Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 24

Canadian patriation
The main reference to this section is a dead link, which could kill any attempts to get the article GA or FA status. Anyone good at searching archives? I'd also like to try to reduce it in length, particularly to try to avoid the flip-flop between implying they didn't get along (Martin and Benn) and then saying they did (Trudeau). DrKiernan (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry I forgot about this.
 * The online version of the Post article has likely been taken down or is archived and available only through subscription. As a newspaper article, it still holds as a valid and reliable source, though.
 * There's no way to avoid the discrepancy between Trudeau's actions and his later words. He danced pirouettes behind the Queen and took down royal icons and then entrenched the monarchy in the constitution and said how great the Queen was. Typical Trudeau. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  20:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've already amended the reference, that's no longer an issue. DrKiernan (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Head of State of 16 realms
If the trend above continues in favour of the current lead or compromise, then we'll have to delete Head of State from the intro. The argument is being put forward at List of current heads of state and government & Australia, that Elizabeth is not Australia's Head of State, but rather the Governor General is. If that's what is decided at those 2 articles? then it must be reflected here. GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody is presenting that argument. However, the reality in Australia is that the position is not explicitly defined and opinion is divided as to whether the Queen or the Governor-General is the head of state. An article in The Australian gives an overview - a neat touch is that Kevin Rudd, shortly before he was rolled as Prime Minister, backflips his position. --Pete (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ya got me perplexed. Elizabeth II is or isn't Australia's Head of State, it's gotta be 1 of the 2. GoodDay (talk) 22:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently it doesn't have to be one or the other. In Australia (as it is in Canada, though not in New Zealand, at least), neither the Queen nor the governor-general are expressly defined in law as the head of state. It is thus left up to the government of the day to say who is or to offer no opinion on the matter either way. See Monarchy of Canada, for example. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  23:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We Australians will sort it out, and I rather suspect that the next constitutional amendment referendum will see the Queen removed from any involvement and the Governor-General (possibly retitled as President) emerge as the defined head of state. However, in the meantime, the debate simmers away, with republicans and monarchists firing broadsides at each other in the letters pages of the metropolitan papers. --Pete (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Since it's undisputed that Elizabeth II is the UK's Head of State, the argument for 16 are equal-in-everyway is thus proven false. GoodDay (talk) 23:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You're trying to conflate two unrelated matters. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  00:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * They are indeed related, as it's the 'same' person. The jennie is out of the bottle. Apparently, it's alright to have Australia different from the other 15 as far as Heads of State are concerned. But, it's not alright to have the United Kingdom different from the other 15. Me smells a double standard on your part Mies. GoodDay (talk) 00:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * x254. Please try previewing, GoodDay The Jennie from Forest Gump? Anyway, again, you're mixing your matters up. The issue of who's head of state is not related to who is monarch. Australia, New Zealand, and the UK may differ on who is considered head of state; they don't differ on who the queen is. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  00:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For years, you've argued that the 16 commonwealth realms were equal in every way. GoodDay (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I never said any such thing. I said (and proved) the realms are equal in status under the Crown and that Elizabeth is queen of all the realms equally. I did not say the realms are identical. Do try to understand the difference. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  00:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand, you're back-tracking. I'll let others check over the Ausralian Head of State topics. GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Then you misunderstand. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  00:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll let others decide. GoodDay (talk) 00:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Then, perhaps you could help them by providing a diff that shows me saying the realms are equal in every way. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  01:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * From what I can understand, the issue is whether Elizabeth II is the head of state of the sixteen states over which she is queen. However, GoodDay, nobody is disputing the fact that within all sixteen realms, she is queen. She is (and has been for nearly 59 years now) the Queen of Australia and the Queen of Canada. But, as Skyring and Miesianiacal have stated, she is not explicitly stated in the constitution as the head of state. To give two somewhat related examples, Elizabeth II has not been the official "Queen of Fiji" since its declaration as a republic in 1987, but its Great Council of Chiefs continues to recognise her as in a way that is analogous to that role. She is still heavily represented in terms of official portraiture around government and in their currency. However, because they have been a republic since 1987, she is not the head of state because that role lies in the President of Fiji. Also, Mohammed Zahir Shah was the King of Afghanistan until he was deposed by Mohammed Daoud Khan in 1973. When he returned from exile in 2002, he was given the official title of "Father of the Nation" but the head of state continued to be the President of Afghanistan. We know she's queen, but is she the head of state?


 * Now my two cents on the matter are the if we really want to examine the monarchy's executive role in her realms, then we need to individually look at all sixteen of them. The main conflict is with Australia but an issue with Canada has been raised. The United Kingdom is a no-brainer without a Governor-General and it has been said the she is codified as head of state in the New Zealander constitution. So out of the original four state she has been queen of, half give her head of state status and half do not. I'm inclined to believe the twelve she later became queen of and still remains queen of would have given her the same status as the former two but if we're really calling some into question that we would be remiss not to look at all.


 * Goodness this was very long and I do apologise. I just felt that after watching this conversation happen for seven months over at Talk:List of current heads of state and government‎ with no opinion of my own that I'd finally join the discussion. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * She isn't the Head of State in all 16 realms, thus her status isn't equal in all 16 -fine, no argument. Her status isn't equal in the UK either - as there's no UK Governor General & she appoints the British PM & ministers in person & delivers an anual Speech from the Throne to the UK Parliament etc etc. Yet having ..of the United Kingdom in the article title or ..of the United Kingdom and 15 other... in the intro and/or infobox is continuly blocked. Why? GoodDay (talk) 01:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your examples are somewhat relevant, but there is at least one key difference between them and the Commonwealth realms: in Fiji and Afghanistan, the monarch is not vested with the nation's executive authority, does not form a part of parliament, etc., etc. In other words, in the Commonwealth realms, the Queen is more than the purely ceremonial figurehead she is in Fiji and the former King of Afghanistan became in the new Afghan republic. It is written in law that Elizabeth is the queen regnant of all her realms and the governors-general are her representatives, who exercise her governmental powers in her stead. The debates in some realms about who should be termed head of state are thus purely academic and often wholly political. They certainly have no effect on who comes first at the top of the constitutional order and who comes second. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  01:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Could we focus the core issue as to whether she is indeed head of state of all the Commonwealth realms before we argue over the equality of her status between them? It would clear much of the air and then you can be free to launch into the other stuff. But please keep to a single, defined topic. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I know my examples were a stretch but the purpose was to show that she is capable of being queen without being a head of state. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was understood. And you're also quite right to ask that we keep two separate issues separate. To get back on track: I believe we should remove the words "head of state" from the lead. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  01:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all, my apologies Mies for my bordering on ABF behaviour here, these discussions can be quite frustrating at times (particularly when one's on the minority side). Secondly, in agreement, the HoS thing should be deleted. GoodDay (talk) 01:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My general sense is that a monarch of a country is, by definition its head of state. The only case where I can see it as being at all debatable is that of Ireland from 1937 to 1949.  Otherwise, the fact that Elizabeth II is queen of Australia, and Ms. Bryce is constitutionally defined as HM's representative in Australia, ought to put that question to rest.  The United States Constitution doesn't use the term "head of state" anywhere, either.  But we can still say the president is the head of state, because head of state is a descriptive term used to describe a person who fills a particular role, not an official title (or, at least, not always an official title.)  The Commonwealth Realms, in general, subsist under a rather strange system where the duties and powers of the head of state are exercised by a person who is not herself head of state.  But the argument that this arrangement makes the representative, rather than the person represented, head of state seems like sophistry to me.  That being said, there's no particular reason to use the words "head of state" in the lead.  john k (talk) 02:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I too, reject the notion that the GG-in-question is Australia's Head of State. But, a fellow's hands are tied on that topic. GoodDay (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Australia's constitutional arrangements differ from those of other Commonwealth realms in that the office of Governor-General was created and the powers of that office assigned in the document itself, which is not able to be altered by any body except the people. In other realms, I understand that the monarch's powers are assigned in the Letters-Patent creating the office. As noted, a head of state is a descriptive term used to describe a person who fills a particular role. It is arguable, and an argument accepted by many Australians at all levels, that the person filling that role is the Governor-General. In any case, it is up to the people of a particular nation to say who their head of state is, and no outside authority, least of all Wikipedia, is competent to impose a different view. --Pete (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * On reflection of the uncertainy of Australia's views on who it's Head of State is, we're likely gonna delete Head of State from this articles intro. GoodDay (talk) 03:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is up to reliable sources to say who the head of state of Australia is, actually. It would be one thing if parliament passed some sort of law explicitly stating that the Governor-General is head of state. That's not the same thing as vague assurances that the fact that "many Australians" consider the Governor-General head of state.  On the whole, reliable sources on this subject are not Australian people, or even Australian politicians.  Political scientists are reliable sources as to how political terms are defined and how those definitions are applied to the real world. john k (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, Sir David Smith is a political scientist, and in his book Head of State he presents a very well laid out and researched case for precisely that. However, I agree that if Parliament passed (say) a Head of State Act, that would lay the issue to rest. But it's easy enough to see the state of confusion. The Prime Minister says the Governor-General is the head of state, Oppoosition leader, government directories, newspapers, political scientists... And others say the exact opposite! But it is the province of the Australian people to say who represents them as a nation on the world stage. IMHO. --Pete (talk) 07:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

