Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 16

Nationality
Elizabeth II was the Time Person of the Year in 1952. What flag should be used to signify her nationality? I think that it should obviously be 🇬🇧 United Kingdom, but someone thinks that she has no citizenship and the flags of UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and every other commonwealth realm should all be used, which is excessive. The other was to use her personal flag, which is not representative of a country like for others on the list, so no flag would be better than that. Since she was born in and lives in the UK and likely has only a UK passport, I think it would be common sense to use that flag. What do you say? Reywas92 Talk 16:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's true that the Queen holds no citizenship, or passport, in any of the countries of which she is sovereign. This obviously makes Elizabeth a very unique person. I agree that 16 flags is excessive, to say the least, but also see that the UK flag alone is a WP:POV violation. If her personal flag is not acceptable as an identifier, then I'd suggest no flag is the best alternative. Either way, a footnote should be provided to explain the anomoly. --Miesianiacal (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The citation you provided does not support your assertion. It merely says that she has no passport. The Queen is a British citizen - she was born in the UK, as were both her parents, and under British nationality law she is, therefore, unequivically a British citizen. So the Union Jack is perfectly appropriate to identify her nationality. ðarkun coll 07:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The argument you present is merely that: an argument. To avoid committing WP:OR, you'll need a reliable source to support your claim. --Miesianiacal (talk) 11:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, it's you who'll need to supply a reliable source - such as an Act of Parliament or amendment thereto - for the extraordinary claim that she was somehow exluded from the British Nationality Act. As I said, she may well be Queen of loads of countries, but her personal nationality is British. ðarkun coll 12:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't claim she was excluded from the Nationality Act. I didn't claim she wasn't, either. Please be careful not to read into my comments things I didn't say. --Miesianiacal (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You did state - without apparent foundation - that she had no citizenship, which runs contrary to the British Nationality Act. It was a reasonable inference, and one TharkunColl was not alone in making. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 13:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You do realise we're dealing with a sovereign here, don't you? She's exempt from her own passport regulations, so what's to say she isn't exempt from her own Nationality Act as well? That's not to say definitively that she is (I earlier misinterpreted the Buck House site), but there's so far no source to say that it applies to her either. Further, citizenship and nationality are not synonyms. Further still, you're dealing with a sovereign of sixteen countries, not one, where concepts of foreignness and subjection come into play. This isn't a cut and dry issue, I'm afraid. --Miesianiacal (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To be exempt from the Nationality Act of 1948 would require a specific clause in that Act, or a subsequent Act of Parliament. If you believe such a thing exists, you will have to find it (hint: it doesn't). In any case - not that it's particularly relevant - it wasn't her Act, but an Act of her father's. No clause excludes the monarch from the Act, and the Queen has not renounced her British citizenship. Indeed, quite the contrary - Philip was naturalised as a British citizen prior to their marriage in 1947 precisely so that no doubts, however tenuous, could later be cast on the Queen's Britishness, under the provision for women marrying foreigners of the 1914 Act then still in force. ðarkun coll 15:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That still isn't a reference to support that the Queen's sole nationality is British. --Miesianiacal (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is. The British Nationality Act. It's you who needs to show that it doesn't apply to her. ðarkun coll 15:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) You're asking us to prove a negative. Do you have any sources that state the Queen has any nationality other than British? A positive should be considerably easier to prove than a negative. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 15:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] Not at all. I'm saying proof is required to affirm that the Queen's sole nationality is British. You must prove that she is foreign to the countries she is sovereign of. A source was already provided that says she's not a foreigner of Canada, at least. In the absence of evidence that the Queen is a foreigner to 15 of her 16 countries, nobody can claim that she is. --Miesianiacal (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you're mixing up two concepts here. Citizens of Commonwealth countries are not considered "foreigners" under British law, and have certain rights that actual foreigners don't. It's at least possible that Canada has a similar set up. But whatever the case, being a citizen and not being foreign are not equivalent. ðarkun coll 15:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you give me a pointer to that source? I've scanned the discussion but can't see it. I don't feel comfortable replying further until I know what I'm talking about ;-) Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 15:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed; sorry, I forgot I left the source not here but at the other symmetrical discussion that was taking place elsewhere. In this Federal Court ruling, the sovereign and royal family are twice separated from foreign royalty and heads of state ("In Canada, military compliments are paid only to the Sovereign, the Governor-General, members of the Royal Family, recognized foreign royalty, foreign heads of state..."[14.4, 23]), and says the Queen specifically is "more than a foreign monarch, she is the Queen of Canada."[14.5] Also, the Department of National Defence differentiates between the Queen and foreign heads of state and royalty here[pp.4-3-11, 12.2.2].--Miesianiacal (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting use of wording there - "more than a foreign monarch" implies that she is a foreign monarch, whatever else she might be. ðarkun coll 18:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries! Again, though, there is a difference within the Commonwealth between "foreign" and "not a citizen of". The Queen is "not a foreign monarch" (indeed, she is Queen of Canada), but I can't see anything that states she is a Canadian citizen (I searched the PDF for "citizen" - it did occur, but not in relation to the Queen). As an aside, I'm not a foreigner in Britain; for example, I have the right to vote (as do all Commonwealth citizens). I am not, however, a UK citizen but a citizen of New Zealand. So far as I'm aware there is nothing in NZ law making the head of state (or any previous head of state) a New Zealand citizen, nor requiring that the head of state be a Kiwi. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 17:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We're not talking about citizenship, though. The list in question places numerous flags for some individuals based not on their citizenship, but their nationality instead - Wallis Simpson (American and British), Pope John XXIII (Vatican and Italian), Pope John Paul II (Vatican and Polish). One user tried the solution of using the flags of all countries of which Elizabeth II is queen, but it was (rightly, I think) decided that it was a bit too much. Hence, the no-flag-with-an-explanatory-note solution was reached as a neutral compromise. I still see no reason why that compromise should be violated. --Miesianiacal (talk) 17:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In terms of nationality, there seems to be a decent consensus that the Queen is British; I did think that nationality was far more clear-cut than citizenship, as we're all agreed that the Queen was born in Britain and primarily resides in Britain. The examples you list all seem equally clear-cut - Wallis Simpson was a US citizen who obtained British citizenship (or vice versa - was she British before she married her first husband?), Pope John XXIII was an Italian who became head of state of Vatican City, and likewise (via Poland) for Pope John Paul II. In the case of the Queen she was a British national before she became the British head of state. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 18:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * But of course she is British! I think one would have a very hard time proving that she is not. However, the question is: is she only British?
 * Not to get too OT, but was Wallis Simpson ever granted British citizenship? And is the Pope a citizen of the Vatican? If not, there may be parallels between popes and the Queen: head of state of a nation but not a citizen of it, could the Pope somehow therefore be foreign to the Vatican state? --Miesianiacal (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent - getting dangerously close to a different sub-thread...!) In the absence of sources saying she's a Canadian/Aus/Kiwi national, then yes, she is only British.
 * There already are sources to say she's not foreign to Canada; if she's not foreign to a nation, what can she be other than part of it? --Miesianiacal (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to the earlier PDF, it drew a distinction between the Queen and "foreign heads of state" - which is quite natural, given that the Queen is head of state of Canada. But regardless, I'm not foreign to Canada, either, but I'm not a Canadian national (or a Canadian citizen). Within the Commonwealth "foreign" refers to non-Commonwealth. I can vote - as a Kiwi - in the UK, for example. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 18:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The sources make no distinction between Commonwealth and non-Commonwealth, only Canadian and not-Canadian. The President of South Africa, for instance, though head of a Commonwealth country, would be treated as a foreign head of state in Canada. Heck, even I - a Canadian citizen - am treated as a foreigner by the UK. The Queen, however, is not regarded as a foreigner in Canada. As the Canadian head of state, not foreign to the Canadian nation, how can she not then be of Canadian nationality in the same way she is of British nationality (note: not citizenship)?
 * Regardless, as interesting a debate as this is, it's most important illustration is that there is doubt circling around the claim that the Queen has one nationality only. As long as doubt in the assertion exists, the assertion cannot be made with certainty. Hence, I say leave the list with no flag for EIIR, exactly as is done with other international persons/groups/organizations listed. --Miesianiacal (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * With respect, the only doubt seems to be yours. You've not provided any references stating that the Queen is a national of any country other than Britain. We can all agree that she's head of state of Canada (and Australia, and New Zealand): that doesn't - so far as the references thus far provided show - make her a national of those countries. Britain has had German heads of state before, for example.
 * (off topic) Would the RSA President be treated as a foreign head of state in Canada? In New Zealand Commonwealth heads are treated differently to non-Commonwealth heads (genuine question - I'm unsure how Canada treats the Commonwealth). As regards you being treated "as" a foreigner in the UK - you certainly won't be treated as a UK citizen would be, but equally you would have more rights than a non-Commonwealth (and non-EU - EU citizens trump Commonwealth citizens) citizen. You may feel you are being treated "as a foreigner", but as a Commonwealth citizen you have more rights than many other visitors.
