Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 27

Health
Would it be possible to have a paragraph or something about the health of The Queen? Although I can guess that this can be difficult, I would think that readers would find it interesting. 101090ABC (talk) 10:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There is one: Elizabeth II. DrKiernan (talk) 11:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, I missed that one. However, that only goes to 2008 or so. It would be interested to read about more recent years. 101090ABC (talk) 11:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Correction: 2006. 101090ABC (talk) 11:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

views
Is there any reliable sources that could speak to the Queen's personal political and social views? Obviously as a constitutional monarch, she would never speak publicly on them. I've read various sources that say she is either a One Nation Conservative, a High Tory, a Social Democrat, or a Thatcherite. Surely her views could be broadly nailed down. She must have one of the widest bases of political knowledge today, given she's seen Churchill, Wilson, Thatcher, Blair and now Cameron as PM. Most other monarchs give indications as their leanings. She's a human being and clearly has opinions. Can anything be reliably cited? Thanks! 74.69.127.200 (talk) 15:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Accession information
This article has much information about Elizabeth's accession to the throne. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  21:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it is about time that an editor updated the notation "59 years on the throne" to 60? 74.69.127.200 (talk) 23:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Ceauşescu
Why was Ceauşescu's visit notable, and why did Elizabeth "endure" it? CMD (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's the one the biographers tend to cover, usually with a story of how unpleasant he was, what he stole from the palace, or how she hid in the garden to avoid him. DrKiernan (talk) 08:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Fascinating. Is it possible to have slightly more detail in the article rather than just leaving it so vague? CMD (talk) 10:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I'd prefer to avoid mentioning the clock-thieving and bush-hiding, as that seems to trivialise Ceauşescu's criminality. However, I could suggest: In 1978, Elizabeth endured a state visit to the United Kingdom by Nicolae and Elena Ceauşescu, the repressive communist dictators of Romania, though privately she thought they had "blood on their hands".  DrKiernan (talk) 12:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure it's correct to describe Elena as one of the dictators, and adding repressive seems to be overly pointy, but the clarification of her personal opinion does make the first part of the sentence make more sense. CMD (talk) 12:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've only added Elena because the quote is "They have blood on their hands". The alternatives of she thought he had "blood on [his] hands" or she thought he had blood on his hands aren't as clear, I think. the repressive communist dictators of Romania could be the communist dictator of Romania and his wife (providing it's clear that she's the communist dictator's wife rather than Romania's!). DrKiernan (talk) 13:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "In 1978, Elizabeth endured a state visit to the United Kingdom by Romania's communist dictator, Nicolae Ceauşescu, and his wife, Elena Ceauşescu, though privately she thought they had "blood on their hands". ''
 * How's that? CMD (talk) 13:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine! I've added that in but I've cut some of the commas. DrKiernan (talk) 14:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Over-categorisation
There seems to be far to much Category clutter in this article. In Classic skin (which has categories at the top), this takes up most of the screen before the article starts. Can we pare this down to the most essential, and move the rest into Category:Elizabeth II?  An  optimist on the  run!  10:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable. DrKiernan (talk) 10:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll have a go at sorting it out later.  An  optimist on the  run!  07:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've moved everything out for the time being (see Category:Elizabeth II) - this may be controversial and some of the most important categories could be put back in, but please don't revert wholesale. I was wondering whether some sub-cat such as Category:Orders and honours of Elizabeth II could be created, but it doesn't seem to fit in.  An  optimist on the  run!  17:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. I don't think shifting all of the categories to Category:Elizabeth II solves the "problem"—it just shifts it to another venue. Now the category appears to be "overcategorized", and it's very unlikely that users who work with categories will support so many categories on this category page. Typically, detailed categories are applied to articles, not to the categories of the same name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sigh. I never said that this was a viable solution. I'd tried to get some discussion going here first, but got little response so took the controversial step of moving everything out in one lump. The reason I said "please don't revert wholesale" is so that discussion about which categories belong here can be discussed properly. Unfortunately this request was ignored and we're back where we started. If anyone has any idea how we can improve this, please give some ideas.  An  optimist on the  run!  06:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

60th Anniversary
today marks the 60th Anniversary since Queen Elizabeth II began her reign, maybe a year and day count should be added next to the date 6 February 1952-, what are your thoughts?. Tony (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm against it. No-one needs to know the length of her reign to the day and no biography of her ever gives such an exact calculation of the length of her reign. The infobox is not the place for trivia. After the summer banjoree, I'd like to suggest removing the length of the reign to the year from the lead paragraph because it's only true for one day a year. Instead of "Her reign of 72 years", it could just read "Her reign of over 60 years" from the Diamond Jubilee until the day she exceeds Victoria. DrKiernan (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Introduction

 * The introduction is, frankly, horrible and unnecessarily cruel to the living person whose biography it constitutes.


 * So a person has a bad year, twenty years ago in which there are a series of personal disasters. Are the most important events of this woman's life?  Have some blinking mercy on the living, will you? No-one wants the worst year of their life forever trotted out as their most important achievement.  It reads like the Australian Woman's Day.


 * Here is my rewrite, which was immediately reverted, because it hadn't been discussed.

Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is the constitutional monarch of 16 of the 54 sovereign states within the Commonwealth of Nations, and Head of the Commonwealth. In order of foundation, the 16 independent Commonwealth realms are the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis. As the British monarch, she is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

Elizabeth was born in London and educated privately at home. Her father acceded to the throne as George VI in 1936 on the abdication of his brother Edward VIII. Elizabeth began to undertake public duties during the Second World War, in which she served in the Auxiliary Territorial Service. In 1947, as Princess Elizabeth, she married Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, with whom she has four children: Charles, Anne, Andrew, and Edward.

On the death of her father George VI in 1952, she became Head of the Commonwealth and queen regnant of seven independent Commonwealth countries: the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon. She was crowned Queen Elizabeth II in 1953, her coronation service being the first to be televised. Between 1956 and 1992, the number of her realms varied as territories gained independence and realms, including South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon (renamed Sri Lanka), became republics.

Throughout her reign, Elizabeth has undertaken many tours of Commonwealth countries. She has also made many state visits to foreign countries, including the United States where she was the first British monarch to address a joint session of the United States Congress and has twice addressed the  United Nations General Assembly. She is the most widely travelled head of state in history.

As head of the Church of England the Queen has issued an annual Christmas message and has demonstrated support for inter-faith relations, being the first British monarch to meet the Pope, meeting leaders of other religions, and granting patronage to the Council of Christians and Jews.

