Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 19

Infobox
I'm likely gonna get 'kicked' for this. IMHO, the infobox is a tad bloated, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and fifteen other Commonwealth realms or Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth realms is more agreeable. The 2nd version though, might violate OR. GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why kicked? Never! :-) More agreeable does not necessarily mean correct. In my opinion, specific Realms are listed only because there are articles linked to them, if/when we have articles listing monarchs of other Realms, well - by all means - let's include them too, or indeed remove them all, however only then should we discuss as to how best to modify the infobox. --Igor Windsor (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I still think it needs trimming. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't necessary to repeat lists of realms. If they're all listed in the infobox, then we don't need a list in the lead. Or, if they're all listed in the lead, then we don't need a list in the infobox. Having two lists right at the start of the article is distracting and unnecessary. Particularly when the rationale for the truncation of one of the lists is not apparent to the reader. The intention of the writer may be to list those countries that had independent status prior to Elizabeth's accession, but it looks to the reader as though the list is restricted to the countries with mostly-white populations with the rest appended as an after-thought. DrKiernan (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to agree that the infobox is a poor solution to the equal realms conundrum; it's merely the unacceptable UK-centric attitude slightly expanded to include a couple of other realms to the exclusion of others. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  18:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Would shortening to Queen of the Commonwealth realms, be acceptable? GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that works because the section of the infobox is meant to show her proper title, not a description of her role. That, of course, is yet another reason why the present version isn't right. Sorry, I was wrong. The infobox section is about succession. Is "Queen of the Commonwealth realms" a position to be inhereted? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  18:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Assuming that all 16 realms have identical successions, then yes. However, I suppose the title 'Queen of the Commonwealth realms' is OR. GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Howabout, Head of State over the Commonwealth realms? Are descriptives allowed in Infoboxes? GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Queen of the Commonwealth realms" is a descriptive, so I would prefer that to "Head of State". The position of monarch of the Commonwealth realms is inherited, and is determined by the law of succession to the shared monarchy, which applies to all realms and cannot be altered without the agreement of all realms. DrKiernan (talk) 09:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * To be precise, it's a shared monarch (not a shared monarchy). GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I've had a look around and the most frequent formulations are (not unexpectedly) "Queen of 15 Commonwealth realms in addition to the UK" or "Queen of the UK and 15 other Commonwealth realms" or such like. Where explained (infrequently), the reason given for employing such a phrase appears to be that the Queen exercises constitutional powers in the UK herself, whereas she has never exercised constitutional power in any of the other realms, where she is purely ceremonial and power is exercised by the governor-general. There are reliable examples of:
 * "Head of State for 16 countries, which are known as Commonwealth realms"
 * "monarch, separately, of sixteen members of the Commonwealth, informally called the Commonwealth realms"
 * "Head of State for 16 countries - known as the Commonwealth Realms"

I quite liked the way the territories were slipped in here: "Head of State in the UK and 15 other independent states, their overseas territories and dependencies". So, personally, I don't have a problem with "Queen of the Commonwealth realms and their territories", which I think would cover all bases. DrKiernan (talk) 17:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "The Queen exercises constitutional powers in the UK herself, whereas she has never exercised constitutional power in any of the other realms" is incorrect; she appoints governors general regularly, has read speeches from the throne, and has created extra seats in the Canadian Senate, amongst other constitutional duties Elizabeth has carried out beyond the United Kingdom. So, I agree that "Queen of the Commonwealth realms and their territories" is a worthy summary, being accurate, succinct, and expressive of the equality that exists between the realms. My only suggestion would be to say "...and their respective territories"; but, it's not of much consequence. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  18:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It would cover all bases, for sure. The potential problem is 'Queen of the Commonwealth realms' could be considered original research. GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Miesianiacal, I agree it's a dubious argument. Indeed, almost anything about the constitutional role of the Queen is going to be a matter of opinion open to interpretation. Our decision should be based on a factual, unarguable basis rather than a questionable one. The only factual difference I can see between the UK and the other realms is that it doesn't have a governor-general and the others do. However, this isn't a good way of distinguishing between them, since her office and title (Queen) is the same in all the realms; the differences between other people's offices and titles in the realms is somewhat irrelevant to hers. DrKiernan (talk) 12:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should remind ourselves what the Wikipedia Infobox is for:

'Infobox templates contain facts and statistics which may be common to a broad range of articles of a certain type. For instance, all animals have a scientific classification (species, family and so on), as well as a listing for their conservation status. Adding a taxobox to articles on animals therefore makes it easier to quickly find such information and to compare it with that on other articles.