 * At this point I believe there's consensus that (a) the Queen is a British national; (b) there are no sources claiming that she is a national of any other country - in the absence of sources I don't believe there is any justifiable doubt.
 * Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 19:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not see a clause in the British Nationality Act that explicitly says the Crown is bound by the act. Without such, it doesn't apply to the Queen. ( "Legislation does not presently bind the Crown unless there is express provision to say that it does." Also "The general principle in law that statutes do not bind the Crown unless by express provision...") --Miesianiacal (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What on earth are you talking about? When she was born, she wasn't the Queen, and was a subject of George V. If you think that her accession as Queen somehow deprived her of the citizenship she was born with, you really are going to have to provide proof of that. ðarkun coll 23:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The act doesn't bind the Crown. (And no, she wasn't Queen when she was born.) --Miesianiacal (talk) 23:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Would it be reasonable to say, then, that everyone apart from Miesianiacal agrees that the Queen is a British national, by virtue of her having been born in and continuing to reside in Britain, and that there is no evidence to suggest that she is a national of any other country? Cheers, This flag once was red</b>propagandadeeds 21:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, now that the proof that she is a UK citizen has been put to rest as invalid, we're going to start to create facts via the consensus of a minute group of editors? Wikipedia, does not work that way, alas. --Miesianiacal (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed not. You have posited not one but two extraordinary claims - (1) that the British head of state, someone who resides in Britain, a descendent of the first British monarch of the House of Windsor, is not British, and (2) that she is/isn't/may be/which way is the wind blowing? a national of one/some/all Commonwealth countries. You've offered no references to support either claim. Numerous editors have tried to explain why the few references you've provided don't state what you believe them to, with varying degrees of success. Right now there doesn't seem any doubt apart from Miesianiacal that the Queen is a British national; the onus is on you to prove a negative, not on everyone else to prove what seems crystal clear. Cheers, <b style="color:#000">This flag once was red</b>propagandadeeds 21:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't pull the focus away to trivial and inaccurate slander. You know full well that I have never contested that the Queen is of British nationality; I feel such to be true because as Queen of the UK she must be of that country's nationality. You, however, have asserted that she is only of British nationality, relying not on feeling, but on the British Nationality Act as the sole proof of this claim. You thus demanded the same kind of proof to show she is a national of her other countries. Now that your lone piece of evidence has been discounted, the bar has suddenly lowered? Sorry; either you need legislation or other official papers, or you don't. Do make up your mind. --Miesianiacal (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, so you do accept that the Queen is a British national. Do you have any evidence that she is also a national of any other country? Britain has a long history of common law and an unwritten constitution; Canada and other Commonwealth realms do not, and it should be trivial to find any laws making the British head of state a national of a Commonwealth realm. Again, the onus is on you to prove a positive; neither I nor any other editor can prove a negative.
 * On the subject of "trivial and inaccurate slander" I apologise if I have misrepresented your case, but it does seem logical when you - apparently - would prefer to avoid the Union Flag to infer that you doubt British nationality. I have found it increasingly difficult to follow your arguments. For example, the British Nationality Act is not "my" (it was raised by another editor) proof of this claim (a claim you state you accept, by the way), nor could it "prove" that the Queen is solely a British national - I find your comments here bizarre: the act covers British nationality; it does not exclude others. If, as you say, you accept that the Queen is a British national then the existence of the act is moot.
 * I do believe it is reasonable to say that (a) we all agree that the Queen is a British national, and (b) we (less Miesianiacal) are still waiting for any evidence that the Queen is a national of any other country. In the absence of any evidence I continue to find it reasonable that the Union Flag be used to represent the Queen.
 * Cheers, <b style="color:#000">This flag once was red</b>propagandadeeds 22:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Other than evidence that shows the Queen is not a foreigner of Canada, no, I do not have concrete proof that the Queen is a national of any country other than the UK. At the same time, there is no concrete evidence that she is a national of the UK, either. We're all, therefore, left with nothing but our own theories. Yes, I feel it to be a self-evident fact that she is British, and I feel this is so due to her being Queen of the UK. As this theory of mine can be applied equally to her other realms, I (and others) see her as being just as much also of Canadian, Jamaican, Australian, & etc. nationality. You (and others) feel it to be a self-evident fact that she is British because she was born in and lives in Britain. As this theory of yours cannot be applied to her other realms, you (and others) see her as being nothing more than British. We thus find ourselves having cycled right back 'round again to the point pretty much where we started: no real guidance one way or the other. In such circumstances in Wikipedia, it isn't up to us to invent fact, even when more people at a given time hold one opinion than hold the other. --Miesianiacal (talk) 22:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking you or anyone else to invent facts - we all accept that she's a British national (no theories necessary since there's no dispute, but the fact that she's descended from Britons, lives in Britain, and is head of state would - I suggest - strongly indicate that she, like her ancestors, is British), and there's no evidence that she's a national of any other nation. Guidance seems clear: use the Union Flag. Cheers, <b style="color:#000">This flag once was red</b>propagandadeeds 22:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Without definitive sources it is indeed an invented fact to say she has no nationality other than British. Guidance thus seems clear: use no flag. --Miesianiacal (talk) 23:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Firstly, using the Union Flag does not explicitly claim that she has no nationality other than British. Secondly, how so? There's no evidence that she's a New Zealand national, and only one editor suggesting that from this we should infer that she might be. Without wishing to trivialise the issue, Barack Obama might be a Kenyan national, Leopold II might have been Congolese (and his sister might have been Mexican), but at some point it becomes reasonable to say: there is no evidence for this, it's purely conjecture. Thirdly, how it is not an invented fact to claim or imply (by the absence of a flag) that she has multiple nationalities (or no nationality, as the absence of a flag would seem to imply)? Cheers, <b style="color:#000">This flag once was red</b>propagandadeeds 23:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't claim such a thing, but it implies it; what other conclusion is a reader to draw from seeing only one nation's flag next to her name? Plus, there's no evidence, really, that she's a British national. I don't want to seem like I'm playing some sort of devil's advicate here; I do actually side with you in believing the Queen to be of British nationality, but, despite that, it really only remains our opinion. And we differ in our reasoning; yours gives her one nationality, mine gives her multiple. Who's actually right, then? Consensus won't tell us. Your third point is a valid one that I had given some thought to two weeks ago when this was being worked out at the Time Person of the Year article; I thought the explanatory note there - which doesn't mention nationality, merely sovereignty - was sufficient to explain why no flag was shown. --Miesianiacal (talk) 23:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I really don't believe that it does boil down to opinions: I doubt there's any reasonable dispute that she is at least a British national (she was born the child of a British father, in Britain, after her grandfather ditched a Germanic sounding name and announced that he and his children were British) and that there's no evidence to suggest that she holds any other nationality. This isn't opinion, all of this is verifiable. Since there's no evidence that she's not British (and plenty that she is), and there's no evidence that she's a national of any other realm, it seems to be less a matter of opinion and more of ... well, I don't know what forces you encountered at Time Person of the Year (and it probably wouldn't be diplomatic to speculate...!) Your compromise there ("No single flag is presented for Elizabeth II as she was in 1952 the sovereign head of more than one independent state") may well be appropriate (was she chosen for her role as a multi-national sovereign? I'd guess so?) but I don't think it would necessarily be an appropriate compromise across the board: on, say, an article about the various branches of Canadian government the Union Flag would be entirely appropriate rather than no flag. Cheers, <b style="color:#000">This flag once was red</b>propagandadeeds 23:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] Well, it certainly isn't a conclusion supported by verifiable sources. You present facts, yes, but they're put together in order to prove a theory, and all that's being said is your evidence is better than mine - "she's born there" is better than "she's queen of there" (and if you want to talk about familial lineage, she's predominantly a German-Scottish mix, with many more thrown in). I could start to drag out the quotes where the Queen calls Canada home, and where her mother called herself Canadian, but, really, none of it is absolute proof one way or the other. Other contexts are different matters; in this one we should simply leave it blank and a note to explain why - it's not unprecedented in the list. --Miesianiacal (talk) 00:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're happy with the Time... article as it is, so be it - it appears to make sense in this context. However, I remain concerned with both the wider issue, and with your accusations of WP:OR - the only facts are: there's no dispute that she's a British national, and there's no evidence that she's a national of any other country. Under the circumstances I don't believe it's WP:OR to suggest that she's (a) a British national, and (b) not a national of any other country - but I gather you think one or both of those claims is WP:OR? To avoid arguing around in circles could you clarify which claim you think is WP:OR? Cheers, <b style="color:#000">This flag once was red</b>propagandadeeds 00:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Please provide proof that she has any nationality other than British. How many times do I need to ask? ðarkun coll 23:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please provide proof that she has British nationality. --Miesianiacal (talk) 23:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe Wallis Simpson may have become British as a result of being the wife of the Governor of the Bahamas (and a resident in the Bahamas), but the article doesn't mention that, and I'm dredging up memories of long-past documentaries (her second husband was British, and it's possible that she had dual-nationality at the time of the abdication crisis - the British press might well have preferred "American divorcee" to "partly British divorcee"!) Regarding Popes, the Vatican City article does say that Popes are included among the state's citizens.