Her reign of 72 years is the second-longest for a British monarch; only Queen Victoria has reigned longer. Her Silver and Golden Jubilees were celebrated in 1977 and 2002; her Diamond Jubilee is being celebrated during 2012.

NOTE: Please make an ''urgent decision on this, as the article is probably having high turn over.

And  get the simple stuff right! In an encyclopedia, you state that the person was crowned. That is the important fact. Not the fact that it was the first one broadcast. Amandajm (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that she makes state visits and Commonwealth tours is not notable enough for the lead; that's what a head of state and the Head of the Commonwealth does. She was also the first British, Australian, Canadian, Jamaican, etc., monarch to do many things. Why single out a meeting with the Pope? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  01:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The Queen is the head of the Church of England. If you don't know enough English history to understand why her meeting with the pope is of enormous significance, then you should buy out of the discussion.  Her addressing Congress and the UN were also singled out as diplomatically significant.
 * Yes, Heads of State in the late 20th and 21st century do buzz off overseas fairly regularly. However, when Elizabeth II arrived in Australia in 1954, she was the first reigning monarch to do so.  You may consider this unremarkable, but her round of state visits is unprecedented.
 * Amandajm (talk) 07:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * By saying she became Head of the Commonwealth in 1952 and "crowned Queen Elizabeth II" in 1953 separates the two issues. It looks as though she wasn't called Elizabeth II until a year after she acceded. The important event is the accession not the coronation. She became Queen Elizabeth II in 1952 not 1953. "being the first to be televised" is unnecessarily clumsy: it's much simpler to say "was the first televised".
 * I agree with Miesianiacal on the head of state duties. All heads of state visit other countries and speak at the UN. These are not specific to her, and are basically covered by saying she's the head of an intergovernmental organisation and a monarch.
 * Similarly, her father and grandfather made Christmas broadcasts, and I presume her son and grandson will do so. These are not specific to her and are part of her normal duties. Most heads of state have annual addresses to the nation.
 * The claim that she was the first British monarch to meet the Pope is misleading, since Edward VII met the Pope, albeit when Prince of Wales, and there could be other examples. People will also assume this means the current pope, but she's met at least two others, and John Paul II at least three times.
 * Again, meeting heads of other religions is not unusual. As the Kings of Prussia, Hanover, Sweden, Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands are or were leaders of their national religions the British monarch has met many like leaders multiple times. They must have met leaders of other religions before, as shown by Edward's visit to the Pope at least. This would only be of interest if she was the first or unusual in some way.
 * The Council of Christians and Jews is one of many hundreds of patronages. I'd never heard of it until I read about it here. It isn't sufficiently important for the lead.
 * The exclusion of all mention of any criticism of the Queen strikes me as unduly deferential. We are simply reporting the facts: there was criticism, and there is popularity. DrKiernan (talk) 07:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

That proposed lead is absurd. A lead should be four paragraphs, so right there the status quo is better than your version. Taking the 1992 and 1996 stuff out would remove the only balance there is in the lead. While you insist on referring to it as merely personal and suggest that mentioning it is somehow cruel and "scandalous", not mentioning events (and her handling of them) that hugely affected how the public perceived her and the monarchy would be the real scandal. Finally, I find it amusing that you imitate the one glaring absurdity of the current lead: the list of sixteen countries in the first paragraph. There is no reason those can't be dropped to a footnote, yet there they are. It's not like doing so would do what Mies is always arguing against, putting Britain over the other realms, since it too would be in the ref.

Anyway, instead of just spewing text as you do in the subsection below, why not consider whether it really makes sense to place enormous weight on relatively minor aspects of her reign and things that are already mentioned just so you can remove things that don't cast HM in the best light. If, after such consideration, you still feel the same way, you might want to think about whether your edits are really motivated by a desire to improve the article in line with the principles of Wikipedia or if it is actually a misplaced, though admirable, expression of a positive bias toward the Queen. Such bias is common here, and many of us have to work hard to overcome it and still come up short. Removing 1992 and the death of Diana from the lead shows you either are not trying or are failing massively. -Rrius (talk) 13:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Amandajm, if you want to shorten the intro - then go with "Queen consort regnant of the United Kingdom and the 15 other Commonwealth realms". GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Queen "consort".....!!??? GD, please try to engage a brain cell or two before you post.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not a nice thing to post, Ghmyrtle. GoodDay (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Why isn't her husband a "King consort"? Just curious. 198.151.130.36 (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Deleted stuff from the intro that is 20 years out of date
This article is about a living person. The material that I have deleted is very well sourced, and no doubt accurate. It is certainly not libellous.
 * It is, however, scandalous and its prominence in the introduction brings Wikipedia down to the level of a scandalrag, and implies that Wikipdia editors have the minds of paparazzi.
 * It is discourteous.
 * It is cruel.
 * It says a little about "popularity" but nothing about the business of being head of state.

Sixty years reign, and you lot, by consensus (as I have been reminded) agree to that sort of muck as a reasonable introduction to her achievements?

Can't you find anything more meaningful to say in the lead, than that two of this head-of-state's children divorced and that a particular year twenty years ago was a very distressing one?

Does her continued popularity in 2012 count for nothing? Does the fact that, in her 80s, she is still performing a lot of state functions not impress?

The only real criticism of her in 60 years was her failure to weep openly for a daughter-in-law. Oh, yes, and people who have no idea how the income of the Royal Estate feeds into the public purse like to whinge about her wealth.

What else? Sixty years later she is still smiling, still dignified and still above reproach.

So how about you editors of this page form a consensus as to the most meaningful way to express this, and get it up fast because you have already missed to date of accession.

Amandajm (talk) 08:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Just found your message.
 * I am not suggesting that you delete all criticism.
 * I am suggesting that in the intro you give a potted history of:


 * State functions. What does she DO as queen?
 * Challenges such as wars/conflict
 * Challenges to the monarchy such as republicanism

Yes, she is patron of countless organisations, but her role as Head of the Church of England is part of her role as Monarch. Being patron of the Council for Christians and Jews is of singular importance in terms of inter-faith dialogue. It is much more significant than being patron of a charity or hospital. It is a seriously diplomatic role, which is non-political. Amandajm (talk) 08:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But the article is not about the functions of a queen. It is about Elizabeth personally. The focus should be on her rather than the offices she holds.
 * The lead does point out that many of her realms are now republics.
 * If the Council of Christians and Jews was important, then her biographers would discuss, or at least mention, it. They don't. The source you've given is the Council itself. If it was important, there should be independent third-party coverage. DrKiernan (talk) 08:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you looked?


