after which she could be put on trial). Doops | talk 19:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There's also the idea that Elizabeth Alexandra Mary, the person, could be prosecuted by The Crown... DBD 20:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for answer, the UK law is really very complex and I don't know how it work!! but I know that it make a great nation that ruled the world for hundreds of years, I read the British constitution article and it say : "This means that the monarch is often described as the "supreme guardian of the constitution" in that he or she could overturn an unconstitutional act of parliament by decree. This is extremely unlikely to happen, however; although the Crown, in theory, can govern by decree, such an act would enable parliament to force an abdication under the power it established and proved during the Abdication Crisis of 1936, when Parliament forced King Edward VIII to abdicate. The monarch, therefore, has an established role to advise, warn, and encourage ministers, although the Crown's executive powers remain unused.". How this work?!! and why there is no written law say that the parliament can remove (dimiss) the king, suppose that King Edward VIII refused to abdicat (he have the right to dimiss the parliament)?? and why they never put him to a trial (he was Nazi and this was a big crime during the world war II). I understand (I don't understand anything!!) that the queen can do anything but in practic she can't do anything?!! but why there is no law say what the queen/king can do and what she/he can't do, what you will do in future if you have a king that want to do a stupid things like our leaders and he refuse to abdicat???. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saddon (talk • contribs) 22:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No, there's no constitutional way of forcing a queen or king off the throne unwillingly, since acts of parliament only become law when they receive royal assent. So how could a modern king or queen be forced to abdicate? Simple: the prime minister can play his/her trump card and make the big, ultimate threat— he or she can threaten to resign office. Isn't that wonderful? And in that nugget you can see the whole deliciousness of the british constitution. No king or queen would dare to call this bluff.


 * Seriously, I think you underestimate the fact that it would be literally unthinkable for a king or queen to act in a tyrannical manner... everybody would think he/she was joking. The machinery isn't even there; nobody looks to the palace for their instructions. It has been several centuries since any monarch tried to meddle in politics, and even longer since a monarch tried to do away with politics altogether and rule alone. (And even longer since a monarch got away with something like that.)


 * It's precisely because of this ancient history of gradual compromise that the constitution isn't written down. Doops | talk 05:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe I can't understand this system because we don't know the mean of democracy in our conutries yet, but I understood that she have a "reserve powers" and not like I and maybe many people in the world were thought that she have no power. About queen Elizabeth II I know she will not do any silly things like those I mentioned and although I am not an english man but I think she is a great women. I search the internet and not found any bad act, bad picture, scandal during her life, we see presidents and leaders who do many scandals and bad things in four years so it's really hard and difficult to be a good and respected person for 80 year.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saddon (talk • contribs) 18:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Odd sentence: "other royal houses"
This sentence is puzzling:

As other colonies of the British Empire attained independence from the UK during her reign, she acceded to the newly created thrones as Queen of each respective realm so that throughout her 55 years on the throne she has been the sovereign of 32 nations, half of which either subsequently adopted other royal houses or became republics.

I don't know of any former commonwealth realms that went on to adopt another royal house. Unless I missing something or misreading this sentence (and please speak up iif I am), I'm going to change it... --Jfruh (talk) 01:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Brunei, Lesotho, Malaysia, Swaziland, and Tonga all have their own monarchies. --<font color="green" face="comic sans ms">Barryob  <font color="blue" face="comic sans ms"> Vigeur  <font color="blue" face="comic sans ms">de dessus  01:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * But those went straight from being protectorates within the British Empire to indepdent monarchies. They were never Commonwealth Realms, which is what the (admittedly somewhat convoluted) sentence refers to.  The 32 nations of which she has been sovereign are the 16 current Commonwealth Realms and the 16 that became Commonwealth Realms but later became Republics (minus Ireland and India, both of which made that transition before 1952). --Jfruh (talk) 03:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I changed it to remove the other royal houses.-- Ibagli rnbs ( Talk ) 03:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Prime Ministers under Queen Elizabeth II
. Your article on Elizabeth II says, "Her reign of over half a century has seen twelve different Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom and numerous Prime Ministers in the Commonwealth Realms."