Cheers, <b style="color:#000">This flag once was red</b>propagandadeeds 18:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * We can cite that she doesn't have a passport; beyond that anything else is currently original research. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources; so far there are no sources. That said, I agree with the solution outlined below - she is undeniably a UK national, and the UK flag is perfectly acceptable to represent UK nationals as well as citizens. Cheers, <b style="color:#000">This flag once was red</b>propagandadeeds 14:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Extraordinary claims do indeed need extraordinary sources; so, such a source is needed to confirm the Queen is only of UK nationality. There have already been sources presented that, at least, put the claim into doubt. --Miesianiacal (talk) 14:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Liz must have British citizenship. Surely, the UK 'head of state' isn't a foreigner in the UK. GoodDay (talk) 13:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The same would then apply to all other countries of which she is head of state. But all this remains mere argument, from all of us. We need sources, folks. --Miesianiacal (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources, anybody? I'm too lazy to look. GoodDay (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Likewise, and no time right now. So far as I'm aware, the only requirement for New Zealand's head of state is that they're not Catholic (the relevant law being inherited from the UK, rather than passed at Parliament). Bloody stupid law, but I gather the argument is that it would need to be repealed in all Commonwealth realms in order to get rid of it. I'd be highly surprised if the UK had any law specifying that its head of state had to be of a given nationality - if for no other reason than the UK has had "foreign" monarchs in the past, and it might be useful to have them in the future. Nationality is a relatively modern concept. Cheers, <b style="color:#000">This flag once was red</b>propagandadeeds 13:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

If anyone can be bothered, here's the contact address from her website webeditor@royal.gsx.gov.uk - just ask them what the Queen's legal nationality is. ðarkun coll 15:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * And here's the citation British Nationality Act of 1948.


 * 12.—(1) A person who was a British subject immediately before the date of the commencement of this Act shall on that date become a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies if he possesses any of the following qualifications, that is to say—


 * (a) that he was born within the territories comprised at the commencement of this Act in the United Kingdom and Colonies, and would have been such a citizen if section four of this Act had been in force at the time of his birth;


 * The onus is now on those who dispute the Queen's nationality to find the clause excluding her from this Act - or, for example, to find an Act of, say, the Canadian parliament granting her Canadian citizenship. Good luck - you'll need it! ðarkun coll 16:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's still not proof that her sole nationality is British. --Miesianiacal (talk) 17:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Please prove that she has another nationality then. It's not my job to prove a negative. Without citations, you have nothing at all. ðarkun coll 18:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Miesianiacal that it is inappropriate to use the British flag. I do not object to the use of a Commonwealth or personal flag, but would prefer no flag at all per WP:MOSFLAG. DrKiernan (talk) 07:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

@Miesianical - the British Nationality Act only refers to who gained UK citizenship when the concept was created in 1948. Under that law she has citizenship. The Act and her place and date of birth are completely citable so the use of a British flag is supported. Other commonwealth countries created similar laws at the time as their citizenships were created. For example Australia's law gave citizenship to anyone born in Australia, having permanant residence there for at least 5 years prior to January 1949 as well as various family issues and special provisions relating to Papua New Guinea. There is no mention of the Queen acquiring citizenship. If someone wants to trawl through the acts and find justifications for any of the other flags then they can post back here, for now she only has one citizenship and that is British. The USA has a constitutional provision that the head of state be a natural born citizen. Commonwealth coutnries in general have no such provision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.212.36.188 (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It may have become muddled in the lengthy discussion, but citizenship was not the topic; nationality was. Nationality (as the Nationality Act illustrates, actually) is a separate concept to citizenship, even if the Nationality Act did apply to the Queen, which, as it does not say it binds the Crown, it does not.

Vote: Is the Queen British?