Infobox templates are rather like fact sheets, or sidebars in magazine articles. They quickly summarise important points in an easy-to-read format. However, they are not "statistics" tables in that they are only supposed to summarise material from an article - the information should still be present in the main text, because it may not be possible for the infobox to be accessed by some of our users. For instance, infobox templates may hide long columns of data inside collapsing tables, which means that blind readers (who have to use a computer program which reads web pages to them) may not be able to access them.' (Help:infobox)

From this it would seem that it is not necessary that the infobox list all of the realms over which she is Queen.'Queen of 16 realms' would technically suffice, though as she is most commonly associated with the UK, the UK at least should be mentioned. The box is meant to contain a summary. The term 'realm' or 'Commonwealth realm' seems a good summary term to describe the states of Elizabeth II. The phrase we have now suffices. There is no danger of perceived bias toward the UK or ustralia or Canada or New Zealand, because the main body of the text explains the equality of the realms. In any case, an infobox is not the place to explain the legal nuances.The territories and dependencies need not be mentioned at all, for they are part of a monarchy.--Gazzster (talk) 21:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, would be acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To who? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  21:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's just a suggestion. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we can assume that option won't fly. It's too UK-centric.
 * Gazzter, I agree the infobox isn't the place for nuance, but at present it looks over-loaded with detail or is open to misinterpretation. DrKiernan (talk) 12:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

There are other options:
 * "Monarch of the Commonwealth realms [and their {respective} territories]"
 * "Head of State of the Commonwealth realms [and their {respective} territories]"

or the words from her actual styles that are common to all realms
 * "of Her Realms and Territories, Queen[, Head of the Commonwealth]"
 * "Queen of Her Realms and Territories [, Head of the Commonwealth]

or simply,
 * "Queen"

I think "Head of the Commonwealth" could be problematic because that title/office is not hereditary, and "Head of State" seems too much when the simpler and more informative "Monarch" is available as an alternative. "Queen" of course is the simplest option.

Perhaps we should consider this collapsing table option. The guideline doesn't seem to ban it, as the information is still in the main body of the text, but we could list the realms in a hidden box that one opens with a click.