 * THis article is not called Personal life of Queen Elizabeth ii
 * Get real! This is what she does.  State her achievements.
 * Are you telling me that being the first British monarch to address US Congress isn't just a tad important?
 * That being the first British Monarch to speak at the UN, when it is usually done by a delegate, isn't important?
 * That after the Henry VIII debacle, going to Rome to meet the pope (whatever pope) wasn't important?
 * I'm going to say this again. If you don't know how extraordinarily significant the Queen's meeting with "the pope" was, then you should not presume to dictate what goes into the introduction of this article.
 * Amandajm (talk) 08:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

OVER and OUT. I'm cooking dinner. Amandajm (talk) 08:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have looked. I've read thirteen of the books listed in the bibliography. I've a good idea of what's in them. DrKiernan (talk) 08:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * So, having read the thirteen books, you truly feel that the divorces and fire of 1992, and Diana's subsequent death are the events which best give a holistic picture of the Queen's life?
 * Can't you come up with a better summary than that? Can't you take on board that someone is pointing out to you that this could be better dealt with?
 * It bother's me the way you keep saying "That is what heads-of-state do". It is as if you don't perceive a difference between the role of Monarch and the role of President or Prime Minister. The Queen isn't obliged to do all the traipsing around that she does. She isn't expected to address the UN.  She could please herself. Queen Victoria simple disappeared from the public eye and had to be coaxed out of hiding.
 * Many books about the Queen and Royal family focus on personal issues. It is what the public are hungry for.  But this is an encyclopedia.
 * What she actually does day after day might not seem remarkable to you, if you imagine that her father did all the same things, and that this is simply what Monarchs do. It certainly wasn't. George VI and Elizabeth II changed the way that the monarchy related to the people.   George changed it because he saw the war-time need and went out to comfort people.  Elizabeth, for the first time, took the monarchy out to as many parts of her realm as she could manage. She introduced the "walkabout", the word borrowed from Australian Aboriginal pidgin.
 * Other heads of state don't go visiting other countries for quite the same purpose. She is the head of the Commonwealth.  She is the Queen of many of the countries she visits.


 * Understand this, I am not insisting on the exact wording of anything I have written. As long as the meaning is correct and the grammar is accurate, I am happy. If you want an explanation as to "which pope" or "why it was important" or define the niceties of the coronation date, so be it.
 * It is the content that concerns me.
 * I am absolutely certain that a more telling introduction to the life and vocation of the Queen could be written than a mere rehash of the worst episodes of her family life,twenty years past, which are fully dealt with below, (in almost identical detail) and repeated in another article called Annus Horribilis. Isn't that labouring it quite enough?  Has nothing happened in the last twenty years?
 * Why don't you stop arguing and fix it? Do you remember that worthy advice that Prince Philip gave the British nation, all those many years ago?
 * Amandajm (talk) 10:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Having had a look again at the intro, I do wonder if there is a bit too much focus on what Elizabeth's children did in one period of her life. (Though, Amandajm could point it out with a little less hyperventilation.) I understand it's providing background to the "annus horribilis" statement; but, shouldn't that detail remain in the article body?

The lead could maybe be trimmed down to something like the following:


 * ''Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is the constitutional monarch of 16 sovereign states known as the Commonwealth realms, head of the 54 member Commonwealth of Nations, and, as the British monarch only, Supreme Governor of the Church of England.


 * ''Elizabeth was born in London and educated privately at home. Her father acceded to the throne as George VI in 1936, on the abdication of his brother, Edward VIII. She began to undertake public duties during the Second World War, in which she served in the Auxiliary Territorial Service. When her father died in 1952, she became Head of the Commonwealth and queen regnant of seven independent Commonwealth countries: the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon, her coronation being the first to be televised. Between 1956 and 1992, the number of her realms varied as territories gained independence and some realms became republics. Today, in addition to the first four aforementioned countries, Elizabeth is Queen of Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis.


 * In 1947 she married Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, with whom she has four children: Charles, Anne, Andrew, and Edward. In 1992, which Elizabeth termed her annus horribilis'' ("horrible year"), Windsor Castle was damaged by a severe fire and her eldest three children's relationships ended amid fierce tabloid coverage. Following the death of Charles' by then ex-wife, Diana, Princess of Wales, Elizabeth faced press criticism for remaining secluded with Charles' and Diana's sons at Balmoral Castle. Elizabeth's personal popularity rebounded after she appeared in public and has subsequently remained high.


 * ''Her reign of 72 years is the second-longest for a British monarch; only Queen Victoria has reigned longer. Her Silver and Golden Jubilees were celebrated in 1977 and 2002; her Diamond Jubilee is being celebrated during 2012.

This could allow for some more significant events in the Queen's life to be filled into the third paragraph, between mention of her children and her "annus horribilis" - a pretty long stretch of nearly 30 years. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I still prefer "her coronation being the first to be televised" to be a separate sentence as "Her coronation was the first to be televised"; maybe I'd drop "by then" before ex-wife in favor of saying the year, and try to force an unnatural use of "Charles's" instead of "Charles' ". But, clearly, these are personal preferences and very minor quibbles, not objections. Essentially, I favor the change. DrKiernan (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * How about beginning it thusly: "Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor...)"? What's wrong with including a surname? (So what if it sounds like Wendy Moira Angela Darling? it's still a name.) 198.151.130.36 (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Missing the point

 * Drop Annus horibilis
 * Look at her whole reign
 * 'Summarise with key points.

Like this:


 * 1) Pre-accession: Parents/born/father's accession/marriage/birth of children (C & A predated accession, include the others for brevity.  it's the intro)
 * 2) Accession/Name/coronation/TV,  state the fact of coronation. It was the most important State Occasion in her life, not the equivalent of what happens to an elected head-of-state.
 * 3) Duty/Achievements:  State the most important things that she has done/ most travelled/US Congress (NOTE:If you don't understand why the British Monarch being invited to address US Congress is extraordinary and important, then you shouldn't be doing this) /meeting the Pope (NOTE: state the name of the pope.  However, which pope is relatively immaterial. it was '"The ENGLISH monarch'" meeting "THE POPE" and that is the thing of historical importance. Likewise, if you don't understand why this was so significant, then you ought to buy out.)  This is her career.  You don't seem to get it.  Do you mention Einstein without the theory of Relativity, Leonardo without the Mona Lisa, Barak Obama without "first Black president"?  This article is about QUEEN Elizabeth. What does she do as queen? (Why are yo so determined to downplay her achievements? Is it simply because you can't bear to be told that something needs improvement?
 * 4) Challenges: Political problems within her reign have included/First Gulf War/Troubles in Ireland/Falklands/Recession and Unemployment (factory closures etc)
 * 5) Personal challenges: the divorce of her heir the prince of Wales, the death of his wife and his subsequent remarriage. (This is the major one because of all the political and religious ramifications. Forget the rest of the horrible stuff.  It was twenty years ago and doesn't belong in the introduction) Don't bother about introducing the "popularity" stuff at this point.  It is only part of the story, even if they did make a movie about it. State that Prince Charles is her heir.  Not everyone who reads this article will know that, or realise that these difficulties associated with a "prince" are of significance unless his status is clear.
 * 6) Personal challenges 2: Death of her mother and sister in 2002. Just mention, along with the other challenges. Don't labour it.
 * 7) Repubilcanism v. continued popularity/ summarise.  Don't go back to the Diana story dealt with in depth in the article. Just broadly state that there has been a Republican movement.  And also make a statement about popularity.
 * 8) 2012: Sixty years/celebration