 * Yes. By virtue of all Nationality Acts in force during her life. And there's no evidence she's anything else. ðarkun coll 23:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I couldn't care less. By virtue of this being a rather useless dispute. All this useless original research and expressions of one's point of view is because of a tiny flag which doesn't need to be used at all? Aren't there more important issues regarding this article and many others? Surtsicna (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Her grandfather was British, and there's no evidence she or her father renounced British nationality. Equally, there's no evidence she holds any nationality other than British - plenty of monarchs have ruled over territories without being nationals of those territories. <b style="color:#000">This flag once was red</b>propagandadeeds 23:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment This poll isn't really going to achieve much as it won't prove that the Queen is solely British. --Miesianiacal (talk) 23:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Response And if you think she isn't, please provide proof. How many more times must I ask? ðarkun coll 23:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As many times as one must ask you for proof that she is a British national, I imagine. --Miesianiacal (talk) 23:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you've never denied on this page that she's British, and you have explicitly acknowledged that fact. What you've argued is that she is not solely British.  But now you're saying there's not any proof even that she's British?   Get real, sir/madam.  Just what is your position, Miesianiacal?  --  JackofOz (talk) 00:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between fact and opinon. I've argued my opinion that the Queen is British, but never claimed it was fact. It is my opinion that she is not just British, but never claimed it as fact. What is a fact is that the evidence submitted to prove the Queen was British is not admissable. We all therefore remain holding nothing but our opinions. Is that clear? --Miesianiacal (talk) 00:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No. There have been several pieces of evidence presented to prove that the Queen is British, and it's unclear to me that any of them have been found to be invalid. Taking them separately:
 * The British Nationality Act, 1948. Enacted three years before the current Queen ascended to the throne, at a time when her father was "the Crown". The act may not bind the Crown, but it did bind all other British subjects (e.g. children of the reigning monarch).
 * The British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914. Again, possibly not binding on the Crown but binding on all other British subjects (e.g. children of the reigning monarch).
 * So, it's unclear to me why these have been invalidated? The current Queen wasn't reigning monarch at the time either of these were passed - she was in the former case a British subject.
 * Cheers, <b style="color:#000">This flag once was red</b>propagandadeeds 00:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, your position is now clear, but, with respect, it's nonsensical. Do we actually need a cite to say that Vladimir Putin is a Russian national, or that Barack Obama breathes air, or that the Queen's farts stink?  Extreme examples, I hope, but they're in the same category as what you seem to be arguing.  We most definitely do not need a cite to say that QEII is British.  We would need a cite to say she's a national of any other country.  --  JackofOz (talk) 00:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The entire thing is becoming nonsensical because the usual double standard is being applied: some opinions are allowed to stand as merely that, while others must be supported with heaps of evidence, none of which is ever enough. I proved that the Queen is not foreign to Canada, but the logical conclusion that she is therefore a part of the Canadian nation was batted away as irrelevant so long as there was no source that explicitly said, "The Queen has Canadian nationality." Yet, on the other hand, while we've no source that says "The Queen has British nationality" (the Nationality Act doesn't apply as we're not discussing the Queen before her accession), her British nationality is none-the-less openly accepted as fact, merely because some grumble and nod amongst themselves and agree that her being born in the UK is enough evidence for that. Why the unfairness, then? Let's have all claims meet the same standards of verifiability.
 * I personally don't expect explicit, specific, impossible to find sources; I think that's actually counter-productive to this project. So, I haven't, and wouldn't, ever contest the British label being applied when the topic covers the Queen clearly in a British context; it's already evident enough that the Queen is part of the British nation. But it is unacceptably unjust for one to insist that the British label be applied to the Queen everywhere, regardless of the context, dismissing that the Queen’s inclusion in other nations is evident enough, and demanding as proof of any error on their part the kind of evidence they couldn’t even supply to support their own take.
 * The no-flag-with-a-note solution seemed acceptable to everyone at Time Person of the Year until Tharkuncoll took it upon himself to challenge that compromise two weeks after it was reached. If Knowzilla, Reywas92, Highfields, and myself, plus Surtsicna and you, TFOWR, all think that no flag is appropriate for the context, I can't see why this discussion should proceed any further. I didn't instigate this dispute, and I certainly am not going to start anything like it anywhere else. --Miesianiacal (talk) 01:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind that I, at least, haven't looked in detail at the Time... case, and I'm assuming that the editors who did took reached a compromise specific to that case, based on the Queen's multi-national executive role.
 * I also continue to fail to understand why the Nationality Act doesn't apply: it was enacted when she was a British subject, she became (if she wasn't already) a British national, and her accession to the throne did not change that.
 * There is no double standard here - no evidence has been presented that the Queen is a national of any country other than Britain; evidence has been presented that she is a British national. I'm sorry if that seems unfair. I do appreciate that you worked hard to find a workable compromise at Time... but based on what I've seen here it's not a suitable general solution.
 * Cheers, <b style="color:#000">This flag once was red</b>propagandadeeds 02:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what she was before her accession, the Queen is the Crown. The Nationality Act does not apply to the Crown. The Nationality Act does not apply to the Queen.
 * The only arguments that remain for why she is a British national are a) she was born in Britain and lives mostly in Britain, b) she is the descendand of the founder of the royal house of Britain, c) she is Queen of the United Kingdom. This is good enough to explain why she's a British national.
 * The only arguments that remain for why she is a Canadian national - for example - are a) she recognised by government as being not a foreigner to Canada, b) she is the descendant of the founder of the royal house of Canada, c) she is the Queen of Canada. This is not good enough to explain why she's a Canadian national.
 * That is a double standard, weighted heavily in favour of one POV, simply because it's the most popular. --Miesianiacal (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Please provide evidence that the Act does not apply to the monarch. ðarkun coll 15:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The Nationality Act came before her accession. It affected her. Then she became Queen. The act of becoming Queen didn't strip her of her British nationality (or, if it did, I'm yet to see any evidence that that's the case). Cheers, <b style="color:#000">This flag once was red</b>propagandadeeds 15:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course it affected her before she became Queen. And of course it doesn't affect her now that she is Queen. The act doesn't bind the Crown. The Crown is the Queen. Where, exactly, is the confusion? --Miesianiacal (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, so the act was passed. Elizabeth became - if she wasn't already - a British national, as she was - then - bound by the act. She didn't need to be bound by the act once she became Queen, as she was already British. My confusion is in the suggestion that the act acted overtime, that it didn't serve to make her British at one moment in time, but that the act of becoming British was a continuous process in some way affected by becoming monarch. Cheers, <b style="color:#000">This flag once was red</b>propagandadeeds 15:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I say she's British it is the institution of the various Monarchies that are of multiple nationalities. To put it another way, the British Monarch was once the Monarch of Singapore and Ireland, but that doesn't make them Singaporean or Irish citizens today since those nations are now republics. Also Bermuda and Montserrat are still attached to the UK today and thus they still have the Queen as their Monarch but that doesn't mean QE I.I. is a Bermudian or a Montserratian citizen. Would it? I mean it would have passed though the British Nationality Act 1981 & British Overseas Territories Act 2002 -- CaribDigita (talk) 08:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, as that's how the international community views her. GoodDay (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, also the article is named -Elizabeth II of United Kingdom-. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Detailed examination of the Queen's nationality
Further to the above, the relevant points are covered here History_of_British_nationality_law and here History_of_British_nationality_law.

In brief, when the Queen was born in 1926 (when the 1914 Act was in force), she automatically became a British National by virtue of the fact that she was born in a dominion of King George V. This was not affected by her marriage to Philip in 1947 because (a) he had already become a naturalised British subject and (b) the marriage took place after 1933 (prior to that a woman lost British nationality if she married a foreigner, even if she didn't take on his nationality).

The 1948 Act divided British Nationality between the dominions. All those who had been born in the UK and its remaining dependencies automatically became what were now called Citizens of the UK and Colonies. This included the Queen of course. ðarkun coll 08:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it might even have gone back further than that. The UK Aliens Act 1905 was I believe the first act that separated nationality in the once unified British Empire. It allowed the UK to determine who could move to the British Isles.  It give the U.K. the right to deny "Right of Abode" esp. in cases if a person was deem to be an "Idiot", "undesirable", or other reasons. That is seen as one of the first moves of separating the Mother Country and its inhabitants from the rest of the empire. CaribDigita (talk) 13:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there a way of contacting Buckingham Palace, for clarification? GoodDay (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well there is a contact-us portion of the Monarchy website. I can't see why you would need contact them? Is it to ask which what their nationality is?  Or which of these Acts effects British Nationality? If it matters, the Queen pays taxes in the U.K. I doubt (although I can't prove) that she pays any taxes in her other realms? CaribDigita (talk) 03:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The OP refers to both nationality and citizenship in the question. It might be best to stick to nationality, as citizenship for a monarch is a tricky question we don't need to get into. That makes it a much easier question to answer: her nationality is British, and we don't need any expert reference to tell us that. Why is it British? Because she was born there, has lived there all her life apart from official trips o/s, reigns over the country ... What more do we need to establish nationality? That fact that she is also head of state of 15 other countries is beside the point. Her personal nationality is British. The flag of the UK is a symbol that can be used to indicate either British nationality or UK citizenship or both, so use it to mean the former only, and problem solved. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, I've no problem with using the Union Jack, or calling her British. GoodDay (talk) 13:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Likewise. From a Commonwealth perspective, the flag "retains an official or semi-official status in some Commonwealth Realms, e.g. in Canada, where it is known as the Royal Union Flag". It flies over the flagstaff at Waitangi, for example, alongside the flag of the United Tribes, and beneath the Flag of New Zealand. Cheers, <b style="color:#000">This flag once was red</b>propagandadeeds 13:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My, my; a lot of people here seem to feel they're in a position to speak for the Queen. --Miesianiacal (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My taxes (without my permission) pay for her Canadian trips. GoodDay (talk) 13:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I know! Just a while back someone was even claiming she wasn't a UK citizen! Cheers, <b style="color:#000">This flag once was red</b>propagandadeeds 13:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) If we can't find reliable sources for either side of this dispute? then we should consider that internationally, Liz II is recognized as British. GoodDay (talk) 14:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. In fact, ask a random person not from the UK "Which country is Elizabeth II the queen of?", and in most cases the answer will be "She's the Queen of England".  Then tell them she's queen of more countries than just England, and they'll correct themselves "OH, ok, she's Queen of Great Britain".   They still haven't even got to Northern Ireland, let alone the rest of the Commonwealth realms.  (Not that NI is a CR per se, but you know what I'm getting at.)   Whatever her constitutional status in her overseas realms may be, she is most intimately associated with the UK (or parts thereof), in the minds of the vast number of people.  And that includes her subjects overseas.  Australia had a referendum in 1997 about whether or not to become a republic, and one of the strongest arguments for the Yes case was that it was inappropriate to have a person as head of state who is not in any sense of the term an Australian and does not live here.  We never, never think of her as Australian - always as British.  --  JackofOz (talk) 22:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, then we should label her as English. That's what she's most widely recognized as, after all. --Miesianiacal (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I somehow knew you were going to say that. In case my point wasn't crystal clear, it's that she's recognised internationally as being associated with the UK, and the fact that people overseas get their terminology confused is not really their fault.  After all, the UK can't even decide what to call itself.  At the United Nations, it's the UK.  At the Olympics, it's "Great Britain".  At the Commonwealth Games, it's separate teams for England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man ..... Is it a unified state or isn't it?  How is anyone overseas supposed to make sense of that utterly confusing mishmash?  --  JackofOz (talk) 22:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies, then. I did not infer that from your previous comments. --Miesianiacal (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Please provide a citation that she's been granted any other nationality than British - or, that she's been excluded from British nationality. ðarkun coll 22:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You need only ask these things in one place. --Miesianiacal (talk) 23:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd have to agree with JackofOz here. In the matter of simplicity she is British. You have to remember her other roles are institutional.  As-in she heads up a Monarchy-institution of sorts in those other countries.  It just happens that these 15 different institutions designate the same person as their head of state.  Again like a person sometimes may serve on several different Boards of Directors.  (Technically) she could probably be granted the same rights as a citizen in all of those other places.  Off the top of my head for example, in Canada the .ca ccTLD has a strict Canadian presence requirement for its usage but in its bylaws it does grant the Monarchy the same rights of obtaining a Canadian domain name. CaribDigita (talk) 03:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