Though this does create problems because I suppose her reign in the 11 realms listed last could be considered shorter than her reign in the 5 realms listed first. DrKiernan (talk) 12:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think its brilliant, for the pure fact that on my screen size, the text for the UK entry in the drop down box has wrapped around, and the single word 'Ireland' appears seemingly as item 2 in the list of realms Elizabeth rules over. MickMacNee (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The collapsable proposal is great. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I like it too. The collapsible text is a stroke of genius. So simple, so straightforward. It looks encyclopedic, whereas the present infobox looks like a personal advert. Let's use it.--Gazzster (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with Queen of 16 Commonwealth realms? GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The number seems redundant; there are only 16 realms for her to be queen of and she's queen of all of them. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Howabout 'Queen of the 16 Commonwealth realms'? GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not much different, is it? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I understand where you're coming from. By saying .. of 16 or of the 16..., it suggests there's other Commonwealth realms that she's not Queen of? GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I considered Queen of the Commonwealth realms, but that might be seen as an OR title. GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It could do, yes; essentially, to me it seems redundant at best, confusing at worst. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I assume my suggestion at 21:19 December 4, 2009, is a non-starter? GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I changed the wording into 'Queen of 16 sovereign countries' because an infobox is there so that people can quickly get the vital facts about the topic of the article without having to go elsewhere. I'm sure a lot of people don't know what a Commonwealth realm is, and would probably jumble it up with the Commonwealth in general or something. To understand what it is, they would need to go to the Commonwealth realms article, and even then they might not understand fully. So it's much simpler for readers if we have a wording like the current one, which many will understand. If we want, we could make it even simpler by putting 'Queen of 16 independent countries', which even more people would understand straight away. The point of an infobox is so that the reader can get vital information about the subject of the article and understand it easily. --~ Knowzilla  (Talk)  12:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Supreme Governor
I think this should be removed from the lead. It is of insufficient importance to feature there. No other encyclopedia mentions it in the first paragraph, or indeed at all. The first paragraph should concentrate on her prime role (Queen) rather than on one of her many titles included in that role. She is not a religious figure nor does she wield any personal executive power in the Church of England, as essentially all decisions are made by others. Including the title in the lead is misleading and confusing as it falsely portrays her as a religious authority and implies that she is generally known by that title. Whereas, in fact, it is a tangential detail at best. It is mentioned in the "Religion" section, where it is relevant and appropriate to do so. DrKiernan (talk) 08:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the role has become insignificant. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur -- Snowded TALK  16:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree with removing that title as it is part of her powers. She may not be a religious figure on the terms of The Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury, however she is head of the Church of England and that title is Supreme Governor. She indeed used the powers she has to not attend Prince Charles and Camilla's wedding which she could have attended but chose not to as a direct result of her place as Supreme Governor The C of E (talk) 21:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * She has dozens of extra titles and supposed roles. We don't mention any of them in the lead. We just wrap them up in the all-encompassing term "Queen". I see no reason to highlight this one of many ceremonial roles. On the wedding: no, she didn't. She attended the Anglican service, which was held in Church and conducted by the Archbishop of Canterbury, as a mother not as the Queen or as the Supreme Governor. The question of why she didn't go to the civil ceremony is unanswered: some say it was security (civil weddings must by law be open to the public -- anyone can attend), others that Charles wanted it low-key because for them the main event was the religious service. DrKiernan (talk) 08:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't you make the same arguments about her being Queen "as essentially all decisions are made by others"? Should we move that down to "Reign"? The arguments for removal apply a fortiori to being Head of the Commonwealth; she has no actual role there whatever. Of course the last sentence of the paragraph, which says she is neutral and has a largely ceremonial role could then go too, since it would not make sense standing alone. What's more, the arguments against "Supreme Governor" ignore that sentence anyway, so we don't really need it, do we? -Rrius (talk) 03:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * While I'm glad that you agree we can remove "Supreme Governor" from the lead, I don't agree that the other sentences can be removed. Her "leadership" of the Church of England is an identical office to her "leadership" in terms of being Queen; they are the same position as the offices are combined in one position called "Queen". So, "Supreme Governor" is a repetition of "Queen". On the other hand, "Head of the Commonwealth" is an entirely different office that is bestowed separately and is not inherited or acquired in the same way as the "Queen/Supreme Governor" office. So, it should be mentioned separately. DrKiernan (talk) 08:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose I should have been holding up my sarcasm sign. My point is that we shouldn't remove "Supreme Governor" unless there are better reasons than those put. The argument had been that she has virtually no power as Supreme Governor, which I thought rather ignored the fact that she has virtually no power as Queen and no power at all as Head of the Commonwealth. This new addition is not terribly compelling: being Supreme Governor is an aspect of her job that has nothing to do with her political role. That religious, as well as political, power flows from her is worthy of mention in the lead. It is by no means obvious that a constitutional monarch would be head of a church. If it were true that all kings and queens head established churches, then it might make sense, but that is not the case. -Rrius (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You say it "is not the case" that "kings and queens head established churches". After a brief search of wikipedia (not wholly reliable I know but then we are comparing to this article) I discover:
 * Margrethe II of Denmark is the head of the Danish National Church
 * Harald V of Norway is the head of the Church of Norway
 * The Church of Sweden was founded by Gustav I of Sweden, and that monarchs played a significant role in it until it was disestablished
 * Synod members in the Dutch Reformed Church were nominated by the King of the Netherlands until it was disestablished in 1853.
 * The Kings of Hanover were the Supreme Governor of the Evangelical Lutheran State Church of Hanover
 * The Kings of Prussia were Supreme Governors of the Prussian Protestant Church
 * I am not convinced that the leadership of national Protestant churches by monarchs is as unusual as you suppose. DrKiernan (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Regardless of how we may interpret her religious role, the Church of England, the world-wide Anglican Communion and the UK government recognises her as Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Her ancestor, Henry VIII did in fact establish a church, passing the role, but not the exact title, to his successors. This is a fact, verifiable beyond doubt, and that suffices.--Gazzster (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So, you're seriously suggesting that the opening to Wilhelm II, German Emperor be changed to Wilhelm II was the Emperor of Germany, King of Prussia and Supreme Governor of the Prussian Protestant Church? DrKiernan (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not suggesting that. That's a decision for those interested in editing Wilhelm II, German Emperor, should those editors wish to raise the matter. And if he was the Supreme Governor of the Prussian Protestant Church. I'm saying that if Supreme Governor of the Church of England is one of Elizabeth's title, which it is, it may stand in a description of her roles.But if you chose to remove it from the lead, it removes nothing that a lead should say.--Gazzster (talk) 02:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So you were able to name two modern monarchs and ignore the fact that Elizabeth has no religious role with respect to her other realms? I'm not convinced. Do the Japanese Emperors or any of the other Pacific monarchs head a church? How about Middle Eastern emirs or kings? -Rrius (talk) 02:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Henry VIII explicitly made himself 'Supreme Head' of the Church of England, breaking communion with the Bishop of Rome. The religion of the new communion remained more or less Catholic. His daughter Mary returned to Rome, but her sister, Elizabeth I revived the role of head of the Church of England, calling herself however 'Supreme Governor'. At this point the Church of England started to move away from continental Catholicism in doctrine as well as administration. This is the title that Elizabeth II inherits. I suppose if you want to say that she is not head, or Supreme Governor, of the Church of England, who is? The General Synod? The Archbishop of Canterbury? The Prime Minister of the UK, who recommends ecclesiastical appointments? None of these bodies make such a claim. The only one who does so is the Sovereign.True, she is probably just the rubber stamp for what these other authorities decide. But then you could say the same thing about her role as head of state. She's basically instructed what to do. But that doesn't make her any less the head of state.