--- I tried to find some sourcing about that speech the Queen made at the UN discussed above, to see if she finally went in as "Head of State of Australia", couldn't find anything to confirm it. The news media sources mentioned above are from early last year. I do think we need to revise the introductory sentence about "Head of State of 16", as it does seem clear in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act that the Queen is not formally enshrined as H of S for Oz, even if that is widely believed. This tends to underline why a change is needed to the way she is described, as in the straw poll. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The Australian government says she is the head of state and the monarchy says she is the head of state. What does Smith actually say? I don't have access to his book. Ah, it's OK: I've found it DrKiernan (talk) 12:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think this debate on whether she is or is not the Head of State puzzles more people than we think. It seems to me the Queen herself isn't quite sure. John Hendo (talk) 12:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, please refer to Wikipedia Larrikinism, some diplomats are superb actors. Eddaido (talk) 12:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That last news story is just another of the ones from early last year we already discussed John. Actually, following those links supplied by DrKiernan, I'm starting to wonder if it's just the press who are confused, not the governments of Australia and Britain. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, in the last ten years in Canada, we had governors general referring to themselves as head of state, at first without comment (if not publicly unspoken encouragement) from the Cabinet and then with a stern correction that the Queen is head of state from a subsequent (and the current) prime minister. It's all very odd to me - I'm with john and GoodDay in believing it's obviously the Queen who is head of state - and I'm convinced the debate is almost entirely politically motivated, but, there's the debate nonetheless. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  14:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Elizabeth II is Australia's Head of State, unless & until the Australian Constitution says otherwise. GoodDay (talk) 14:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I must say that, after reading some of all of what's on this talk page, I searched and searched for any evidence to support such allegations as "it is questionable" that she is head of state of Australia. I found nothing. Whatsoever. Do not appreciate being inticed into such a wild goose chase. Let's all try to stick to facts when discussing! Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know how far you searched and searched, but the fourth result of a Google search was this: "Buckingham Palace has raised eyebrows in Australia by referring to the Queen as the country's 'head of state' in an apparent break in convention. The title is usually given to the Australian Governor-General, Quentin Bryce, while the Queen is considered the country's sovereign." -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the source I gave a little earlier. :) John Hendo (talk) 17:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops! So you did. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No bother. I was just having a laugh to myself at Serge's statement that he read "some of all of what's on this talk page". :) John Hendo (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Does the Australian Constitution say the Governor General is Head of State? GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well then, Elizabeth II is Head of state by default. GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Though I don't count myself among them, there are obviously people who disagree with that assertion. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In such situations WP:CONSENSUS is the deciding factor. An influx of editors agreeing with use, would tip the scales. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Laugh as you choose, if you choose to try to ridicule me. Sorry, I meant reliable evidence, such as official government publications of all governments all over the world, not wishful thinking and crystal-balling on the part of ideologists who don't seem to be able to get her removed, though ruling parties there have had a republic on their agenda for decades and decades. A lot of talk and political positioning, no action. Show me one reliable source that their governor general is their head of state, and I'll be glad to take this all back. I too am wrong at times and am known to apologize if so. But I never laugh at people out of ridicule. SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have replied on your talkpage. John Hendo (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