There have in fact been twelve "prime ministerships," but only eleven prime ministers: Churchill, Eden, Macmillan, Douglas-Home, Wilson, Heath, Wilson, Callahan, Thatcher, Major, Blair, and Brown. Harold Wilson was both Edward Heath's predecessor and his successor, which gives you a total of 11. Gregwuliger (talk) 08:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC) gregwuliger


 * Acknowledged and corrected. Thanks. &mdash;Adavidb 13:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Must Presidents, Congressmen, and other heads of state bow to the Queen?
- Theaveng (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, a congressman isn't a head of state. GoodDay 19:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no must – it's protocol, but not law. That means yes, practically. DBD 15:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think a lot depends on where they are. When the Queen went to the US I didn't notice much bowing at all.-- Ibagli rnbs ( Talk ) 17:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression it was protocol only for subjects of the Queen to bow... Mind you even that is not a must these days some..Cherie Blair impolitely refused to even though her husband was more than happy to..bitch! lol --Camaeron (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe officials from non-Commonwealth republics, do not bow or curtsey. As for Cherie Blair's refusal to curtsey, she can if she so chooses - Sorry, Camaeron. GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I remember reading somewhere that B Palace does not insist on anyone bowing or curtseying to the sovereign.In any case, why should one head of state be bound to bow to another head of state? Bowing implies subservience, and heads of state are equal.--Gazzster (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. GoodDay (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That depends on with whom you're bowing. Would the Japanese Emperor not bow to you? (Of course, expecting one in reciprocation...) --G2bambino (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In Japanese society, bowing is their way of shaking hands. So yes the Emperor would bow (his way of saying hello). GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