If you don't find yourself able to summarise her Duties and Challenges then I am more than happy to do it.

Amandajm (talk) 01:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody's missed any point. Please go back and read my words carefully.
 * If you want to try and put together a summary, please go ahead and do so. However, you seem to already be quite selective about your "firsts". Why the fact she was the first British monarch to address the US Congress, but not the fact she was the first Canadian monarch to open the Canadian parlaiment or the first New Zealand monarch to open the New Zealand parliament, for examples? Also, the Queen herself seemed to have felt her "annus horribilis" was a pretty significant year in her life. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  01:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The Queen is the Queen of Australia and New Zealand. Opening parliament in those countries was certainly significant at the time but if she hadn't been there, there her representative, the Governor/Governor General did it on her behalf i.e. by proxy.
 * The United States...(do I really have to tell you this?) went to war to kick out British rule and rejected all notion of a "monarchy" in favour of an elected president. For many years there was continued hostility towards Britain and the whole notion of a hereditary head of state.  It is a big deal.
 * Re the Pope. (No, don't make me explain, Just look up Henry VIII, Act of Succession, Church of England etc etc etc)
 * In 1992 the Queen thought her horrible year was a horrible year. Does that mean it is still to be laboured? 2002 wasn't a good year for the Queen either. Get it in perspective. All the stuff about how she was criticised at the death of Princess Di is such old news, pumped up by the tabloids at the time,  that it doesn't need to be spelled out.  It is sufficient to mention the event among the challenges of her life, and expand on it elsewhere.
 * Create a balance/balance.


 * Amandajm (talk) 02:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What's so "laboured" about a single sentence?
 * I still think you're being highly selective of what firsts are important enough to be in the lead. You may think her address to the US Congress is amazingly significant, and it certainly is a notable event. However, others may think her other firsts were just as if not more significant. And, since we can't list them all in the lead to satisfy everyone, I think they should be avoided except maybe mention of the fact she's carried out many historical firsts. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  02:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with Amanda's suggestion. It still doesn't address my earlier criticisms. DrKiernan (talk) 08:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You want 4 paragraphs? Then combine the information to make 4.
 * The list is of material to be dealt with, not paragraph headings.


 * You don't know anything about British/US relations and why addressing Congress was so very important, then study some history.
 * You don't know about Catholic/Anglican relations and why the monarch meeting the pope was so very important? I have just had a long conversation on this subject with a distinguished Roman Catholic journalist who described it as "The most bloody momentous event in the history of the twentieth century monarchy. Don't these [........] know anything?"
 * Miesianiacal, I am being highly selective, because the list needs to be fairly short. Are you making the suggestion that none of these things should be listed, because someone might think something else is important?  You may find some other very important first that warrant inclusion, but trust me, opening parliament in a country where she is queen, instead of having 'her representative do it in her name is nowhere near as significant as addressing US Congress.  If you don't understand why that is, and you obviously don't, then it is your ignorance that is the problem.


 * Another important first is that the Queen is the first monarch to pay income tax.
 * Being the world's most travelled monarch/head of state is straightforward and easy to include.
 * Dr Keirnan, which of your criticisms remain unaddressed?

Amandajm (talk) 13:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Look at the first thing you've said in this section: drop annus horribilis. That is an unrealistic demand. It is clearly and obviously a seminal part of her reign. All her biographers mention it. Instead, you want to remove it and replace it with the relatively trivial point of the address to Congress. Every monarch since Edward VII has visited the States. Edward VII and George V before they became king; Edward VIII before and after being king; and George VI and Elizabeth II as monarchs. Other heads of state whose countries have been at war historically with the States have addressed joint sessions of Congress: Miguel Alemán Valdés, Celâl Bayar, Giovanni Gronchi, Theodor Heuss; and British prime ministers spoke there before Elizabeth. It is not something generally covered by biographers: Pimlott is the only one of all the sources in the article who talks of it. The lead should include the things that are the most important, the things that all the biographers cover. Not the things you personally think are a big deal.
 * I can see the value in Miesianiacal's proposal: it improves the lead by removing tangential information and a repetition, without introducing any new problems. Your proposal damages the lead by removing relevant content, and then worsens it by introducing material that is either unsupported by the sources or unimportant to the casual reader.
 * She is simply not the first monarch to meet a pope, nor is she the first monarch to pay income tax. This things cannot go in the article as they are not in fact true. DrKiernan (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Which British monarch visited the Pope prior to Elizabeth?


 * You are right. She was not the first to pay income tax. However, the fact that she volunteered to do it is worth mentioning.
 * With regards to the countries that the US had once been at war with, was there any country on your list under whose monarchical rule the United States had been governed, and whose rule they had succeeded in shrugging off?

None of this is about the Queen and it is all sixteen to twenty years out of date ''"Charles and Andrew separated from their wives, Anne divorced, and a severe fire destroyed part of Windsor Castle. Revelations continued on the state of Charles's marriage to Diana, Princess of Wales, and they divorced in 1996. The following year, Diana died in a Paris car crash, and the media criticised the royal family for remaining in seclusion in the days before her funeral.

This history doesn't belong in the introduction. You haven't given it any context. Context means that you make a statement like:


 * Personal challenges that the Queen has faced include the divorce of her heir, the Prince of Wales, and the subsequent death of his ex-wife Diana in a car accident. In 2002 The Queen suffered to bereavement of both her mother Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother and her sister Princess Margaret."

That is sufficient.