As I see it, we have two options to pursue here: Either we gather up as many reliable sources as we can and try to, amongst ourselves, decide whether or not the Queen actually is the head of state of all her realms, those reliable sources that say she isn't are merely mistaken (rather like what we do with publications that otherwise meet WP:RS, yet still apply to the Queen the title we know to be wrong, "Queen of England"); or, we avoid the topic all together by agreeing to simply never use the phrase "head of state" in reference to Elizabeth II. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  18:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We should delete Head of State from this article intro, anyways. GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've got 2 resources and  describing Elizabeth II as Australia's HoS. PS- Mies, you're gonna be slightly annoyed by the 2nd source, as Gilliard calls Lilibet Britain's monarch. GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see where Gillard calls Elizabeth II the British monarch. What I see is yet another Associated Press staff member who's too lazy to bother with facts. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  18:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Like I said, you're gonna be annoyed with it (giggle giggle). GoodDay (talk) 19:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The point is that you're second source isn't reliable. Gillard isn't calling Elizabeth II the Australian head of state, the prose in the article is. Same goes for calling her the "Biritsh monarch". Miesianiacal is right, that was just lazy reporting. Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The first one says that Australia achieved "independence" on 1 January 1901, which is complete bollocks, so that site can't be trusted either. (Btw, "you're second source" = "you are second source") .  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  19:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Jeepers, ya'll are tough. GoodDay (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * More accurate than though I'd say - what we're seeing a lot of in this debate is the usual difference between what journalists and columnists say about something and the more credible authorities such as governmental sites and constitutional experts. There is room in the article to discuss controversies like Canadian and Australian republican movements, but not to alter the bare facts of the intro based on that. On the key point though (the straw poll above) I would say that there is a serious issue of the weight of sourcing compared to the weight of history about how we phrase her primary monarchical position - it seems awfully clear sadly that she is first and foremost Her Britannic Majesty Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - then Head of the Commonwealth, then Head of State of some Commonwealth countries. I'll wager if she was online with us right now, she would agree with that. It's just a reflection of the internationalism of Wikipedia that this is seriously under dispute - it isn't a real-world dispute. In the real world, the Commonwealth is an at-best somewhat vague and shaky institution - there is no guarantee it will outlive the next 50 years and maybe not even the next 15. No matter how shaky, compared to that, the British Monarchy is a very, very solid institution indeed. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * But we are in agreement to delete Head of State from this article intro. GoodDay (talk) 20:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's what I'd like to see. There are two opinions on the matter, each side having solid arguments. As opposed to those whose opinions are largely uninformed or based on trivia - the Queen's on the coinage therefore she is HoS - or drawn from different constitutional arrangements. These schools of thought extend to all levels and sectors of Australian society, from the Prime Minister down, and they are fluid, reflecting the evolving nature of the debate. I note above that one editor assumes that it is the republicans who refer to the Governor-General as the HoS. This is incorrect - it is the monarchists who refer to her this way. Editors should be informed on the subject they are writing about, because our readers come to Wikipedia seeking information, not ignorant opinion, gut feelings and falsehoods. I think that NPOV requires that either we refrain from making a definitive statement or provide both sides of the rather dense argument. Incidentally, I see the need for an article on this arcane but fascinating subject, and I solicit suggestions for a title.
 * Regardless of whether a definitive and reliable source can be found to settle the matter - it can't, as no Australian law or regulation or decision has ever made that defines the head of state, and for every good source saying one thing, another equally good source saying the opposite may be found - the fact of the division of opinion is easily confirmed. This debate has raged on Wikipedia for many years, often descending into vitriol and lame edit wars, and I'd prefer that we find a solution that if not entirely satisfactory to any one party, at least does not send good editors away from our project in disgust. --Pete (talk) 22:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, as for my attempts at getting the whole intro changed to Queen regnant of the United Kingdom and the 15 other Commonwealth realms, these last few months? I'd have better luck pushing over those large trees in British Columbia (oops, Commonwealth Columbia). GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd say a majority here, are recommending we ditch Head of State from the intro. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Governor-General
A Governor-General is no more than an appointed official, automatically stood-down the moment the royal standard goes up over Government House. She/he has been appointed by the monarch in consultation with the local government. The Governor-General is a locum for the monarch, not the monarch. Eddaido (talk) 09:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you give a source for your definition, please? --Pete (talk) 10:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not easily (doesn't everyone just Know this??) but it may be readily inferred/confirmed from what can be read here Monarchy of Canada and here Monarchy of Australia (but they're Wikipedia) and here http://www.gg.govt.nz/role/constofnz.htm and here http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/ca_1982.html and . . . . .  Eddaido (talk) 11:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * automatically stood-down the moment the royal standard goes up over Government House - where did you get that from? The Australian Governor-General is certainly not "stood-down" whenever the Queen's in residence here. --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  12:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't the The national orders of precedence support this? I've noticed when Sovereign is on an official state visit, they tend to perform the official government duty themselves.  Whenever Q.E. II has been in Barbados she has performed the duties in Parliament. The Governor General's car (with the crown on the license plate) also becomes her chauffeur. I wouldn't call that standing-down. But it is certainly 'giving way'. Does this same type of situation occur in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, et al?CaribDigita (talk) 17:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Read this article. I don't agree with Sir David Smith's assertion that our Governor-General is our Head of State, but otherwise it's interesting reading about what happens to the G-G when the Queen visits. --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  19:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The Australian Constitution doesn't define the GG as its Head os State. It does say that executive authority rests with the Queen of Australia. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nor does it say that the Queen is the head of state. What it does is give the powers of the office directly to the Governor-General. They are created right there in the document which cannot be amended by the monarch. They are not given by the Queen to the Governor-General in the Letters-Patent as in other realms. --Pete (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * By default, the Queen is Head of State. GoodDay (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * x... What? 344? The powers of the office derive from the sovereign through the constitution. It can't simply be ignored that executive authority is vested in the Queen - not the governor-general - and that it is the Queen who is a part of the Australian parliament - not the governor-general. The constitution also can't be amended without the Queen's assent. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  02:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure where this "by default" stuff came from. Is it in international law or something? As for executive power being "vested", I'm not entirely sure what that means. Certainly it is clear that she cannot exercise any of the Governor-General's constitutional powers, as was made clear in 1975, nor could she exercise any of his statutory powers, at least until the Royal Powers Act 1953. What good is having a power vested in you if you cannot use your power? It's like Superman telling people that sure, he can fly and see through walls and all that stuff, he just, um, doesn't, and he takes the bus instead. As for withholding assent or disallowing legislation, that's something that can only happen in theory. The Royal Assent is given and the bill becomes law, but it's not like the US presidential veto. --Pete (talk) 02:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that would be the 'Savings Clause' as is sometimes mentioned in Common law jurisdictions. Essentially, as it was in the UK at the time of the Statute of Westminster and other legal entrustments, then so to would it be for Australia until they change or alter those terms legally. CaribDigita (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * According to my dictionary, vested means "having an unquestionable right to the possession of property or a privilege"; per the constitution, executive power is the monarch's. I'm surprised you don't recognise the word; it's used right in S.61 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, which you've pointed to on more than one occasion: "The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen..." You may ask what good is it having powers you can't use, but one might equally ask what good it is exercising a power that doesn't actually belong to you? Perhaps the strength of the Australian system lies in that split. Maybe it doesn't matter. The questions certainly don't seem too pertinent to the content of this article. -- Ħ'   MIESIANIACAL  16:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Australia's Head of State is Elizabeth II, wether certain Australians agree with it or not. GoodDay (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And many Australians would agree with you emphatically. As others would disagree. But it is not our place to make such a high level decision and to impose it on a nation, merely to provide information for our readers. --Pete (talk) 07:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The issue of who is our Head of State has been a matter of debate for decades, and is not likely to be resolved any time soon. Government of Australia goes into it a little.  Sir David Smith, an Official Secretary to 5 Governors-General over 17 years, wrote a book, Head of State, in which he argues the Governor-General has that role.  Many others are equally implacably convinced the Queen is the Head of State.  No amount of frankly ridiculous statements like "Australia's Head of State is Elizabeth II, wether certain Australians agree with it or not" will advance the matter one iota.  It's offensive for a non-Australian to be telling Australians that he/she (the foreigner) knows better about Australian institutions than they themselves do.  Have your opinion, by all means, GoodDay, but please present it as such, not as the Unalterable and Inexorable Truth.  For the record, I disagree with Smith.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  08:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There was an interesting senatorial debate from 2009 (transcript), in which Smith participates. In that debate, the point was made that, in general, Australians of both republican and monarchial sentiment use the term "head of state" selectively. One senator made the observation that while a republican will typically insist that the Governor-General holds that position, he belies common thinking when he says "I think we should have an Australian head of state". In my opinion, were the Queen not the head of state, the republic debate would probably not exist.