If the definition ever applied to her in any meaningfull way before hand, Elizabeth II most definitley ceased being a British National for the purposes of any British Nationality Act once she became Queen. That's kinda the whole point of being Queen, this basic fact is unsurprisingly not spelled out in the Act for the benefit of tendentious Wikipedians. Daftest debate ever. MickMacNee (talk) 13:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * So instead we must rely on unsubstantiated opinions on your part? Please supply some evidence for your assertion that she somehow lost her British nationality upon becoming Queen. In any case, see Talk:Time Person of the Year for my proposed draft of a letter to the palace to clear up this ridiculous argument. ðarkun coll 09:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if MickMacNee's opinion was unsubstantiated (which it is not), yours is as well. Why is it you are immune from the demands of proof you place on others? And don't forget, by not being able to leave an accepted resolution alone, it was you who started this "ridiculous argument" in the first place. I trust you won't continue it until you receive a response from the Palace. --Miesianiacal (talk) 13:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * German nationality law states that even considering the Windsorian/Commonwealth (as opposed to Saxe-Coburg-Gotha/Empire) revolution, the Royals are still Germans, at least the Queen. LutetiaPetuaria | Kroaz Du.pngBlason Arthur III de Bretagne (1393-1425) comte de Richemont.svg 11:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The article you've linked indicates that to be German one must be born in Germany or have a German parent, so she can't be German. DrKiernan (talk) 14:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * George VI was born a German subject, as was his brother Edward VIII and father George V, his father Edward VII and his father Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Elizabeth's German status in this case, needs only her father, whether or not George V rejected their German status for WWI.  LutetiaPetuaria | Kroaz Du.pngBlason Arthur III de Bretagne (1393-1425) comte de Richemont.svg 18:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You're confusing "subject" status with "nationality" status. George VI, as a Duke of Saxony, was a subject of the German empire (until he renounced the title, and the empire was abolished) but he was never a German national or a German citizen.
 * Similarly, until 1983 every Commonwealth citizen was a British subject, regardless of whether they were a Canadian citizen, or British national, or Tuvaluan native, or whatever. So, for example, until 1983 all Pakistani citizens were also British subjects but that did not make them British nationals or British citizens. DrKiernan (talk) 07:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Varrrrry Intaresssting. GoodDay (talk) 14:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think it can be true. German nationality laws came into force in 1913, based on those of Prussia. Prince Albert was born in 1819 in Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld. ðarkun coll 19:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The House of Windsor was founded in 1917. LutetiaPetuaria | Kroaz Du.pngBlason Arthur III de Bretagne (1393-1425) comte de Richemont.svg 19:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 77 years after Prince Albert moved to England. ðarkun coll 19:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * But the Royal Family was exclusively German from 1714 until the Queen Mother married the future George VI. Prince Philip is also German (NOT Greek) which means the half German Elizabeth married the wholly German Philip.78.86.226.253 (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * George VI's parents were both born in Britain. Philip's father was born in Greece, his paternal grandfather was born in Denmark, his paternal grandmother was born in Russia, his mother and maternal grandmother were born in Britain, and his maternal grandfather was a naturalised British subject born in Austria. DrKiernan (talk) 07:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Being born in a barn doesn't make one a horse. THey were all ethnically German. 78.86.226.253 (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Was Eisenhower German or American? Was Stroessner German or Paraguayan? Ancestry does not equal nationality. DrKiernan (talk) 07:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Australia. Simply because it might be interesting in considering this point about the Queen's "nationality"/"citizenship": this research paper from the Department of the Parliamentary Library (Australia) considers whether the Queen can be considered an "Australian" under Australian citizenship law. The complexity in even trying to fit the Queen into a system of "citizenship" or "nationality" is neatly summarised in the conclusion to that paper: "[T]he Queen cannot be her own subject, as one only exists in relation to the other, and the two cannot as such be combined." I would humbly suggest that the same reasoning applies equally to any of the Queen's realms. All that being said, this whole debate over the Queen's "nationality" or "citizenship" is a little ridiculous. Nothing of substance turns on the point, and, more worryingly, it's this sort of manic pedantry and obsession with trivialities that means really important editing, structure and neutrality issues get ignored and stops articles like this being improved to the standard of a featured article.Luton Hoo (talk) 02:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Queen's role in american countries of the British Empire
What is the Queen's role in american countries of the British Empire?

I don't see any reference of America anywhere in the article... Can we add some more info please?

Kind Regards, American(Can) (talk) 06:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * She's Queen of Canada and a number of states in the Caribbean, all of which are in America. ðarkun coll 07:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In the Americas the Governors-General tend perform all the duties of the Queen. In the British overseas territories the Chief Ministers or Governors do the same on behalf of the British government. The powers of the Queen have been widdled-away over time. Currently she is mainly a Figurehead as opposed to an executive head of state.(Like the U.S. president is.)
 * Antigua and Barbuda - "Her Majesty is represented in Antigua and Barbuda on a day-to-day basis by a Governor-General."
 * "The Queen maintains direct contact with the Governor-General, although she delegates executive power to the Governor-General in virtually every respect."