 * During her reign, Queen Elizabeth has lead the UK through a number of crisis and challenging events: The First Gulf War, etc etc.
 * Other challenges have included the growth of the republican movement in Britain and parts of the Commonwealth; criticism from the press, particularly over the Royal family's response to the death of Princess Diana; and criticism over the Royal family's finances which resulted in the Queen offering to pay income tax, and the reduction of the ....list

Make this stuff into as few or as many paragraphs as you deem necessary.

Insert, either before this paragraph about challenges, a whole paragraph telling the good stuff. The good stuff is her very considerable achievements, and the praise and honours awarded her. You want balance? The write balance! Stating that she is the Head of State of umpteen countries is not a statement of achievement. It is simply a political fact. (That is first paragraph stuff.) Stating that she addressed US congress is stating an achievement.

You also need a brief quotation that sums up how she is perceived as a monarch, because you cannot put it in your own words, yet it ought to be said.

That gives us:

Amandajm (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) name age and serial number
 * 2) Potted history: parents, father's accession (leave abdication for the body of article), war service, marriage, children (mention them all), accession, coronation, eight grandchildren, 60 year reign.
 * 3) duties, achievements, praise
 * 4) difficulties: of the nation, personal challenges, criticisms, outcomes
 * With regard to the source you've provided, we know the 1980 visit was not the first because she herself visited the pope in 1961. You're confusing state visits with the previous private ones. The Gulf War is mentioned in context in the article body; it certainly doesn't merit any further mention. Her role (even if you can call it that) in the War was extremely minor.
 * It should be obvious by now that you are not going to get consensus for your version. So, let's move on. We have an alternative proposal from Miesianiacal, which has drawn support from me, and which also addresses part of Rrius's criticism of the current lead (by removing the long list of realms from the first paragraph and breaking it up in the second). If we are to make any headway in this discussion, I think it will be made by returning to that draft, which does address part of your concerns. DrKiernan (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I did try to address some of Amandajm's concerns. And, as I noted when I posted the proposed re-write, I think there's room in the third paragraph to put a little more summary of Elizabeth's reign in; there is a thirty year gap both in the current lead and in my draft, jumping from the 1960s to the 1990s. The question is, what's to be put in there? Amandajm is being far too specific. I reiterate that some sentence like "She has performed many historical firsts" (which covers all, including the Congress address, Pope meeting, etc.) could be one to be inserted. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Response What you argumentative and purblind people keep doing is using minor details to argue the omission of whole concepts. None of you appear to see the forest for the trees. You will sanction a tweak, such as changing the position of a list so that it flows better (or perhaps less well if you have transferred it from discussion of real to more personal matters.)
 * Re visit to the Pope. You are perfectly right about the date of her first visit. It was Pope John XXIII who was the first pope that she visited.  (I had done a quick Google and came up with the wrong one.  So what does it prove? )
 * The fact remains that none of you appears to have the slightest tiniest glimmer as to why the visit to the pope of Britain's reigning monarch was significant! What planet are you coming from?


 * Re the Gulf War, are you arguing that the "first Gulf War" wasn't significant so we leave out any section on conflicts? Are you using the choice of No 1. in the list to discount the list itself?
 * Queen Elizabeth is a figurehead. She didn't decide to send her country to war but, by God, she feels the impact of it!  She is leading a nation that looks to her for moral and emotional leadership.
 * It is the Queen (and Prince of Wales and Princess Royal) who have confronted the grieving widows, the limbless servicemen, the jobless steel workers, the families whose children are killed in a landslide, the village whose women are blown up in an aeroplane. The Monarch of England is the parent that the people of the country turn to in times of strife or grief. (That is why her non-appearance after Diana's death raised criticism).  She doesn't instigate political events, but she deals with the fallout.
 * So: The challenges that she has faced as a monarch include: WarA., WarB, WarC, RecessionD, ProblemE
 * You write the list.


 * Other Challenges:
 * What impact did the events of 1992 have?
 * The Queen had a bad year.
 * a) Prince Andrew separated. This is of no serious or lasting consequence to Elizabeth as Queen. It is a personal matter concerning another person and doesn't belong in the intro.
 * b) Princess Anne separated. This is of no serious or lasting consequence to Elizabethas Queen. It is a personal matter concerning another person and doesn't belong in the intro.
 * c) Prince Charles, Prince of Wales heir to the throne separates from the publically-venerated woman who everyone anticipates will be the queen consort. There are political and religious ramifications if they divorce.  This is a real challenge to the monarchy.  It requires inclusion in the introduction, not in a sentence that reads "Oh God what a bad year that was!" but in a sentence that links it directly to subsequent divorce and death of Diana, and later remarriage of the Prince of Wales.  These are the events of lasting signifcance.
 * e) Damage to Windsor Castle State Dining Room, by fire. This is of no serious or lasting consequence to Elizabeth as Queen.
 * The problem is that with your very narrow focus, you have got yourselves one nice little Latin quotation that is so good that it seems hard to leave out.  But it is a summary of one year in which only one event was a lasting significance to the Queen as monarch, Charles' separation.  That single event of real significance requires a linear link to the two following events, not to your precious Latin quote.


 * You tell me that the Queen addressing US Congress is not important. Let me explain it again, gently.
 * The American War of Independence broke America free from British Rule. Although Britain had a parliament, it was a monarchy. The Americans rejected Monarchy for Democracy.  "monarchy" as such, had ceased to be valid to them.
 * However, they needed to continue political contact with Britain. Negotiation was through parliament, which the US acknowledged as Britain's decision-making body.
 * George VI visited the US, to establish goodwill. Any visit by a British monarch may be seen as "diplomatic". It is not "political" contact, regardless of the ramifications.  George did not address Congress.
 * Winston Churchill went to the US. He was half-American.  He was a politician. He was of oratorial renown.  He was invited to address US Congress.  How could they not invite him?
 * When Her Majesty the Queen addressed US Congress, it meant that the US had finally put aside any notion that a hereditary monarch could not be Head of State. The invitation was an acknowledgement of her role, and as such, it was  a healing of the wounds caused by the breach of the 200 years past.
 * If twelve of the authors of your thirteen books haven't worked this out, then they must all have their heads up their bums.
 * Quote the one who is sufficiently politically aware to see the significance.