 * Other things courtesy of the Australian government: A basic outline of the debate, and some interesting Google hits: 1 and 2.  Night w   10:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I think it's important to see Sir David's input in a more general context. He is rather fawned upon by the monarchists, because he knows his stuff, and he is one of the most polite and charming men I've ever met. Other constitutional scholars such as Greg Craven and George Winterton, agree and disagree on various points. My observation is that the Queen is widely perceived as being the head of state because she is on the coinage, the various government badges and insignia (especially the military) have crowns, and oaths of loyalty and service are sworn to her. Just as in the United Kingdom. However, there is certainly a strong push amongst more educated people to view the Governor-General as the head of state, because the trend here is to gradually remove the monarch from our affairs. "Republicanism by stealth", the monarchists claim, and so it is, but it is not an unnatural or forced progression. It is unfortunate that the republican slogan is that "the head of state should be an Australian" because it makes the whole question political. Their real target is the Queen, but I guess they don't want to be seen as attacking a popular monarch. The whole debate is confused and driven by fear and ignorance amongst the voters. --Pete (talk) 13:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If these political controversies qualify as facts in evidence sufficient to change the intro text, why then does the Government of Australia website categorically say that the Queen is the Head of State of Australia? It would appear that, despite the controversy, the government itself remains clear. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Those claims, that Australia's Head of State is the Governor General, are interesting, but merely opinons. We should say on the 'pedia roughly the following: "Elizabeth II is Australia' Head of State, however her status is disputed. Some Australians claim the Governor General is Head of State". GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's fair to say that traditionally at least the Monarch is regarded as the Head of State, who employs a governor-general to rule in their stead. The Australian debate is caused by the lack of a specific clarification in the constitution and other legal documents explicitly stating X is head of state of Australia. In my opinion, the arguments it is the GG are political arguments. I think it's fair to say she is regarded as the head of state, especially if the government websites say so. Perhaps a note or a later section can state there is debate on the topic. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * GoodDay, I doubt you read what I wrote above. You seem to take the position that "I know the truth, and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong".  Wikipedia is not competent to arbitrate, Solomon-like, on the issue of who Australia's head of state is.  All we can do is present the various opinions expressed by reputable sources.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  20:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The Australian Government says she's Head of State. PS: It's irrelevant to me, if Australians are offended by my 'E2 is Australia HoS' stuff. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and when Kevin Rudd was Prime Minister, he regularly referred to Quentin Bryce, our Governor-General, as "Australia's Head of State". So, cherry-pick government pronouncements any way you like, but they do not resolve the issue.  It's far deeper than words on some website, however "official" it may be. --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  20:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Rudd's not a reliable source, since he made a mistake on the Head of State. GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * But he was the Head of the Australian Government you referred to earlier. You can't claim the authority of the government while simultaneously rejecting the authority of its head.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  21:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Without a doubt, this discussion (which really shouldn't be at this article) is frustrating. Mies, take it from here. PS: Forgive me Jack, but I do sense stubborness from you & Skyring . GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Stubbornness? That, inter alia, is the very quality you've been displaying, with your "It is so because I say it is so" approach. I'm trying to get you to understand that it's not a simple question of logic, and far better minds than yours and mine have weighed in on either side of the debate without coming to any general agreement.  There simply IS NO single source we can go to to get an authoritative position.  ALL viewpoints are opinions, not just those that happen to disagree with yours.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  22:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies to you & Skyring, for the stubborness comment. GoodDay (talk) 01:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For my part, apology accepted. --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  04:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I take no offence. If any criticism was intended, it is forgiven. What is important is that we work together, and a robust discussion to determine the facts is far better than a buttermilk consensus of error. --Pete (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This all just seems so deeply dubious. There is a "controversy" or "debate" in Australia (rather than the other commonwealth realms) about the subject because of the particularly controversial status of the monarchy itself. It has nothing, really, to do with constitutional language and the like. All that seems like special pleading and rationalizations of a position taken for other reasons entirely. My basic puzzlement here is the whole conception that a country can have a monarch who is not its head of state. Is there any comparable case in the modern world? The fact that the monarch appoints the governor-general, and that executive power is vested in the monarch, makes the claim even more puzzling. I think it's totally reasonable to say that in all the commonwealth realms, the governor-general is, for the most part, the de facto head of state. But saying that she is the de jure head of state as well seems hard to sustain - where does that leave the Queen? Why is the country's head of state being appointed by a foreign head of state? Doesn't saying that the governor-general of Australia is Australia's head of state call Australia's sovereignty into question far more than saying that the Queen of Australia is? At any rate, I say we avoid argument here by just not using "head of state". john k (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The special status of the Governor-General in Australia has been pointed out since before Federation. The situation is quite distinct from that of Canada or New Zealand. But that's really immaterial - we aren't going to decide anything here on Wikipedia that affects the real world. And when Prime Ministers call the Governor-General the head of state, government directories likewise, and the matter is confusing and changeable according to opinion, I think Wikipedia needs to reflect that situation for our readers - that the matter of who is Australia's head of state is not a question easily answered. --Pete (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (Sigh) Certain nations seem to wish to sit on the fence but until they jump off it they have not escaped The Queen as Head of State. Agreed? Eddaido (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, not agreed. No amount of sighing will change that.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  23:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Australia is a sovereign nation. The matter of who is Australia's head of state is a matter for Australia, and opinion here is divided. --Pete (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a matter for Australia and the Australian government states clearly that it is the Queen. Some Australian politicians wish to use language to gain advantage with the republican vote, even though that language is wholly at odds with the constitutional reality. I don't personally consider that to be notable enough to change the way it's described in the intro to this article. Information like that belongs on those politician's articles or on articles about Australian republicanism. The sad reality is that politicians in Oz can be just as slippery, deceptive and indifferent to the truth as they can be hear in dear old Blighty. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, in Australia it's the monarchists who argue the governor-general is head of state; republicans say it's the Queen. It's in Canada that the reverse exists. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  23:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  23:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Must be a Southern hemisphere thing; hahahaha. GoodDay (talk) 01:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the Australian government doesn't say clearly who the head of state is. Government opinions vary, and the same directory or website or minister can say different things at different times. --Pete (talk) 23:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * DrKiernan has shown above that the Australian Government website clearly states that the Queen is Head of State of Australia. . And here is the Role of The Governor-General of Australia from the Governor-General's website. Nowhere once does this website say that the G-G is the "Head of State". Indeed, it says that "a Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty’s representative in the Commonwealth". Where are these confusing contrary references from Australian government websites you refer to please Skyring? In fact, it couldn't be clearer that despite the statements of politicians, the government websites are categorical that the G-G is not the Head of State. What is your government website evidence to the contrary? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It appears to me that there is some consensus that the issue of the Australian head of state is adequately covered, inter alia, at Monarchy of Australia and Government of Australia, and that the controversy should be avoided on this page by not describing Her Majesty as "head of state" in the lead. I have thus removed that wording; if anyone feels I've acted improperly, please revert and discuss here. Alkari (?), 20 January 2011, 00:25 UTC
 * That seems a bit hard on the other 15. Why not either, leave Australia out or, leave it in with a footnote saying that in Australia the monarch's exact status has been debated since 1901 (or whatever). Eddaido (talk) 00:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it still says she's queen of all 16—it just sidesteps the Australian issue by avoiding the phrase "head of state". I don't think anyone's disputing that she's Queen of Australia, so leaving Australia out altogether seems less than ideal. A footnote might be a good idea, if you (or anyone else) want to try their hand at drafting one. Alkari (?), 20 January 2011, 04:05 UTC