You'll see this on almost all pages.
 * Her role as Queen may be cut-short in some of the Caribbean realms. Once again the Prime Minister of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago is stumping (again) to take more countries into regional political union.  Already he has a plan for a political union with Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) but, I believe he is pitching for even more island-territories to join-in with oil & gas rich T&T into political union. He said in the past he favoured some kind of Executive President. I wouldn't count the chickens and eggs yet on the 21st the leaders of the respective countries will say exactly what form this may take.  So for Grenada and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Antigua seem to be onboard with some pledge by St. Lucia to look closely at it. CaribDigita (talk) 08:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There are no "American countries" in the British Empire; if, indeed, there's any British Empire to speak of any more. --Miesianiacal (talk) 11:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if there is a British Empire, then the British overseas territories are certainly part of it, and many of them are clearly American, while their status as countries are much less certain. — JAO • T • C 18:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * American countries of the British Empire? Holy smokers, it's gaulling enough that my country is a monarchy. GoodDay (talk) 13:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Gaulling? Heh, there are no British countries in Gaul, either.  :)  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Giggle, giggle. GoodDay (talk) 13:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I might point out that as Duke of Normandy, the Queen is head of state of the various Channel Islands, which are off the coast of France, where the laws are written in French dialects and the signs are bilingual. Semi-gallic, at least. --Pete (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks, I just thought we could include America as it only applies to the British Empire and Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II anyway, we just need more info on her role in America thats all. Kind Regards, American(Can) (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See Monarchies in the Americas. --Miesianiacal (talk) 22:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't Queen Elizabeth II of England Queen Elizabeth I of the United Kingdom?
Good Queen Bess, (Queen Elizabeth I of England) never reigned over Scotland.

As with the Kings Charles and James, why hasn't she adopted different numbers for the different kingdoms?

Should the Prince of Wales become King with his present name, this question will also arise.

SeryyVolk (talk) 21:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * See above. Cheers, <b style="color:#000">This flag once was red</b>propagandadeeds 21:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Because the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland do not exist since 1707. Therefore, she rules only one European kingdom and is only Elizabeth II of that kingdom. BTW, kings named Charles had the same regnal number in England and Scotland, because the first king named Charles was born after the Union of the Crowns. Only kings named James had different numbers. Coincidentally, there was a Mary in England and a Mary in Scotland before the union of the Crowns, so Mary II of England was also Mary II of Scotland. Should Prince Henry of Wales succeed to the throne, he could choose to reign as David III, although no David has ruled England. Surtsicna (talk) 22:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And to beat the dead horse a little more, the UK numbering scheme was decided upon in 1830 when William IV acceded. He might as well have reigned as William I, as he was the first William to reign over the UK (it's been discussed over there as well, although not nearly as often as here). I guess he didn't do that because a) it might be confusing, and b) because it might sound presumptious, like he's equating himself with some other William I. At any rate, it's been this way since 1830, so I don't quite get why people started complaining about it just a few decades ago. — JAO • T • C 22:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It wasn't even decided on in 1830. The monarchs simply continued using the English numbering from 1707 because England created the UK. The rules about Scotland were only adopted in 1953, and you can bet there will never be a James, David, Alexander etc. to disturb the English numbering. ðarkun coll 23:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No, Great Britain and Ireland created the UK. How on Earth could one kingdom create a united kingdom? Since Scottish numbering hasn't been disturbed by 1953, you cannot prove that in 1830 nobody thought of Scottish numbering. Oh, about James, David, and Alexander... The first name of the 8th in line is James and one of the names of the 2nd in line is David (which means that he could reign as David III). From 1936 to 1948, the second in line to the throne was Margaret, who could've reigned as Margaret II. So, if you're right, they are taking on the risk of "disturbing the English numbering". Surtsicna (talk) 10:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No risk at all, since there is nothing to stop them taking a different name if they became monarch. And yes, England did create the UK (and the Kingdom of Great Britain) by bullying and coercing its neighbours into a union. ðarkun coll 10:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Howabout we wait and see, concerning future British monarchs with Scottish regnal names. There's no point in arguing something, that hasn't occured yet. GoodDay (talk) 13:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

because there is already an answer (whcih is quoted on other wikipaedia apges already) that the constitutional convention is that the monarch takes the highest number whether that is Scots or English is irrelevent. tharkuncoll - POV on the creation of the Union! And indeed there is a court ruling on this - that the Crown is not bound by anything regards numbering and can, ultimetly proclaim themselves to be called whatever they want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.141.37 (talk) 14:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, they could, but it's unprecedented, and I can't see new precedents being created in this day and age. Only 3 monarchs have used anything other than their first given name as their regnal name, and they all used their last given name, coincidentally:
 * Alexandrina Victoria > Victoria
 * Albert Edward > Edward VII
 * Albert Frederick Arthur George > George VI.
 * And the tradition continues. Charles Phillip Arthur George has indicated he will be known as George VII.  --  JackofOz (talk) 05:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * He's not completely settled on that, but it is one of his preferences. A tribute to his maternal grandfather. GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Robert III was christened John. Adopting a completely new name is within the royal prerogative, just like Popes. Peter jackson (talk) 16:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm. 1390, eh?  That's a very, very old case, and probably the latest one to have occurred among monarchs of the British Isles.  I sort of rest my case that, while it's technically possible, it just ain't gonna happen.  --  JackofOz (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm just wondering why the hell we bother to write an encyclopaedia if the editors don't even read it. What's the point? If you don't know something, look it up on wikipedia. Sheesh! --Pete (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Currency in 'Finances' section
Since Wikipedia is organised by language and not by nation, I find it far more suitable to state the Queen's personal fortune first in GBP (as it is her national currency) and then in USD in parentheses. I understand the source states the amount in USD, however wouldn't it seem more genuine and reliable to consult a British source (for example The Telegraph, see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/2598278/The-worlds-richest-royals.html )? This source also refers to the amount as 'net worth' as opposed to 'personal fortune' - a term which is probably more accurate considering the latter implies the amount of money the Queen actually has in her possession. Jk4q (talk) 01:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * GBP is only one of her national currencies. --Miesianiacal (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * But USD is not one of her national currencies... Jk4q (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * True. --Miesianiacal (talk) 01:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

So... maybe change it? Jk4q (talk) 22:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To what? --Miesianiacal (talk) 22:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest GBP would be fine. The other major currencies used in the Queen's Realms are CAD, AUD and NZD, and I suppose these would be OKish, but GBP strikes me as a better option - we have a source, and GBP is "even more major" than CAD, AUD and NZD. I guess it boils down to "what currency (a) is most appropriate for the topic, and (b) will readers be familiar with"? The Queen mostly resides in the UK, and her wealth tends to be stored and recorded as GBP. Cheers, <b style="color:#000">This flag once was red</b>propagandadeeds 09:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's probably best just to stick with the original source (and say accoring to Forbes etc). In compiling the list they will have used whatever exchange rates were appropriate at the time they were making the list, The Telegraph will then have re-converted this into sterling, probably using a different rate, of course the amounts are only expressed to a few significant figures, so this isn't likely to make a huge difference, but we have no way of knowing the "true" original sterling value.  David Underdown (talk) 11:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

shooting incident probably not in 'the mall'
The article says; "Elizabeth's personal courage, as well as her skill as a horsewoman, was shown in 1981 during the annual Trooping the Colour ceremony.[63] Six shots were fired at her from close range as she rode down The Mall. She kept control of her horse, Burmese, and continued on."

This struck me as incorrect. I found one source on the net which says the shots were fired as the queen turned down horseguards parade. As far as I can see the route is the mall, Horseguards road, then onto horse guards parade ground. the Marcus Sarjeant article says he took up a position between the Mall and horseguards avenue, which is totally wrong unless it ought to say horseguards road. so I suppose right on the corner. I don't now recall the details of what was reported, however, I saw the queen's horse (with her on it) skittering sideways away from the crowd as she came down horseguards avenue. At the time I thought it quite poor horsemanship. It was not apparent that anything else had happened until I saw it on the news. Hard to say whether the horse was out of control or whether she had directed it sideways away from the gunshots, which at the time she would not have known were blanks. Anyway, this was happening in horseguards road, not the mall. Cant say whether she was strictly within horseguards road when the shots were fired, though if she had still been in the mall, I would have thought she would have gone sideways in the mall itself. I would have said, she had turned the corner and come into sight before anything happened. Anyhow, seems saying simply 'the mall' is probably wrong. Sandpiper (talk) 22:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:EGG
Just a nudge that in the lead, the Commonwealth realms are all linked to articles about their monarchies. Eg., Jamaica is pipelinked to Monarchy of Jamaica. This is confusing, and not permitted per the WP:EGG part of WP:MOS. Also the United Kingdom is pipelinked to "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", but all the other states seem to use their common name. Why is the UK treated differently here? That also strikes me as odd. May I suggest this is fixed? --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  23:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Holds each crown separately
I’m not sure if that’s like working for both MacDonalds and K-Mart or owning both MacDonalds and K-Mart. The nations having gained independence sounds like she doesn’t consider them to be her property, or does she? --Chuck Marean 22:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