 * Since you want to include a "quote" in the introduction, find one that sums up her sixty years on the throne, (or 80 odd years of productive life) not one that sums up a single bad year, twenty years ago!  Doesn't this make any sense to any one of you?
 * Amandajm (talk) 01:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC) (Thinks: It's time I called for reinforcements)
 * Maybe we should ask the monarchy what it thinks a good summary should be. Or would that be too POV? 198.151.130.36 (talk) 23:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Infobox, again
I note that User:Keivan.f has lately been changing the reference in the infobox "succession" field to "Queen of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth realm". This seems to carry on earlier efforts to get the same or similar into the infobox, which were subsequently changed twice. The changes remained in place for about about a month, but the last real consensus on the subject, for "Queen of the Commonwealth realms", was reached here some three years ago. That was implemented, but changed to "Queen of 16 independent countries" on the same day. It was returned to "Queen of the Commonwealth realms" in April 2010 and, from what I can tell going back through the article's edit history, that last version remained at least pretty consistently in place from then until Keivan.f's first edit last month. Besides the 2009 discussion, that lengthy existence gives additional consensus through silence. Do we need to revisit this subject? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The current version (title in italics above the image) does not comply with MOS:ITALIC and is inconsistent with all the other monarchs in this series, who use the "succession" parameter rather than the "title" one. DrKiernan (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Since Keivan.f has been active on Wikipedia since being notified of this discussion but has voiced here no opinion on the matter, I've restored the version described above and which stood for nearly two years before Keivan.f made his first edit to it a month ago. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Why? what was wrong with it? GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It went against consensus, as was clearly explained just above. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  18:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * DrK's compromise version was best, thus I reverted to that version. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Best in your opinion. That wasn't the conclusion reached in an earlier discussion on the subject, nor did anyone object for two years to that earlier conclusion. You've been around long enough for me not to have to remind you of what consensus is or that, even if a prior consensus is being challenged, the status quo remains until a new consensus is reached. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  18:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been in these discussions (here) & at other related articles, long enough to know that you're never going to compromise. That you're agenda driven. Therefore, you can do as you wish here. I don't have time for such BS anymore. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And you're agenda driven, too. So, perhaps we shouldn't start with personal attacks in place of a rational defence of going against policy and guideline? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  18:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

If we want to explore changes, I might suggest that "queen" be replaced with "sovereign" or "monarch", so that the phrase doesn't read like a title of some kind. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  18:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, queen should remain. If anything it should be as queen regnant. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * How about "Queen of 16 Commonwealth realms", replacing "the" with "16"? The former realms could either be marked as such or placed below the current ones with something like "Former realms" above them. -Rrius (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

List of Commonwealth realms in first paragraph
I'd like to discuss rescuing something that Miesianiacal suggested in the discussion above: namely moving the list of realms from the first paragraph of the lead to the second.

The current lead repeats "United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand" and "South Africa, Pakistan and Ceylon" and "Head of the Commonwealth", and starting the lead with a long list "makes for a dull introduction". Most recently, it was called a "glaring absurdity". By shifting the list, we can remove the repetitions and avoid a long list in the opening paragraph, but by shifting rather than removing the list entirely, we address concerns that there should be a list at some point in the introduction. DrKiernan (talk) 15:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It also has the advantage of much better context. CMD (talk) 15:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Still not good.
 * You have a paragraph here which is about two things. It combines personal history, in a chronological manner, with monarchical headship. this results in the clumsy sandwiching of the sentence about the televising of her coronation between two lists of countries.  I suggest that you separate the two.
 * Bundle the information
 * Use the correct terminology. Don't say "when her father died..." in reference to her becoming Queen.   It is either "On the death of .... in 1952" or "On her accession In 1952...."


 * Amandajm (talk) 12:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've no problem with changing to "his brother" or "On the death of" but I think your version replaces the repetitions I mentioned above with other repetitions:
 * "Her father acceded to the throne":"She ascended the throne":"On her accession"
 * "crowned":"coronation"
 * "Being...to be"
 * The lead should not require the repetition of points. By breaking up the chronological order, you're forced to reintroduce the accession, so we end up reading about it twice. DrKiernan (talk) 17:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I like DrK's proposal. Despite Amandajm's objection, I think the second paragraph makes logical sense. The only thing that doesn't quite fit is the fist sentence, which could be moved to the beginning of the third paragraph. In doing so, the first two paragraphs would be about the Queen as queen, the third about the Queen as a person, and the fourth a mop-up covering her superlatives. -Rrius (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If that's done, we should also move "She began to undertake public duties during the Second World War, in which she served in the Auxiliary Territorial Service." DrKiernan (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Think about the 'type of information which is contained in each sentence. Accession, coronation, (and the television) are narrative, and strongly linked to each other. The three lists of countries are essentially a new topic and could be part of a new paragraph, except that we are working on keeping the paragraph numbers down.  For that reason, repeating the word "accession" in the same paragraph is a necessary evil, in order to keep three narrative events together and three lists together.  The fact that the Coronation was televised interrupts what is otherwise a sequence.
 * You have here two sequences. They do overlap chronologically, but that fact alone ought not to be allowed to disrupt the meaning.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such, clarity in its construction is a major objective.  If clarity demands the repeating of a word, like accession, in order to create a meaningful list, then so be it.
 * Amandajm (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, you have a repetition of events, which requires, for accurate and appropriate reporting, the repetition of correct terminology. The fact that the father came to the throne, and then the daughter came to the throne ought to be reported using the same term, to avoid any confusion in the mind of a non-British reader. Was the process the same? Yes, it was. Then use the same term (the correct term) to describe it. You are not writing some precious work of literary genius. You are constructing an encyclopedia, where clarity and correctness are the essentials.

For clarity, state the important facts as facts, not as an intro to the events of lesser importance.
 * 1) She ascended the throne
 * 2) She was crowned (secondary fact: the service was televised).  You might think that the televising was momentous and worth mention, but the whole point is that the coronation was, of itself, the biggest post war public event for the monarchy.  It was the most significant public occasion in the Queen's life.  This is the event itself, about which I am talking, not the fact that it was televised.  The fact of the coronation needs to be stated.  Get it straight.  Repeat something if you must, but do it like you are writing an encyclopedia, not a news article, or a novel.
 * Amandajm (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * DrK does mention the fact of the coronation. Its being the first televised highlights the change in the world during her reign. All the same, the importance of the coronation itself is POV and too detailed for the lead. In fact, the lead would be just fine without any mention of it. Your other point wherein you suggest that the lists of countries are different topics is just wrong. It may be unnecessary detail, but it fits where it is. She became queen in 1952. What did she between queen of?—The first list answers the question. The coronation sentence follows on directly from the accession, and the following sentence continues the story of which countries she reigns over. If you really think the coronation sentence is terrible there, the answer is to bin it, not to discuss the coronation later in the lead. -02:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I (of course!) think that is an improvement on the lead; I added a couple of words that hopefully add a little clarity.