Suggested footnote: The governments of Canada and Australia acknowledge (QE2)'s status of Head of State but a minority of their citizens dispute it. Eddaido (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Head of State should've been deleted anyway. It can always be mentioned in each commonwealth realm article. GoodDay (talk) 01:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

This whole discussion is just a repeat of one from five years ago. The generally agreed upon result at the time was that Skyring was twisting sources to push his POV, and he got banned from wikipedia for a year. Glad to see we're back at it again. Sigh. john k (talk) 02:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The plot thickens? GoodDay (talk) 03:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's not do this, eh? Let's not dredge up 5-year-old disputes as if they had some direct bearing on the current discussion, and let's not smear and recriminate people for past offences when the current discussion was proceeding quite civilly until John K's post.  The very fact that this issue was being heatedly discussed 5 years ago shows it's nothing new.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  04:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is relevant that the same user was pushing the same business five years ago, and that the result was a consensus that he was wrong. john k (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that's not it at all. A few nerds on Wikipedia (I include myself in that) don't get to sit around and decide amongst themselves who Australia's Head of State is.  That's for an external competent authority to tell us.  However, real-world scholars, and governments themselves, have been in disagreement on this question for a long time.  There is no general agreement that it's the Queen, and there is no general agreement that it's the Governor-General.  Everyone has their opinion.  We have a stalemate.  It's perfectly proper for Skyring/Pete or anyone else to advance the position that tells that story, the real story - and to refute those who come to their own personal, private conclusions that it's the one or the other, and decide that that must therefore obviously be the truth.  Hello: OR, anyone?  Sure, they will find no shortage of sources that back them up; but so will those arguing the other case.  We cannot adopt a partisan position on this subject, because that breaches all sorts of Wikipedia rules - but that's exactly what various editors are trying to do here.  We have to see the bigger picture.  But since you've brought it up, what exactly was the consensus 5 years ago?  Who did we "decide" is Australia's Head of State?  (It actually doesn't matter what we "decided", because as I explained above we don't get to make that decision in the first place - it's as laughable as the US legislature that "decreed" the value of pi was exactly 3.17 - but I'm just curious about the powers we seem to have allocated to ourselves.)  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  20:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank goodness there's no Australians (that we know of) arguing/claiming that someone other then the Queen or Governor General is the Head of State. Heck, if we could turn out reliable sources that many are claiming Cookie Monster is the Head of State, there'd really be a mess-up (since we're going by what others claim). GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * JackofOz and Skyring keep making the assertion that the governments themselves (and we can take this in this case to mean Australia) are not in agreement, yet DrKiernan and I have presented above evidence that both the Government of Australia and the Governor-General both make it quite clear on their websites that the Queen is the Head of State. I repeat - what is your government-level evidence that this is not the case? So far, apart from a lot of verbiage, I see no compelling evidence that the "competent authorities" you cite think anything other than that the Queen is currently Head of State of Australia. Evidence please. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There's this for starters. Then there's the book Head of State by Sir David Smith, referred to above.  His government connections are impeccable, yet he's very much at odds with others of equal standing.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  20:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I suspect you know perfectly well that the two refs you raise do not meet the criteria of being "government sites". One is a journalist writing in the Oz about what Rudd does or does not think. (in any event, Rudd seems to change his opinion almost daily to suit). The other is a book by a constitutional lawyer. Frankly, as you Australians are fond of saying, put up or shut up mate. You haven't come across with a shred of evidence to support your assertion that the governments hold varying opinions about it. In fact, they are crystal-clear on the subject. I'm starting to see what John K is talking about. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Bowing out of this discussion 'again' (temper coming back). GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I really appreciate the input. My own interest in this rather arcane subject was sparked some years back when I attended a public lecture at Parliament House and I found out enough to get me keen to know more. I'm the kind of guy who likes knowing things that run counter to conventional knowledge. Such as that Delilah didn't cut Samson's hair in the biblical myth. Until 1995, I couldn't have explained the significance of the Statute of Westminster, and I thought that of course the Queen was at the top of the tree. The position of head of state isn't defined in international or Australian law. For most nations, there is an explicit declaration, or no dispute, for others, well it's less clear. The old Soviet Union - was it the President, or the General Secretary?
 * The fact is, as I keep saying, that opinion in Australia is divided. It's one thing to point to websites and statements by government ministers, but at bottom it's a matter of opinion, and views change. It's time, I think, to set out an article giving the background, with references and quotes, demonstrating the situation. Ignorance is rampant - the fact that a number of editors think that it is the Australian republicans promoting the idea that the Governor-General is the head of state demonstrates the folly of making assumptions. Our readers come to Wikipedia seeking useful information, and it is a disservice to them and to ourselves to be pushing opinions and assumptions. I've said the same thing several times now, and this is not how it should be. I'm going to kick off an article so we can all contribute and look at the sources and not have to have the same discussion across a number of different articles every few months or years or minutes. --Pete (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I rather firmly believe that each and every nation has an international obligation to clearly declare who is its head of state. And that they all do that. Very clearly. Public or other opinion (known to WP as POV) are hardly very interesting if, as you write, we are supposed to be dealing wirh facts. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is quite clear that both major branches of the Australian government confirm that the Queen is currently Head of State of Australia. The other extensive views put forwards above are nothing more than an expression either of WP editor's own opinions or else of a description that there is a republican controversy within Australia. The latter is interesting but it does not contradict the current fact. As I said, no satisfactory current government source has been put forwards to say that the Queen is not currently Head of State of Australia. We can therefore ignore anything that is not evidence that the GOVERNMENT thinks otherwise. Happy to review any actual evidence, but there need be no further repetition of the opinion stuff. In the meantime, the Head of State description in the intro is accurate. Equally happy to review any actual EVIDENCE as opposed to OPINION for any of the other 15 countries. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I think the default position on whether the reigning queen of a country is its head of state has to be that she is, unless very strong evidence to the contrary can be found.  Because, again, a monarch is by definition a head of state.  That's what a monarch is.  The idea of a republican head of state essentially emerged as a kind of replacement monarch.  The basic, straightforward, dictionary definition of a head of state basically makes any monarch the head of state of the country in question.  To claim that the Queen of Australia, who is indisputably currently reigning, is not the head of state of Australia is an extraordinary claim, and for it to be included in wikipedia it would require extraordinary evidence.  Catty newspaper articles and polemics by a single political scientist don't qualify.  I'd add that the vast majority of nations do not have anything in their constitutions which explicitly mentions a "head of state".  The U.S. Constitution certainly doesn't.  Neither does the French constitution.  Nor, so far as I can tell, does the Belgian.  Neither does the Mexican.  Or the Canadian constitution.  Or the German.  Those are the first five countries I happened to randomly think to look up the constitutions of.  In general, constitutions either say that "executive power is vested in" the head of state, or that the head of state represents the state in diplomacy.  It is not at all usual for the term "head of state" to appear in constitutional documents. The Australian constitution does not, so far as I can tell, differ notably.  It says The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen’s representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth.  "The executive power is vested in X" pretty much means "X is the head of state of this country."  The idea that a country's head of state can be the representative of somebody else, who is not head of state, is simply puzzling, and, again, we need a lot better evidence than has been provided to treat this as a serious issue. john k (talk) 06:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Australian Head of State
I have created a new article, based on text found in the Government of Australia article, at Australian Head of State. I urge all editors involved in the discussion above to edit the article, using reliable sources to reference their statements. --Pete (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a good idea, I think. Commented on the talk page there. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Regnant/reigning
Now, we need to change reigning queen to Queen regnant. GoodDay (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. I have a vague idea that this was proposed earlier and was controversial, though I'm not sure why—does anyone now object to this change? Alkari (?), 20 January 2011, 04:05 UTC
 * I don't recall any controversy and I've no idea why the link was piped. I've gone ahead and changed it to "queen regnant". -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  04:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I object. Using an unfamiliar word in the first line of an article is poor practice. DrKiernan (talk) 09:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this the controversy you were talking about, Alkari? DrK, do you really believe readers who have difficulty with the word "regnant" are going to find "reigning" any clearer? To my mind, "queen regnant" reads better in the opening sentence than "reigning queen" and, as I see no difference between the two, in terms of comprehensibility, and, as two or three other editors seemed to want "queen regnant" instead of "reigning queen", I changed it from "reiging queen" to "queen regnant". But, I'll live with "reigning queen" if consensus finds it to be the preferred option. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  13:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There obviously is no consensus yet on the opening sentence, so I've (attempted) to revert it to the long-standing version. On the current point, "regnant" won't mean a thing to most people, "reigning" is obviously better. Simply "Queen of" is a bit terse. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with "reigning queen". Nicer English, and likely to be clearer to many people.--Kotniski (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ditto. "Queen regnant" is simply not language that will be understood by the majority of readers, and I (BritEng) have never seen it used outside this site.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ditto again. "reigning queen" is simpler.  I would dare to suggest that we might even just say "queen", but I think MIESIANIACAL might get upset about "queen" being too simple, or not accurate, or not pompous-sounding enough. NickCT (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm here going to make one last request that you stop with the personal attacks. There have been a number from you recently and they don't in any way help improve this encyclopaedia. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  15:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Queen regnant is used at Beatrix of the Netherlands & Margaret II of Denmark, so let's be consistant. Also, reigning queen? big deal, Albert II is reigning King of the Belgians. Reigning queen reads here as simply current queen. GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't make this article worse just because other articles are badly worded. And for the umpteenth time, there is no a in consistent. DrKiernan (talk) 15:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes but we use the "a" elsewhere, so we should remain consistant. Rich Farmbrough, 19:45, 23rd day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).