As for a religious role in the other realms of the Commonwealth, the Church of England does not extend beyond England. The episcopal, or Anglican bodies in those countries are separate jurisdictions. And the Sovereign of the UK has no role, even honorary, in those churches. I imagine however that she would have a certain place of respect.

It is certainly unusual for a head of state to be head of a church, but the UK is an unusual polity.--Gazzster (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Not quite true, small parts of Wales are actually part of Church of England parishes (and conversely I think there are actually a few small parts of England which are actually in Church of Wales parishes and therefore not part of the established church!). The Church of England also includes the Diocese of Sodor and Man (Isle of Man), the bishop is still a Crown (prime ministerial) appointment, although not eligible to sit in the House of Lords.  The Channel Islands are part of the Diocese of Winchester, though I'm not sure what the relation of the Crown is to the parishes there. The Diocese of Gibraltar in Europe has churches throughout contininental Europe, Russia and Turkey, though not a geographic jurisdiction in quite the same way as an English Diocese.  David Underdown (talk) 09:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment
Should one specific role of the queen be singled out for mention in the lead, or should the lead stick to her main role? DrKiernan (talk) 09:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

In the article, but not the lead
Like most Protestant monarchs, Elizabeth II is the constitutional head of a national church. This role, in the same way as commander-in-chief and sovereign of the orders of knighthood, is part of and secondary to her role as head of state.

Her role as constitutional head of a national church is not as heavily covered in reliable sources as other aspects of her role such as nominal head of the armed forces or her charitable work, nor is it of greater importance either nationally or internationally.

Per Lead section, the lead of an article should summarise the most important points of the topic, and the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance and its coverage by reliable sources.

Her role as ceremonial head of the Church of England may be or should be mentioned in the article, along with other aspects of her role, and appropriately integrated into a description of her life, but not in the lead.

Users who endorse this summary

 * 1) DrKiernan (talk) 09:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 2)  Ibagli  ( Talk ) 05:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment

 * 1) --Gazzster (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC) I can see your point: a relatively unimportant role of the monarch need not be included in the lead. And that is a sound point. The difficulty though is that it can be hard to determine what is relatively unimportant. Someone may argue that since the Church of England is one of the most powerful religious institutions in the UK the Queen's role as Supreme Governor is indeed significant. On the grounds of relative unimportance one could also suggest removing references to any particular Commonwealth realm, or the headship of the Commonwealth. Personally I dont mind either way (re the C of E).--Gazzster (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If her role as Supreme Governor is not important enough for the lead, is her role as Head of the Commonwealth? The term itself only appears in the lead. I'm more concerned with consistency than with the role itself. Although, it is a bit rich to talk about "most Protestant monarchs" when only two are mentioned and there are so few (two more?) in any event. Relying on those royal two as guides as part of a pattern that should be followed here is just silly. If we are to make a change, let's do it for good and consistent reasons. -Rrius (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * When we were discussing above whether or not to mention the territories in the lead, the general feeling was that it is not necessary to mention roles, in the lead, that are already encompassed within one that is already mentioned. Headship of a state religion is part of being head of state, however, headship of an international organisation is not. The two offices are separate and so should be mentioned separately. DrKiernan (talk) 09:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

In the lead
A quick Google search on 'role monarch England' turned up www.royal.gov.uk, which seems like it should be a definitive source. That source felt that it was worthwhile, in a brief lede, to mention her roles as Head of State, Fount of Justice, Head of the Armed Forces, and "important relationships" with the Churches of England and Scotland. That's what this notable source felt the proper weights were for her roles. Without a countering weight of reliable sources stating otherwise, it's hard to nay-say that.