Amandajm did have a point earlier about the lead not summarising Elizabeth's life all that well; I note a fairly large gap, for example, between mention of the birth of Prince Edward and Elizabeth's annus horribilis in 1992. It seems rather difficult, though, to make a concise overview of such an eventful life. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Miesianiacal, I'm not suggesting that you drop the the list of countries, or separate them from the paragraph that they are in, OR that they are unnecessary detail. What I am suggesting is that you do not shove the 'narrative statement of the coronation being televised in between two of the lists which describe the sequence at which she became monarch of various countries.  I think that the sequences should be all together, for consistency.
 * And, yes, I do think that the coronation, being the single most significant public even of the Queen's life, ought to be mentioned in the introduction. Not the fact that it was televised, but the fact that she was crowned in 1953. (and that it was televised, if you like).  I know that DrK mentions it, as you point out.  But neither of you seems to comprehend that it is not "mentioned" in an appropriate or encyclopedic manner.
 * You need to state "She was crowned etc" not "Her coronation was televised...".
 * You are writing an encyclopedia. Make it an encyclopedic statement not a mention.
 * Why does the fact of the coronation need stating in the intro? Because State and Public occasions are a very large part of what the Queen does.  This particular occasion was the one of the greatest and most lasting personal significance to the Queen.
 * Amandajm (talk) 10:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It is covered simply by saying "Her coronation". You do not have consensus for this change because your argument is simply unconvincing. You ask "How many times do I have to make this point?". The answer is "Once". You do not need to reiterate it again and again and again and again and again. DrKiernan (talk) 10:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, DrKiernan, it is the manner in which you have "covered it" to which I am referring. That the Queen was crowned is in itself, is a matter of great significance.  The fact that it was televised is a matter of far lesser significance.   Make Queen the subject of the sentence and "was crowned" the predicate. Not her coronation the subject and "was televised" the predicate.    You are writing an encyclopedia.
 * Is it absolutely impossible for you to stand corrected, over the manner of expression? How little are you being required to give way, in order that this might be expressed in slightly more formal, and therefore appropriate language, given the momentous nature of the occasion?   DrK, are you expecting me to back down and tell you that it is "correct" or "appropriate" or even "adequate"? It obviously isn't any of these things.  So at the risk of repeating the word "ascended", "ascension" or "coronation", you need to change it.
 * Do you comprehend the difference that making "Elizabeth" (or "She") the subject of the sentence makes?
 * Do you understand just how enormously significant that day in the Queen's life was?
 * The implication carried in what you have written (and insist on maintain) is that if her coronation had not been televised, then it would not find a place in the first paragraph. Is this really your thinking on the matter?
 * Would you answer these questions? Amandajm (talk) 23:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Is it impossible for you to stand corrected? No.
 * How little are you being required to give way? A fair amount, since "was crowned" is less precise than "coronation". "was crowned" has other meanings such as "became queen", or even "was hit over the head", whereas "coronation" has one meaning only.
 * Are you expecting me to back down? No. But I do expect the discussion to close.
 * Do you comprehend the difference? Yes.
 * Do you understand the significance? Yes.
 * Do you think that her coronation had not been televised, then it would not be in the lead? Absolutely. It is the fact that it was televised that it is the noteworthy point here, because it is unique to her. It is the reason the coronation was originally introduced into the lead. The coronation itself is merely a repeat of the ceremonies that all (bar one) British monarchs have gone through. The fact of the coronation itself can be more than adequately covered by the date and link given in the infobox, as indeed it is on all the other monarch articles, unless the coronation is noteworthy for some other reason. It is notable for the lead because it was televised; it is not notable for the lead for having happened just as usual. DrKiernan (talk) 09:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This goes to more than just the coronation itself; it points to the manner in which Queen Elizabeth II redefined the role of the monarchy in the second half of the 20th century. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * .......was crowned" is less precise than "coronation". "was crowned" has other meanings such as "became queen", or even "was hit over the head", whereas "coronation" has one meaning only.
 * DrKIernan, this is truly the most piss-weak and utterly brainless excuse that has yet been presented as an argument for not making an appropriate change!
 * It has been commented below that you are "agenda driven"? What then is your agenda?  It plainly isn't rational co-operation!
 * Let me assure you that even the most ignorant reader, when reading about a King or Queen "being crowned" gets a picture in their otherwise uncomprehending mind of some dude in a brocade robe putting a big gold crown on the royal-person's head, while they sit on a gold throne. And then Everybody shouts "Hail to the King (or Queen as the case may be)"  Generally three times. And the trumpets sound and the choir sings and the talking donkey does what talking donkeys do.
 * To the average reader, "The Queen was crowned on ..... 1953" is more comprehensible than "Her coronation took place on ..... 1953". And it is correct.
 * However, if you really believe that, within the context of this article, having stated the date at which she became queen already, "She was crowned..."  could possibly mean "became queen" or "was hit on the head", then do try one of the following:
 * "Elizabeth's coronation took place on (date) and .........."
 * "The coronation of Queen Elizabeth II took place on (date) and ........."
 * The important thing here is to state that the coronation took place, or that she was crowned.   It is the event that is significant, not the matter of its being televised.


 * Amandajm (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That is where you are exactly wrong. For most monarchs, it is not a noteworthy enough event to warrant mention in the lead. In fact, through at least Victoria, the ceremony was generally only viewed only by assembled peers and churchman, and other important personages of the realm actually present in the Abbey (or other church). The only thing that makes Elizabeth's interesting enough to bother with putting it in the lead is the fact that it was televised. But for that, it wouldn't be there. In fact, that is why it was added. -Rrius (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * @Amandajm: No-one has said I'm agenda-driven. I am not piss-weak, utterly brainless, ignorant or uncomprehending. DrKiernan (talk) 09:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I opened this discussion, so I am now closing it. DrKiernan (talk) 09:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Retraction

 * Drkeirnan, you are perfectly correct again. It wasn't you that was accused of being "agenda-driven" by another editor. It was Messianical. Sorry.
 * And just for the record, it was your excuse for not using the verb "crowned" that was referred to in an unflattering manner by me, not your person. I acknowledge that otherwise intelligent people can sometimes make the mistake of saying extraordinarily stupid things.  I do it myself.  It was indeed stupid of me to get you muddled with Messianical and suggest you were "agenda driven".Amandajm (talk) 10:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Coronation
Cut'n'paste from above:


 * The important thing here is to state that the coronation took place, or that she was crowned. It is the event that is significant, not the matter of its being televised.