 * Reigning Queen is a present-tense usage, where's Queen regnant is present/past tense usage. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think using proper terminology makes it worse. It's wikilinked anyway, which is the beauty of wikipedia. If you don't know what it means, click! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I find that characteristic of Wikipedia to be something the opposite of beauty - instead of being told something straightforwardly like you could be, you're presented with an unnecessary specialist term which you have to open a totally different page to find the meaning of. I know it happens a lot, but there's no reason to add to it here.--Kotniski (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Why hide it via wiki-linking? GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I will admit that since the last outside complaint about using "queen regnant", the awfulness of its use has been mitigated by my improvement of the linked article . But, as Kotniski says, you shouldn't have to click. You say "regnant" is better because its past tense, but we don't list the 16 realms she's no longer Queen regnant of, we only list the 16 where she is currently the reigning queen. DrKiernan (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Queen regnant is the better discriptive, past or present tense. That's why the linking article-in-question is called Queen regnant & not Reigning Queen. I've opened up a discussion at WP:ROY, concerning all female monarch bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Reigning queen" seems really awful to me - "Queen regnant" is a term of art. "Reigning queen" doesn't mean anything.  I'd personally prefer we just say "Queen" and link to "Queen regnant". john k (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Question is whether or not people who think they know what a queen is (normally a consort, or so they think) will hardly follow such a link and they are probabaly in huge majority of readers of these articles. Why deny these ladies their proper and important positions in history and major claims to fame by suppressing/confusing the facts up front? And who are we (WP editors) to do so? SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see how "reigning queen" suppresses their position; in fact, I think using jargon where common words suffice is more confusing and hides more than stating something simply. DrKiernan (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This one looks to me like an example of being slightly misled by our expertise. Those who wiki for day after day become familiar with the technical term (doubtless far more exact) for the thing they specialise in. The sad truth is that this doubtless far more exact term will totally stupify our casual reader. I thought I knew Britain's constitution and royal history pretty well, but I had to double-take and think for a minute what exactly "Queen Regnant" meant. Almost all know her as Reigning Queen or Monarch. This is really quite a simple commonname issue. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * On the other hand "reigning queen" doesn't mean anything - or if it does, it implies "currently reigning." That works fine for Elizabeth II, but not for, say, Victoria.  Britannica just says "queen" for reigning queens, and "queen consort" for queen consorts.  That seems good enough for me. john k (talk) 07:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If we can't agree here & at WP:ROY about which to use, there's always the third alternative [Queen regnant|Queen]. GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

DrKiernan miusunderstood me. Just calling queens regnant (reigning queens) "queen", without mentioning their very special status as female rulers - few and far between - does the supressing I referred to. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How about: Queen Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary, born 21 April 1926) is the monarch of 16 independent sovereign states known as the Commonwealth realms ... Avoids this issue entirely and solves some other probs into the bargain.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  20:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The monarch part is acceptable. The 16...realms isn't, though. GoodDay (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion. Only one negative that I can think of: the word monarch is used, albeit rarely, also for queens consort, such as in the King and Queen arrived and the people cheered the two monarchs as they entered.
 * Surely there can be no country in the world where the government doesn't know and publish correctly who is their head of state. I see no reason not to use the exclusively correct term. All 16 of those countries - their own governments - publish that E2R is their head of state. Isn't correct and clear info what we are supposed to publish on WP? SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Queen regnant" is not clear. It's obscure and pedantic.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To you, OK then. But it is the established term in English and as such could not be clearer. Respected dictionaries are great books. You will not find any reliable source to support your POV that the term is "obscure" (which it is not, as per definition) or "pedantic", which is not a very nice thing to call the best possible clarity using the only established term. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * So far, a majority here recommend ditching the pipe-link & thus showing queen regnant. GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Editing articles based on a vote, especially on a majority of one, is not the wiki way. DrKiernan (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm merely observing the trend. Afterall, you wouldn't suggest the minority has its say. Would you suggest I change the lead to "...of the United Kingdom and the 15 other commonwealth realms" which the majority opposes? GoodDay (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would suggest you follow policy and, as Jack has already eluded alluded09:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC), seek a compromise. DrKiernan (talk) 17:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I elude nothing - I'm man enough to stick around and fight the good fight. However, I do sometimes allude to things.  :)  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  00:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The pipe-link was added without a consensus, thus the status-quo calls for it to be deleted. Then you can seek a consensus for its addition. GoodDay (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't need to seek a consensus before every edit you want to make. You have to seek a consensus for the change you want to make if you make the change and it's reverted soon afterwards. In this case, the pipe was created and it stayed that way for months, meaning it gained consensus through silence. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ugh, those 'silence is consensus' reminders are annoying (giggle giggle). GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