To Gazzster: Though of course technically royalty and nobility outrank every "commoner"....even if they are a president... --Camaeron 16:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Errr, royalty doesn't outrank non-royals. GoodDay (talk) 02:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I remember this being an issue when Ronald Reagan first visited the UK as President. In the end, he decided that US Presidents don't bow to anyone, so he didn't.  I think Nancy might have curtsied as a compromise, but don't quote me.  As others have noted, one HoS can't demand another HoS bow or whatever.  And even if they could, why should the other HoS meekly comply?  Due respect is of course appropriate, and that would include using appropriate forms of address; but any indication of non-existent subservience would be going too far.  It's normal (or used to be) for Catholics to kiss a bishop's ring, and those who didn't would be seen as disrespectful, but that practice could never be expected from a non-Catholic.   --  JackofOz (talk) 02:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * For some peopl, yes, royalty outranks non-royals. Of course many republicans (not referring to people from the US Republican party here but anyway with republican sentiments which usually includes most people from republics as well as many people from countries with monarchs) don't think it does so they will not bow Nil Einne (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Richard Cromwell
I removed RC as oldest British ruler as he wasn't. Cromwell is the oldest former British ruler. For example, if Elizabeth II abdicates before 21 December, 2007? she wouldn't qualify as the oldest monarch/ruler. GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The text you removed said the "longest-lived British ruler", not the oldest. This applies to Cromwell, and to Elizabeth even if she were to abdicate. It is the same terminology used to refer to longest-lived prime ministers, and so on, just a bit more unusual in a setting where most rulers stay in office until death. JPD (talk) 11:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I restored the text, adding "current or former" ruler for clarity. &mdash;Adavidb 16:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Er, Elizabeth isn't a British ruler at all. She does not rule Britain or any other place. Grassynoel (talk) 11:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It's Official
Elizabeth II has just become the oldest British monarch (and oldest of all British Isles monarchs -English, Scottish, Irish, Welsh-). GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth passing Victoria
Elizabeth is currently (20 December 2007) tied with Victoria. The Palace announced that Elizabeth would pass Victoria at 1700 UTC based on the time of day of the queens' relative births and Victoria's death. They are perfectly entitled to do so, but it does not make sense for Wikipedia. There are several articles related to longevity and time in service. These are measured in days, not hours. That is because in most cases it is impossible to know at what time the person was born or died. For the sake of consistency across the project, it makes more sense to use 21 December 2007 as the date the tie is broken. -Rrius (talk) 23:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC) And so it being December 23 2007 then all can agree that Elizabeth II is the longest reigning monarch of Britain!
 * Completely agree. Pinning this down to the precise minute she surpassed Victoria's age is loopy.  Lifespans are counted in days or higher units, not lower ones.  --  JackofOz (talk) 23:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahhh but, the 'reliable sources/citations' say it's December 20th, 2007. GoodDay (talk) 23:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * My point is, you can't technically tie somebody in longevity records (while still living), as time doesn't stop. GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This could be taken to an absurd degree, and I sincerely hope we don't go there. Despite the precise moment a person was born or the precise moment they die, their lifespan is counted as if they had been born just after midnight and died just before midnight.  That is, both their entire day of birth and their entire day of death are counted.  Lifespans are not counted down to seconds, minutes or even hours; we get to days and that's it.  That is why a person is said to have reached the age of 50 on the stroke of midnight coming into the 50th anniversary of the day they were born.  The fact that they might have been born 23 hours and 55 minutes after midnight, ie. 5 minutes before the start of the next day, is utterly irrelevant.  The whole day is counted.  E2 equalled Victoria on 20 December, and surpassed her on 21 December.  That's what we should be saying.  If she happened to die at 11:55pm on 20 December 2007, we would still be saying that she equalled Victoria's longevity even though it was some hours longer in real time.  If she died 5 minutes after midnight the next day, we'd say she surpassed Victoria.   --  JackofOz (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, It's up to you guys, put what you want. But, I wouldn't be surprised if others dispute it (arguing 'citations'). GoodDay (talk) 23:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * PS- I see your point, in supporting December 21st. GoodDay (talk) 00:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not too hard to find a source for the fact that Victoria lived 29828 days and Elizabeth, as of 21 December 2007, has lived 29829. The source you allude leads ultimately a Buckingham Palace press release. The Palace can use hours, but it is telling that none of the longevity charts on Wikipedia or elsewhere for monarch or any other office that I can find use hours instead of days. Nonetheless, I modified the page to say "In December 2007"; I hope that is an adequate compromise. -Rrius (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's way too vague; best to re-insert tied on 20th December 2007. GoodDay (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd go further. They were tied on 20 December, and E2 became the record holder on 21 December.  But only the latter date is really important if we're talking about records being broken, as opposed to being equalled.  The former date is not inaccurate as the day the record was equalled, but surely it doesn't need to be spelled out.  It's obvious that whatever day the record was broken, the previous day was the day the record was tied.  This is almost like saying she and Phillip married on 20 November 1947, and 19 November 1947 was their wedding eve.  Well, obviously! --  JackofOz (talk) 00:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is now 21 December in the UK, so I changed it to "On 21 December 2007...surpassed". At some point, I would think it becomes acceptable to just use the month if this turns into a thing. -Rrius (talk) 00:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Whatever you fellows think best, is fine by me. GoodDay (talk) 00:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Just a side note: Leave it to the CBC to get things wrong, they've reported this - Prince Charles will become the longest serving heir-apparent in January 2008 - WRONG: Charlie will become the oldest serving heir-apparent; he still got 5 more years to surpass Edward as the longest serving (assuming his mother is still living). GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Ancestry table
Something is wrong with the ancestry table. I can see the list of ancestors in the code for the page, but Firefox and IE7 are not rendering the table or a "show" button on the blue "Ancestors of Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" box. What's going on? -Rrius (talk) 18:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The Urdd
The article previously stated: Additionally, the plan to make the princess patroness of Urdd Gobaith Cymru was dropped as two of the leading members were conscientious objectors, "a view shared by the princess herself". I removed the phrase at the end of the sentence since it made it sound as though Princess Elizabeth was herself a conscientious objector, which of course she was not. The sentence was probably supposed to mean that the princess also believed that the Urdd leaders were conscientious objectors, except that nobody else is identified in this sentence as also thinking that the Urdd leaders were conscientious objectors; thus, it doesn't make sense to say that she "shared" the view. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Apollo 11 Goodwill Message- could somebody please add the source for me?
I added the section about the Apollo 11 goodwill message left by Elizabeth II. The source is:

Fabfivefreddy (talk) 06:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not good at adding citations yet. Please help! Fabfivefreddy (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Portrait
Most of the other monarch articles show their official portrait as their image - should this article not show the same? Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * None of the monarch articles I just looked at (in ) had official portraits. Anyway, which official portrait are you thinking of? Is there one which is free? JPD (talk) 12:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I was referring to past monarchs. Haven't looked for free images myself but I'd be surprised if there wasn't one, even an old one, that wasn't available for use? Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Most other monarchs reigned long enough ago to have at least one portrait in the public domain. I don't think Elizabeth II has had a long enough reign to have outlived copyrights on portraits of her as sovereign.-- Ibagli rnbs ( Talk ) 02:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppsoe a photo of her originally published prior to 1958 and then under Crown Copyright would now be PD, but that's about the only scenario. David Underdown (talk) 12:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Crown copyright of 50 years also applies to paintings, doesn't it? For us, it probably also depends on the copyright agreements between the relevant country/ies and the US. But even if there is a free official portrait, is that necessarily the best option for the article? Perhaps the official portraits on the older monarchs' articles happen to be the best surviving images, but it doesn't follow the the official portrait is always best. JPD (talk) 12:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It would potentially be applied to paintings, but of course paintings are less likely to be painted by someone who is legally a Crown Servant - more likely to be commissioned from an eminent artist, so without knowig the ins and outs of whatever agreement covered the commissioning, it's rather harder to be sure of the copyright status. David Underdown (talk) 09:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Prime Ministers
I don't know whether this is worth mentioning anywhere, or of interest to anyone, but these are Queen Elizabeth's current 16 Prime Ministers. Aridd (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Owen Arthur (Barbados)
 * Gordon Brown (United Kingdom)
 * Helen Clark (New Zealand)
 * Denzil Douglas (St Kitts & Nevis)
 * Bruce Golding (Jamaica)
 * Ralph Gonsalves (Saint Vincent & the Grenadines)
 * Stephen Harper (Canada)
 * Apisai Ielemia (Tuvalu)
 * Hubert Ingraham (Bahamas)
 * Stephenson King (Saint Lucia)
 * Keith Mitchell (Grenada)
 * Said Musa (Belize)
 * Kevin Rudd (Australia)
 * Derek Sikua (Solomon Islands)
 * Michael Somare (Papua New Guinea)
 * Baldwin Spencer (Antigua & Barbuda) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aridd (talk • contribs) 20:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Treated in even greater detail here. --Jfruh (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised? ;) Thanks. Aridd (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Did the Queen propose to Philip?
This article on Queen Victoria states "as a monarch Queen V. proposed to Albert". I found this very interesting. Why does it not link to another article? Surely this interesting fact deserves an article of its own? Does anyone have any info on this? Does this rule still exist today? Did QEII propose to Philip? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.56.188.39 (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if this bit of protocol is still in effect, or was when Elizabeth and Phillip married, but the question is moot, as they were married before she became queen. --Jfruh (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes of course, I knew that. Though I am still suprised that there isnt an article on it. Not that i would know what to look for. Monarchs proposal or something similar. Somebody must have some info on it! Thanks anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.56.174.13 (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

How much is the royal collection worth?
Does anyone here know how much the royal collection is worth? Somebody must have at least estimated its worth! Does anyone have any sources? --89.56.175.231 (talk) 12:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth ii Main Article Sub Heading :CONTEXT
Hello Under the sub heading Context you state that Elizabeth ii reign of 56 years ranks behind Victoria 63yrs, George iii 59yrs, James i/vi 57yrs,Henry iii 56 years placing her 5th in the list of longest reigning british monarchs. James i/vi of England/Scotland i think should not be included in this list. James was king of scotland from 1567-1603 when Scotland was a separate monarchy.The thrones of England and scotland combined on the death of Elizabeth i in 1603.Therefore there was no british king James before 1603.James was only King of Britain from1603-1625.To add together 2 separate reigns for this King is inaccurate.

Elizabeth ii has been Queen of Great Britain/United kingdom from 6th Feb 1952.One continous reign.On 6/7th March 2008 the queen will equal and then surpass the reign of Henryiii 56 yrs 29 days to become the 3rd longest reigning monarch in 1200 yrs of british history.

I feel that the main article should be amended to include this fact. Thanks Howbridge (talk) 12:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The article states "She is also one of the longest-reigning monarchs of any its predecessor states", meaning of either England or Scotland. James I/VI ruled as both King of England and as King of Scots after the (misleadingly titled) Union of the Crowns in 1603, as the two states (and crowns) remained independent until the Acts of Union formed the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707. James was therefore King of Scots for 57 years, and the list is correct. mattbr 19:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed --Camaeron (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth ii:Context
Article dated 7th March 2008 still ranks Elizabeth ii behind Henry iii in longest reigning monarchs context. The queen surpassed Henry iii reign of 56 years 29 days(18th oct 1216-16 Nov 1272)on 7th March 2008. Elizabeth ii having reigned 56 years 30 days by this date. Many Thanks Howbridge (talk) 14:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for telling me I hadn't realised. I have now updated it. Next time Be bold!. --Camaeron (talk) 15:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)