Users who endorse this summary
Outback the koala (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment
But that is on a page describing the roles of the BritishI say British deliberately as the page used as a source for the above is about the Queen of the UK specifically monarch. This article is not about the roles of the British monarch; it is about Elizabeth Windsor the person. This article should focus on the biography of the woman, not on the roles of the monarch in one of their realms. That is rightly discussed at Monarchy of the United Kingdom. DrKiernan (talk) 11:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I endorse giving prominance to the fact that Elizabeth II is Supreme Govornor of the Anglican Church. While she lacks direct power with this role, this is true of her position as Head of the Comonwealth, and as a constitutional monarch. The position of Supreme Governor is historically extremely important, and has been held by every English monarch since Henry VIII (as Supreme Head; the current terminology was adoped in 1559, as part of Elizabeth I's religous settlement). 84.92.117.93 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, that is merely an argument for its removal, since it is a common title that every one of all the monarchs of the United Kingdom have held by virtue of their position as monarch. That is distinct from her other titles, 12 of which are unique to her alone, and one of which has only been held by one other person. In addition, something that happened 400 years before her succession to the throne is not relevant. DrKiernan (talk) 16:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, that's an excellent point. At the same website, there is a section entitled "Her Majesty the Queen": http://www.royal.gov.uk/HMTheQueen/HMTheQueen.aspx
 * And here, the Church of England has been relegated to a minor role as a mere link to "Other Websites of Interest."
 * Which flips my judgment 180-degrees, and now it seems clear to me that, according to this definitive source, the church is not a major part of the Queen's life. MarkNau (talk) 17:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

A bit off topic, but is Elizabeth also 'Head of the Church of Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland'? GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The Church of Scotland denies that is the case: http://www.churchofscotland.org.uk/organisation/orgqueen.htm
 * MarkNau (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Howabout Wales & Northern Ireland? GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The Church of Wales was disestablished in 1921; and the Church of Ireland in the 1880s (? or thereabouts) - before the Partition of Ireland - the Church of Ireland still operates on an all-Ireland basis; so the Monarch has no particular role in those churches. These are all Anglican churches.  The Church of Scotland is Presbyterian, and is the National church of Scotalnd, but not since the late 19th century the Established church in the same as the Church of England, though I believe the Monarch or their High Commissioner must be present before the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland can legally function.  Ther is also in Scotland the Anglican Scottish Episcopal Church, which has a rather complicated history, but since most of its bishops were non-jurors at the time of the Glorious Revolution it has not been a state church in any form.  David Underdown (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Why should her roles in the UK not be mentioned in the lead? It has been argued that the article is about the person of Elizabeth Windsor. True. But the person of Elizabeth Windsor is Queen of the UK. She is Supreme Governor of the Church of England.--Gazzster (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