but this time a P regnant silence. Eddaido (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatcha mean? GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Two things, pregnant silence and much more important regnant is such a Strange word to use in this context - first thought is for pregnancy! Eddaido (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am truly sorry that several of you seem to find the word "strange" etc etc etc since it really is the only correct word to use on English WP to describe the position. Sincerely, SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * GoodDay, a couple of times you've mentioned that Reigning Queen is a present-tense usage, and Queen regnant is present/past tense usage. I don't understand that at all.
 * There are two types of queens: Queen regnant and Queen consort. The current monarch is (present tense) a Queen regnant because she inherited the monarchy from her predecessor and father George VI, and is queen in her own right.  Because she is currently reigning, she is the reigning queen.
 * Whereas, her mother, when George VI was reigning, was a Queen consort because she had no claim to the throne in her own right but was still called "Queen Elizabeth" by virtue solely of being married to a king. But she was never a reigning queen.
 * The only people who could ever be a reigning queen are queens regnant, and since none of them have ever abdicated (at least not in Britain), the two terms are virtually synonymous. That applies even in the past tense - Queen Victoria was a Queen regnant; she was the reigning queen between 1837 and 1901. --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  00:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Victoria is no longer the reigning queen of the UK, she's dead. Having reigning queen in this article's intro, would be the same as having reigning king in the article Harald V of Norway (for example). GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Come on! The fact that kings reign is obvious to about 99% of our readers. The fact that a queen does is not obvious to anyone unless that is specified. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is so easy to replace a popular word with an equally accurate abstruse word. If you kept adding to the shopping list ASA (3) instead of aspirin (7) you might force the partner into 'a cup of tea and a good lie down'. Eddaido (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * We've got queen regnant at the other female monarch bio intros, we should have it here. GoodDay (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Then as this is the english language Wikipedia they should be changed. Eddaido (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec) @ GoodDay: I have no objection to that. She is a queen regnant, after all, unlike Sophia of Spain, who is a queen consort.  But this whole past/present thing is pure baloney.  If we were talking about the 1860s, it would be completely appropriate to say that Queen Victoria was the reigning queen at that time.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  01:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The only pipe-linkings I'd accept from Queen regnant (for all female monarch articles) would be [Queen regnant|queen] or [Queen regnant|monarch]. GoodDay (talk) 01:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If we choose to show monarch? that can be pipe-linked aswell to Monarch or Monarchy of the United Kingdom (err, wait a sec, Mies would have a stroke). GoodDay (talk) 01:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * [Queen regnant|queen] would be misleading - realistically - because most people would not follow that link and would remain unsure as to her actual position. We are supposed to write articles - especially ledes - that are as clear as possible to the common reader. Monarch is clearer, but still not fully clear (as I tried to explain somewhere above). SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason to believe that anyone would be confused, especially for Elizabeth II. "Queen" without modifier means "Queen-regnant" unless the context is clear.  We should say "queen-consort" for all Queen consorts, and simply "Queen" for queens regnant. john k (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm confused, which showing are you supporting? GoodDay (talk) 01:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I decided to "Support current lede" above at 19:59 12 January 2011 and I believe that queen regnant or reigning queen were in there then clearly, for clarity to an overwhelming majority of readers. SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That was basically about the commonwealth realms themselves. GoodDay (talk) 02:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If it was limited to that, I misunderstood, but now you know what I feel is absolutely necessary for clarity. SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

So that it doesn't get lost, I'll just note again, as I did above, that Britannica simply uses "Queen" with no modifier for queens regnant, and "queen consort" for queens consort. I think we should follow this model. john k (talk) 07:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine by me, obviously. DrKiernan (talk) 09:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You mean pipelink as [Queen regnant|Queen]? GoodDay (talk) 12:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the pipelink is quite useful as it does take readers to something they may well not have known about without it - part of our Great Mission to Educate. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 07:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I prefer it because it can do that, but doesn't force bad prose on the reader in order to educate them. john k (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No reputable English dictionary will agree about calling the word regnant "bad prose". Queen regnant is the established term and has been for centuries. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The good thing about having it shown as queen regnant, is its educational value. Un-familir readers would check into it & learn something new. GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Then why did you change it to just "queen"?
 * My preference leans towards "queen regnant"; to my eyes, it fits better in the sentence flow and is a perfectly acceptable term to use (we accept "queen consort", not "consorting queen"). We needn't dumb down Wikipedia. However, I can tolerate "reigning queen". What's more important is that it's made clear what type of queen Elizabeth is: one who reigns, rather than one who consorts. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  13:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I though ya'll wanted the compromise. We need a straw poll here, folks. GoodDay (talk) 13:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I added back "reigning Queen" rather than "Queen regnant" to use normal English rather the Court English which is heavily influenced by French which puts the adjective after the noun. "Reigning" is more normative than regnant. Hauskalainen (talk) 09:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So, normative is "normal English"? Hmmm ....
 * Queen regnant is not just another way of saying "ruling queen" or "current queen" or "reigning queen". It has a precise meaning, and is distinguished from queen consort.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  09:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, on both counts. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Queen regnant, is more educational for readers. PS: This should be in the above discussion. GoodDay (talk) 13:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

For consistency sake, I've implimented the [Queen regnant|Queen] compromise here & at Margaret II of Denmark, Beatrix of the Netherlands, Juliana of the Netherlands, Wilhelmina of the Netherlands, Mary II of England, Elizabeth I of England, Mary I of England, Margaret I of Denmark (which doesn't improvet that article IMHO) & Isabella II of Spain. I wish to point Queen regnant without a pipe-link, is my first choice -still-. GoodDay (talk) 13:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So why don't we just ask some monarchy wikiproject? I assume that would be the best place to get consistency. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've already done so. -- GoodDay (talk) 13:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I support Queen regnant per the rationale put forward by editors Jack of Oz and GoodDay. Queen is too vague and open to misinterpretation.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The proposal is not for "Queen". It is for reigning queen . We should not be using words that are unlikely to be understood by most readers, even when they are linked. I thought, per tedious earlier discussions, that most editors had by now become content with that compromise. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Queen regnant will cause un-familiar readers to be curious & check out the linking article. I'm certain the term isn't going scare readers away from the article, cause them to suffer shock or call 911. GoodDay (talk) 14:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I prefer queen regnant to reigning queen. It is more precise.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The aim is for people to read and understand this article - not to have to click on links to other articles in order to understand it. Links are a bonus feature - they should not be treated as a necessary tool for understanding.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't Simple Wikipedia here. We're suppose to educate the readers. GoodDay (talk) 14:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To inform them, I think, rather than to forcibly educate them by leading them through links away from the subject on which they are seeking information. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Queen regnant will inform them, with undoubted accuracy. GoodDay (talk) 14:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Can we please atleast show it as Queen, via pipelinking? GoodDay (talk) 20:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No. I, for one, would read such a sentence and immediately wonder what kind of queen it's talking about: regnant, consort, or dowager? It should either be "queen regnant", "reigning queen", "reigning monarch", or simply "monarch" or "sovereign". -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  20:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's so frustrating, this need to differentiate this article's intro from the other female monarch article intros, concerning this topic. Twice as frustrating, when those who oppose Queen regnant here, aren't opposing it on the other European female monarch articles & past British Isles female monarch articles. GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Drk, at WP:ROY, you claim that showing Queen regnant violates Wiki-policy, how? Also, your edit (July 4, 2010) was made -according to your edit summary- due to your fears that showing Queen regnant will prevent this article from gaining FA status. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've already explained both those points. DrKiernan (talk) 21:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I forgot who owns this article, my mistake. GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Personal affronts aside, I fail to see how using Queen regnant violates any sort of policies whatsoever, at least on this article. By the argument presented by DrKiernan it shouldn't apply on Queen Margaret, but there's no argument there about not including it here. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * When I spoke of policy here that was solely a comment directed at the behavior of editors who are not following the behavioral policies; advice which, as one can see immediately above, was evidently ignored. It was not a comment on the material in the article. All my comments on whether to use regnant or reigning in this specific article have been restricted to matters of prose only. DrKiernan (talk) 09:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * While this dispute is ongoing, we should be using the long standing wording of "queen regnant" by default.