United Kingdom
I think this article should be called Elizabeth II of England, because whoever heard of the United Kingdom? Furthermore, she’s a queen and so might her daughter be. Everybody knows what England means. It’s the southern half of one of the British Isles. --Chuck Marean 23:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Every single person that knows her as the Queen of England is wrong. There has not been a Queen of England for over 300 years. Queen Elizabeth II is the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Along with Queen of all her other realms (Canada, Australia etc). I dont like the current title, Queen Elizabeth II should be the title of this article but the stupid wikipedia naming policies prevent it sadly. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "whoever heard of the United Kingdom?" Really?  Anyway, as BritishWatcher says, she's not the Queen of England.  Shortening and simplifying to the point of "wrong" is, well, wrong. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 00:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * lol, i wanted to be to the point further details can be found on where Queen of England Redirects.
 * "After the death of Elizabeth I of England in 1603, the crowns of England and Scotland were united under James I and VI. By royal proclamation James titled himself 'king of Great Britain'. England underwent political union with Scotland in 1707 to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain. Since that date the title King or Queen of England is incorrect, though has remained in usage to the present day. In 1801 the Kingdom of Ireland, which had been under English rule since Henry II, became part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland following the Act of Union, which lasted until the secession of Ireland in 1922 and the subsequent renaming of the state to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland."
 * I also should of said sadly the American media fails to stop making this mistake despite them all clearly being wrong when ever they use the phrase "Queen of England". I have even sent in emails to these international organisations which should know better but sadly they never learn or reply to my emails. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to thank you for mentioning it, btw -- as an Ignorant Yank(tm), I really wasn't aware the details of Elizabeth II's status. (I think I thought that she was the Q of the UK in addition to the Q of E, the Q of NI, the Q of W, and the Q of S.)  (Sometimes, I like abbrevs.) -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 00:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * While she is none of these, it might interest you that there seems to be some disagreement on whether she might be the Queen of New South Wales, the Queen of Victoria, the Queen of Queensland, the Queen of South Australia, the Queen of Tasmania, and the Queen of Western Australia. See Talk:States and territories of Australia. — JAO • T • C 05:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. It's interesting also that Queen Elizabeth II of Canada is also Queen in right of each of it's Provinces, they can somewhat be considered constitutional monarchies themselves, Queen in Right of Alberta is used on official level, for example.
 * 2. This article MUST and SHOULD RIGHTFULLY be named Queen Elizabeth II, or even simply 'Elizabeth II'. Having the current article name, "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" undermines the sovereignty of Her Majesty's Other Realms. They are all equal in status. Several of the other Wikipedias have named their articles about the Sovereign as Elizabeth II only, and rightfully so.
 * 3. It would be silly to have this article at 'Elizabeth II of England'. "Queen of England" is a big mistake many make. --Knowzilla 12:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you go through the archives of this talk page, you'll notice that the title of this article has been the subject of criticism almost since its creation. I have been part of that dissenting group, and have noted that the title is a gross violation of Wikipedia's own neutrality policies. I believe the biography articles of monarchs should simply be titled with their regnal name - i.e. Elizabeth II or James VI and I or Carl XVI Gustaf - and if there happen to have been individuals with the same name and ordinal, a disambiguation page would amply sort out any confusion. Alas, the biased naming policy has become entrenched, and is guarded by some very, er... adamant individuals. So, without some massive wiki uprising, I don't see them changing any time soon. --Miesianiacal (talk) 12:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just for the record i dont blame Americans who fail to understand all this just the American media. Sadly theres probably alot of people who think shes "Queen of England" in the UK aswell. The issue of if shes Queen of provinces / states in Canada and Australia is a far more complicated, in the case of England/Scotland however we know for certain both have never had a monarch for 300+ years although they do call certain members of the royal familiy by different titles in Scotland.
 * On the naming issue, this is something that really bothers me. I can understand why in most cases its useful to put the country where they are monarch in the title but Queen Elizabeth II is one of very few monarch who reigns over more than a dozen countries. (especially as those countries include UK/Canada/Australia/NZ which are English speaking countries. Queen Elizabeth II or Elizabeth II should be the title of this article, i know there are some very hardcore defenders of wikipedias naming conventions but in this case they are just wrong. When was the last time there was a major push for a name change? Ive not been involved in one before. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd have no problem with removing countries from the monarch article's title. But, it would be a long drawn out (and likely futile) attempt, to change the guideline. GoodDay (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Per Naming conventions (people) it is unnecessary to add a country as a disambiguator when another form is sufficient to identify a person unambiguously, e.g. Charlemagne and Hirohito. No change in the naming conventions is required to implement a name change at this article. A normal Requested move would suffice. DrKiernan (talk) 07:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I would oppose any move to further separate the Queen from her own country. ðarkun coll 07:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you mean Canada or England? ( joke ) DrKiernan (talk) 09:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Just be aware, folks, that this issue spills over at least to George VI of the United Kingdom and Edward VIII of the United Kingdom, and possibly to George V of the United Kingdom, Edward VII of the United Kingdom, Victoria of the United Kingdom, William IV of the United Kingdom ........... So, be prepared for not just one but many battles. --  JackofOz (talk) 10:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, Queen Victoria was first Sovereign of a Conferderated Canada and a Federated Australia. However she wasn't styled as monarch of those countries. I'll even somewhat regrettably say that we can even leave King George VI's article where it is, even though it is under him that titles such as King of Canada emerged, and even before his reign, in 1931 that the Statute of Westminster gave the then Dominions the right to be equal to the UK. BUT to not change Queen Elizabeth II's article name to where it SHOULD be (at Queen Elizabeth II or Elizabeth II) is simply being BIASED. It is under Her Majesty that officially titles such as Queen of Canada or Queen of New Zealand were made. Under her that many realms gained total independence. Now today, Australia and the UK are equal, are they not? And neither has power over the other, is that not true? Both are equally independent and Sovereign nations, right? Queen Elizabeth II is Sovereign and Head of State of every Realm independently and equally. As a BRITISH Parliamentarian once said: "We in this country have to abandon... any sense of property in the Crown. The Queen, now, clearly, explicitly and according to title, belongs equally to all her realms and to the Commonwealth as a whole". Neutrality PLEASE. Theres nothing wrong with showing equality where it exists. I propose that this article be rightfully moved to either Queen Elizabeth II or Elizabeth II. Thank you. --Knowzilla 14:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * On the contrary. Wikipedia policy states that a monarch should be idenified under his or her most well known title. Hence James I of England, rather than James VI of Scotland (with the latter simply a redirect). ðarkun coll 14:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * After reading Wikipedia policies and naming conventions, I read that if a monarch is extremely well known, there is no need to include a country in the Monarch's article name. If other current monarchs much less known can have it that way on their article names, then why not the article of the most famous Monarch in the World? --Knowzilla 15:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The naming of the James VI article is awful aswell, infact i find that one more offensive and incorrect than having the United Kingdom in this title. I dont see what harm it would do in removing "of the United Kingdom" in this case.  BritishWatcher (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit of a stickler for consistency, so I lean towards the belief that if this article is to lose the country name in its title, all articles on monarchs should follow the same format - thus addressing the equally biased titling of articles like James I of England and Oscar II of Sweden. --Miesianiacal (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I too agree that other unfairly named articles should lose it's country name, if the Monarch ruled over more than one nation equally. If country names are really wanted, then only for those monarchs who reigned/reigns over only one country (or several states - but the rest being subordinate). The article name of QEII's article undoubtedly MUST change. --Knowzilla 16:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope - the name of this article MUST NOT change. Even today on the news it was reported that the taxpayer gave £3m last year to Prince Charles. How much do the overseas realms give him? ðarkun coll 23:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hopefully, ziltch. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) The only reason I would prefer the current title of this article? It would be kinda unusual to change the titles of hundreds of monarchial articles, just to accomodate one article. GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, after reviewing the talk page archives at the article, it seems that the title of James I of England has been, with regularity, called out as biased since that page was created. I wonder if the naming policies for monarch biography articles were created in Wikipedia's infancy, when there were few participants and less information collected. It seems more than obvious that they need updated in light of the fact that they not only contradict more core WP: policies, but also cited facts in the encyclopaedia. --Miesianiacal (talk) 10:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose, if anyone wants to change (or update) the guideline, that would be cool. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Queen Victoria's UK and Queen Elizabeth II's UK
This edit needs some discussion. I changed the wording to make it clear that the "United Kingdom" that Queen Victoria reigned over was the "UK of GB and Ireland", as distinct from the one the current monarch reigns over, the "UK of GB and Northern Ireland". I don't think this is a trivial distinction, and certainly not to the people of Ireland (republic). But it was reverted. Comments? -- JackofOz (talk) 08:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's the same state. ðarkun coll 08:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed. On the original point, it was an entirely correct statement by me.  JackofOz's edit was akin to saying the United States today is a different United States to that 200 years ago, because it covered different territory.  Do we count Konrad Adenauer as having been Chancellor of a 'different' Germany just because it didn't include East Germany?  I think not.  Same United States, same Federal Republic of Germany, same United Kingdom. Bastin 18:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Those are not analagous examples. The United States of America did not change its name every time it acquired new territory (which the Kingdom of Great Britain did when it became the first UK; and changed its name again to the 2nd UK when it lost Ireland).  Adenauer was only ever Chancellor of West Germany.  When West and East were unified, the new state became simply Germany.  We would never say Adenauer was Chancellor of "Germany".  Just as, we would never suggest Queen Victoria reigned over the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, or that Elizabeth II reigned over the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't ever remember stating that Victoria reigned over the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Adenauer is often referred to as Chancellor of Germany - see the infobox in  Konrad Adenauer's article, or the comparison of his chancellery to Bismarck's and Kohl's in the introduction in that article!  Thus, your refutation does not really hold on either count. Bastin 23:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Adenauer was Chancellor of, to give it its full name, the "Federal Republic of Germany" which is the same state that Merkel is Chancellor of today. There is some confusion because for a time both German states tried to assert they were the sole legitimate successors to the unified Germany and the Federal Republic won that one. In 1990 German unification was constitutionally the Federal Republic annexing the Democratic Republic and carrying on under the Federal Republic's constitution (and retaining the Federal Republic's membership of international organisations) without changing the actual name of the state - "West Germany" was never the name. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer to see both referred to as "United Kingdom" only, but with the appropriate piped links. My reasons though are aesthetic and grammatical rather than political. I think having "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, ..." can be misread as a single kingdom (Great Britain, northern Ireland and Canada, etc. united), and having the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" is too lengthy for a somewhat tangential parenthetical statement in the lead. DrKiernan (talk) 09:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Elsewhere on WP, we make a clear distinction between the monarchs of:
 * Kingdom of England
 * Kingdom of Scotland
 * Kingdom of Great Britain
 * United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and
 * United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.