1957 & 1959 US state visits
From the Queen's own mouth in 1957: "When you hear or read about the events in Washington and other places, I want you to reflect that it is the Queen of Canada and her husband who are concerned in them." From Canada and the End of Empire r.e. 1959 US visit: "Diefenbaker was also determined to make it 'quite clear' to the Americans that the Queen was visiting the United States as Queen of Canada and that 'it is the Canadian embassy and not the British Embassy officials who are in charge' of the Queen's itinerary. The Queen's speeches in Chicago, written by her Canadian ministers, 'stressed steadily the fact that she had come to call as Queen of Canada."p.69 -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  15:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You're misquoting the source. It actually says she did not visit the United States as Queen of Canada in 1957. The whole section from Buckner (pp. 66–69) is about how the 1959 and 1957 visits were totally different: see for example: p67: "the brief 1957 visit (which was tacked on to a visit to the United States)" and p68: "the Liberal government enthusiastically encouraged the Queen to visit Canada en route to the United States in 1957" (my emphasis).
 * Buckner's view matches that of other experts on this subject: the 1959 visit to the United States was as Queen of Canada, but that is the only foreign tour ever undertaken by the Queen as Queen of Canada. Indeed, this is such a well-known truism that it even features on the Queen's website: "In 1959...The Queen undertook her first, and only, foreign visit as Queen of Canada when she met President Eisenhower in Washington, D.C."
 * Extending this one and only event to all other trips of the Queen to the United States is is not supportable by reliable sources. DrKiernan (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Come off it with the POV accusations, would you? I provided a source quoting the Queen herself in 1957, so it's hardly my POV. Indeed, it's your theorising that could be construed at WP:OR. I suggest you adopt a more collegial attitude if you want this to proceed smoothly. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have tried to integrate her visit to the States in 1959 as Queen of Canada into the article. This is supportable by references. The other claims are not. DrKiernan (talk) 16:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Firstly, your insert r.e. 1959 is incorrect; the precedent of the monarch carrying out state visits from Canada to the US was set by George VI in 1939. Secondly, you've still completely ignored the Queen's speech given in 1957, none of what you've presented having rendered it inaccurate in any way. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The Queen's speech doesn't say that she is visiting the United States as only Queen of Canada. And you've ignored the official website of the Canadian monarchy which states explicitly that 1959 was the only occasion. DrKiernan (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Er, but it does: at "the events in Washington... it is the Queen of Canada... who [is] concerned in them." Even if it does conflict with the Buck House website, how else is one to take Elizabeth's words but as meaning that the trip was by the Queen to the US specifically as Canada's head of state? Here, too, the same speech is used to show that the 1957 visit was one between Canada and the US (pp. 16, 18) (interstingly, it also says Elizabeth was welcomed in America as a visitor from Canada in 1951 (p. 67)). -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  18:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * One of the ministers in attendance throughout the 1957 United States tour was Selwyn Lloyd, see an example of an original document here. Selwyn Lloyd was not a Canadian minister. This differs (as pointed out by Buckner) from the 1959 trip because in 1959 the sole minister in attendance was Canadian. DrKiernan (talk) 18:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, then. So, what does that mean? That the US visit was jointly British and Canadian? Diefenbaker was the Queen's "senior advisor". -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  22:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Was he? The list is obviously not in order of precedence; "Mr Orr" (no honours) is listed before Lord Plunket. If you look in the columns to the right of the list of names, you can see that Diefenbaker was only present in Washington. It was Selwyn Lloyd who was present throughout. DrKiernan (talk) 07:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The Time article says he was. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  14:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine, he was. So? You still don't have any sources saying she was in the United States in 1957 solely as Queen of Canada. On the 1957 trip she was attended throughout by the British foreign secretary. On Thursday 17 October, she stayed at the British embassy. On Friday 18, she attended a reception at the British embassy attended by Commonwealth diplomats. On Saturday 19, she met Commonwealth diplomats again at the British embassy, held an investiture for both Commonwealth and American citizens, laid the foundation stone of the new British embassy office building in Washington, and gave a state banquet for Eisenhower in the old British embassy building. On Sunday 20, they had lunch at the British embassy, and held a dinner at the Australian embassy, for which gold plate from Buckingham Palace was especially brought over. On Monday 21, she addressed the United Nations referring to "ten Commonwealth countries" and "the Commonwealth" in her speech, but not one specific country. In the evening, she attended a dinner at the English Speaking Union and a "Commonwealth Ball" at the 7th Regiment Armory on Park Avenue.
 * Besides, all this batting to and fro on the single issue of the 1957 tour is irrelevant. She is always Queen of the United Kingdom, Queen of Australia and Queen of Canada, wherever she is. She doesn't start being one and stop being the other as soon as she sets foot in the United States. It is misleading to call her "Queen of Such-place-or-another" when she is always "Queen of All These Places". You wouldn't like it if someone came along and started placing "Queen of the United Kingdom" and "the British monarch" throughout the article, so why should anyone else accept "Queen of Canada" or "the Canadian monarch"? The arguments which you yourself have put forward against the use of the former, also apply to the use of the latter. DrKiernan (talk) 15:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Who has been arguing anymore that she was there only as Queen of Canada? Of course she's always sovereign of all her realms, but we know that she also almost always is acting on behalf of one state or another. Since you've presented your evidence, I've given up the idea that she was in the US in 1957 solely as Queen of Canada; this now seems like it was one of those rarer occasions where she was representing multiple countries either at once or at specific events on one trip (like she sometimes does at D-Day ceremonies in France). My concern therefore is that we impart this information without claiming, or implying even, that she was in the US only as Queen of the UK. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  18:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see. How about phrasing along the lines of That year, she made a state visit on behalf of the Commonwealth to the United States, where she addressed the United Nations General Assembly. On the same tour she opened the 23rd Canadian Parliament, becoming the first monarch of Canada to open a parliamentary session. Two years later, on behalf of Canada, she revisited North America.? DrKiernan (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)