 * Let's go 2,000 edits back: September 6, 2008. "Queen regnant". 500 forward: March 20, 2009. "Queen regnant". Another 500 forward: October 4, 2009. No problems so far! Let's jump forward more slowly, because we know it gets changed along the way. February 22, 2009. Still "queen regnant". May 1: ''still' "queen regnant"! June 3 (we're in the most recent 500 now): "Queen regnant". Ah, finally found it. July 4.


 * The wording, which has stood for years, was changed without consensus (that in itself is no problem). It was eventually reverted to the previous, long standing version, and rather than following the BRD process like everyone else, an edit war ensued until one side got their way. Long standing wording can not get changed without consensus, plain and simple. Forcing the change through edit warring is unacceptable. If someone disagrees to a change, the WP:BRD cycle is used. The previous consensus is maintained until a new consensus, or a temporary compromise, is made. The fact that it wasn't reverted for a few months is irrelevant. "Queen regnant" was the accepted wording for years. It should be changed back until a consensus is made. It's clear that the "regulars" are incapable of generating one, so I would recommend an RfC.  Swarm   X 20:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually it would seem that we already have had the RFC on this above - the Current Lead option in that included the Reigning Queen text - and a majority were in favour of keeping it. Isn't that right? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The main issue of that RfC (which is still ongoing) is whether to place more emphasis on the Queen's role in the UK. If you read the comments on either side, you'll see that that is what everyone is talking about. In fact, I find it strange that this issue of wording was threaded into the proposed change, considering that they are two completely separate issues. I actually didn't even notice that. However, while the comments don't appear to even address the issue anyway, so it's irrelevant. Even if they did, the majority is slim: last I checked 11 would support a change, 15 would not. In other words, about 42% would support a change. With such a significant amount in opposition, it's pretty clear there's no consensus in favor of the current lead (a simple numerical majority does not indicate consensus). But this section deals with a separate issue, even if that issue was threaded into the RfC.  Swarm   X 03:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right that the focus of the RfC is different to that of this thread. However, given that DrKiernan's change of "queen regnant" to "reigning queen" stood for over six months, it is, by WP:SILENCE, the version that now has consensus. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  04:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Silent consensus" is the weakest form of consensus, and it can only be presumed as long as there is silence. In other words, "silent consensus" doesn't apply anymore.  Swarm   X 10:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is indeed the weakest form of consensus, but it is a consensus, nonetheless. Now comes WP:BRD: someone was bold and changed the long-standing form ("reigning queen" to "queen regnant"), it was reverted ("queen regnant" back to "reigning queen") and it should stay that way while we're now discussing. That said, I don't know what compromise can ever be reached on this matter; it seems to be an either or thing. Maybe a poll is the only way to resolve this. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  13:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't necessarily object to a poll in this particular case, however, I think there are still potential compromises that aren't being discussed. For example, how about replacing "[reigning] queen [regnant] and head of state" with "constitutional monarch", and then replacing "constitutional monarch" in the third paragraph with "Queen"? It is unnecessary at that point to describe what kind of queen she is since we've already said by that point that she is a queen by descent rather than marriage. Also, the term "constitutional monarch" (1) seems more appropriate given the argument over whether she is head of state or not, and (2) escapes the quarrel over reigning/regnant. DrKiernan (talk) 14:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

G'day! Hell! This old chestnut again! I think the lead is just fine, and I'm with my ol' sparring partner Miesianical on this one. If we can't agree, why not lift the lead directly from Liz's own website? 'The Queen is Head of State of the UK and 15 other Commonwealth realms. The elder daughter of King George VI and Queen Elizabeth, she was born in 1926 and became Queen at the age of 25, and has reigned through more than five decades of enormous social change and development. The Queen is married to Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh and has four children and eight grandchildren.' http://www.royal.gov.uk/HMTheQueen/HMTheQueen.aspx Good grief Charlie Brown - a whole lot of argument over a whole lot of nothing!Gazzster (talk) 06:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Drk, but I don't endorse constitutional monarch in the lead. I still support queen regnant & don't see why this article deserves special treatment on that issue. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I inferred from these edits that you were prepared to accept monarch in the first sentence. DrKiernan (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I was, but not anymore. GoodDay (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * GoodDay, I agree that queen regnant is just fine, consistent with other articles, and I don't think we should hide it in a pipe link. However, there are many who don't want to use that wording. No side is going to yield to the other, so both will have to compromise in order to resolve this dispute. Are you prepared to compromise on something other than reigning queen or queen regnant? "Queen," "monarch" and "constitutional monarch" would all work. When discussing compromises, "I was, but not anymore" isn't helpful. There simply isn't going to be a consensus for "queen regnant" or "reigning queen". Please consider some additional options for a compromise.  Swarm   X 00:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * See my post below. GoodDay (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Why not just say, "Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary, born 21 April 1926) is the queen of 16 independent sovereign states known as the Commonwealth realms." I realise there is some ambiguity there, but that would only be a problem if the lead were one sentence long. As it stands, the fact that she hold the throne in her own right is made obvious by the rest of the lead and made explicit by the rest of the article. Dancing around to avoid using the unfamiliar term "queen regnant" when we can just use "queen" seems unnecessary. While we're talking about the first sentence, can we drop the list of realms to a note saying "These are the United Kingdom, etc."? -Rrius (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Just using "queen" seems like the most obvious and common sense choice of wording for a compromise in this dispute. Many editors have already expressed support for it above.  Swarm   X 00:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I merely re-appeared to clarify that I didn't support constitutional monarch. What eveyone chooses here, won't be 'reverted' or 'disputed' by me. GoodDay (talk) 00:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I see no problem with "queen regnant". However, I'm fine with "constitutional monarch". Simply "queen" is the least preferable of the options; it doesn't clarify between queen regnant, queen consort, queen mother, or dowager queen, and I don't believe the rest of the lead would clarify for the uninitiated reader. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  03:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying, but I think context fills the void even better than the word "regnant" does for most readers. "Constitutional monarch" would be unique to this article, and just seems a little awkward. People would tend to expect it to say something like "Elizabeth II is the Queen of England". Obviously, we should prefer accuracy, thus "of 16 Commonwealth realms", but "constitutional monarch" just doesn't fit right. -Rrius (talk) 03:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ''Elizabeth II is the Queen of England"? Since when? --Pete (talk) 01:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you guys nuts? She's the queen. Everybody knows that. She's been queen for longer than most editors have been alive. Nobody thinks that there's a king, maybe hiding out up in the attic. And when there is one, then we can worry about esoterica like "queen regnant". Sheesh! --Pete (talk) 03:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hiding Philip in the attic sounds like a good idea. DrKiernan (talk) 09:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The above pretty well demonstrates the need to be clear about what kind of queen Elizabeth II is. "Queen regnant" is the exact "esoterica" we wouldn't be concerned with if there were a king. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  04:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Clearly there is no agreement here. Why not put a para in the body of the article? We don't need it in the lead. Besides, QEII pretty much defines the word "queen" in the English-speaking world. Nobody is unclear as to what sort of queen she is. --Pete (talk) 09:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)