 * Distinguishing the latter two by only a different piped link, which is completely invisible on a printed page, is unastisfactory imo. The latter two are as different, in some important respects, from each other, as either of them is from either England, Scotland or (Northern) Ireland.  If nothing else, the different names acknowledge this.


 * We say Victoria reigned over the United Kingdom, but in a very real sense, she reigned over a United Kingdom. --  JackofOz (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps one way around this is to wait for 100 days. With any luck, Elizabeth will outreign James VI and then we can take him and the different countries out of the lead: She is one of the longest-reigning British monarchs, after Victoria (who reigned for 63 years, 217 days), and George III (who reigned for 59 years, 96 days). DrKiernan (talk) 12:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There's no reason why we couldn't take out the names of the kingdoms immediately. Regardless of which bits of the entire area that has at any time been reigned over by a "British monarch", they were all "British monarchs".  We say George III reigned over Great Britain for 59 years, but that's simply not so.  He reigned over GB for 40 years, and over the UK of GB&I for 19 years, for a total of 59 years as monarch.  True, he did reign over the island of Great Britain for 59 years, but not over the Kingdom of Great Britain for 59 years.  Simply removing all reference to the names of the kingdoms would resut in this sentence becoming accurate and non-misleading; neither of those things can said to be true at the moment. --  JackofOz (talk) 13:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That why it doesn't say that he reigned over the Kingdom of Great Britain for 59 years - it just says Great Britain, which is perfectly accurate. Indeed, it would be equally accurate to say that he reigned over Great Britain and Ireland for 59 years, because he did. ðarkun coll 14:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * But it's piped to "Kingdom of Great Britain", which ceased to exist after the first 40 years of his reign. Just removing the piping doesn't help, because then we have him reigning over a geographical area and the others reigning over kingdoms.  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This is wrong. The Kingdom of Great Britain did not cease to exist after 1801 - it still exists today, so has continually existed since the Act of Union of 1707. You are simply getting confused with the change of relationship between Ireland and Great Britain in the Act of Union of 1801 9to form the United Kingdom). All that changed was the abolition of Irish representation in Ireland (the abolition of the Irish House of Commons and House of Lords) and subsequent representation of Irish MPs and Peers at Westminster. The Kingdom of Ireland itself remained intact. The Kingdom of Great Britain itself remained intact. All that changed was the way in which the two Kingdoms were summarily represented at Westminster. So it is correct to dsay that George III reigned for 59 years in Great Britain, as well as 59 years in Ireland. The Union of 1801 did not change the separate regnal status of the two kingdoms at all. For sure, the Great British Peerage was discontinued, and replaced with a United Kingdom Peerage. However, the separate Irish Peerage continued in existence, and new Irish Peers were created throughout the nineteenth Century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ds1994 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

How about: "She is one of the longest-reigning British monarchs, after Victoria of the United Kingdom (who reigned for 63 years, 217 days), George III of the United Kingdom (who reigned for 59 years, 96 days), and James VI of Scotland (who reigned for 57 years, 246 days)." Surtsicna (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be better, but we still have problem with George III because now we're using only his latter title, which applied for less than a third of his total reign. We could try ".... George III of Great Britain/the United Kingdom ...", I suppose, but it looks clumsy.


 * My preferred option is:
 * "She is one of the longest-reigning British monarchs, after Queen Victoria (who reigned for 63 years, 217 days), King George III (who reigned for 59 years, 96 days), and King James VI (who reigned for 57 years, 246 days)."
 * The James VI reference focusses solely on his Scottish reign, because that's where his longevity as a monarch lay, and it can be validly considered separately from his other crowns. --  JackofOz (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Btw, whatever we agree on, there's still a prob with the exact length of George III's reign - see Talk:List of longest reigning monarchs of the United Kingdom. It won't affect his place in the order, but the number of days will need to change from 96 to either 97 or 86.  It's all explained there.  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Err, make that George II. It doesn't affect this article after all.  Sorry.  --  JackofOz (talk) 08:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Can we just cut the whole thing down to "She is one of the longest-reigning British monarchs." The link is sufficient, and the detail can be examined there. DrKiernan (talk) 16:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Coronation
I'm curious: was Elizabeth II crowned Queen of Canada, of Australia, and her other realms, or was she just crowned Queen of the United Kingdom? No, this has nothing to do with "of the United Kingdom" problem. I'm asking because the information would be helpful for the coronation article. Surtsicna (talk) 17:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The oath she took seemsto have included all the then extant realms, see http://www.oremus.org/liturgy/coronation/cor1953b.html see also Coronation of the British Monarch. David Underdown (talk) 09:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, at the Coronation, The Queen promised to "govern the peoples of the United Kingdom of GB and NI, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan and Ceylon according to their respective laws and customs", all Realms of the time were mentioned, and Her Majesty was crowned Queen of each of them (and over their Territories as well), not just of the UK. --Knowzilla 15:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)