Amandajm (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That is where you are exactly wrong. For most monarchs, it is not a noteworthy enough event to warrant mention in the lead. In fact, through at least Victoria, the ceremony was generally only viewed only by assembled peers and churchman, and other important personages of the realm actually present in the Abbey (or other church). The only thing that makes Elizabeth's interesting enough to bother with putting it in the lead is the fact that it was televised. But for that, it wouldn't be there. In fact, that is why it was added. -Rrius (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This is one of the most illogical arguments I've heard yet. Here we have Rrius stating that the only people who viewed coronations were
 * Assembled peers of the realm
 * Churchmen
 * Other important personages
 * Those who were actually present inside the Abbey.
 * So the coronation itself wasn't significant until it could be viewed by the public.
 * Haven't we forgotten the fact that although the people didn't see the actual coronation itself, they lined the streets in thousands and cheered for the monarch.
 * So, Rrius, you really expect us to believe that it was the televising that made the coronation important?
 * Do you realise that even though millions and millions and millions of people are married, the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton is of enough significance to warrant an article?
 * or is it only significance because it was televised?
 * For you information, Rrius, coronations are considered such a significant event, in the lives of monarchs, that the event itself has been depicted in commemorative paintings hundreds of times. Here are just a few!
 * I also want to remind you numbskulls that Coronation medals are issued, memorabilia of all types are sold and in 1953, in the furthest reaches of far-flung colonies, people hung out bunting in the streets, and had parties.
 * I don't know where you are coming from Rrius, but I know how the Queen's Coronation was celebrated in my village in 1953, because I was there. Don't tell me that it wasn't significant, because you plainly don't know.  We didn't have Television until 1956, so no-one actually saw it, until the Newsreels were delivered by plane two days later.
 * However, Elizabeth's Coronation, unlike the installation of some elected politician or party representative, was celebrated by almost every single one of her subjects.    You could hear "God save the Queen" being bellowed into the darkness by drunken revellers all night.


 * Amandajm (talk) 10:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Queen Mother missing
The section "Golden Jubilee and beyond" needs to say more about The Queen Mother, and possibly also more about her sister, Princess Margaret, than just "Her sister and mother died in February and March". At the very least I would have expected more explicit linking as in "Her sister Princess Margaret and her mother The Queen Mother died in February and March". -84user (talk) 12:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The information on the Queen mother and Princess Margaret are well covered in their own articles. There is no need to rehash them here. "Golden Jubilee and beyond" is about the Queen's current and ongoing activities. Since they are dead the Queen Mother and Princess Margaret are not expected to take any active role in this.Mediatech492 (talk) 23:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

First paragraph
Yes, that again.

After a discussion on my talk page about this edit it has become apparent that the first paragraph is still confusing to some readers. The problem seems to be that mentioning "British monarch" separately misleads readers into thinking that the lead means "She is queen of 16 countries known as the Commonwealth realms, head of the Commonwealth AND the British monarch", so the impression is given that she's head of 17 countries not 16 and that the Commonwealth realms do not include the UK.

I might suggest removing completely the final clause of the first paragraph (about being Supreme Governor as the British monarch), but I presume that is not going to be acceptable (unfortunately). So, I'd like to suggest at least a rewording to:
 * ...is the constitutional monarch of 16 sovereign states known as the Commonwealth realms, and head of the 54-member Commonwealth of Nations. In her role as the monarch of the United Kingdom, one of her 16 realms, she is also Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

DrKiernan (talk) 11:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems fine to me except I always feel the uniqueness of her religious role attached to her position of Queen of the UK should be emphasised, to make clear she has no similar role in any other country. Hence, I earlier added "only" immediately following mention of her status as the British sovereign and would be inclined to do something similar to the proposed paragraph above. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ...is the constitutional monarch of 16 sovereign states known as the Commonwealth realms, and the figurehead of the 54-member Commonwealth of Nations. In her specific role as the monarch of the United Kingdom, one of her 16 realms, she is also Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
 * I've amended slightly. DrKiernan (talk) 13:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Why figurehead? The title is "head of the commonwealth" so why not say that? Lee McLernon (talk • contribs) 10:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought it addressed the question over what that actually means,, without going into great detail. DrKiernan (talk) 11:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Princess Elizabeth did visit Canada in 1939
From the article on Elizabeth II, under the heading Heiress presumptive - "In 1939 Elizabeth's parents toured Canada and visited the United States. As in 1927, when her parents had toured Australia and New Zealand, Elizabeth remained in Britain as her father thought her too young to undertake public tours."

I can attest that both Elizabeth and Margaret did come to Canada with the King and Queen. In 1939 I would have been seven years old. At that time my family lived at 66 Dufferin Road in Ottawa. Dufferin is one of the boundaries of Rideau Hall, the residence of the Governor General of Canada. I can quite distinctly remember being taken to see the Royal family as they rode through the city. Further, being so close to Rideau Hall, I also remember going to Rideau Gate once or twice just to see them coming and going. I believe if one consults the archives of The Ottawa Citizen or The Ottawa Journal for that time reference will certainly be found to their presence and quite possibly pictures too.

Fussyoldfart (talk) 02:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Darrell McDonald


 * I fear your memory is faulty. According to Higham & Moseley's Elizabeth & Philip: The Untold Story (pp. 66, 67), the King and Queen went with "their entourage, 28 carefully chosen guests and security guards", but not their daughters.  "The Princesses, dreading the separation, had to fight back the tears ... Guns boomed in farewell, and the Princesses safely returned to London.  ... The Princesses received daily radio telephone calls from their mother on board ship ... The King and Queen sailed home on the Empress of Australia ... arriving at Southampton ... The Princesses sailed out aboard the destroyer HMS Kempenfelt to greet them".


 * Conclusion: Elizabeth and Margaret did not go to Canada and the USA with their parents in 1939. --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  03:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Title before becoming Queen
Would Elizabeth not have carried the title Princess of Wales prior to being crowned? I was under the impression the heir presumptive was named either Prince or Princess of Wales at the appropriate time. Or, alternately, Princess Royal? Or was it due to the abdication that the usual pattern was broken since Elizabeth wasn't originally expected to become heir presumptive? I know she was called Princess of York, so was this used in lieu? 68.146.70.177 (talk) 18:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * She was never "Princess of York" [sic]. Her titles have been as follows:
 * 21 April 1926 – 11 December 1936: Her Royal Highness Princess Elizabeth of York
 * 11 December 1936 – 20 November 1947: Her Royal Highness The Princess Elizabeth
 * 20 November 1947 – 6 February 1952: Her Royal Highness The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh
 * 6 February 1952 – present: Her Majesty The Queen.


 * The title Prince of Wales has only ever been granted to males who are heir apparent, and their wives are called Princess of Wales. When it became apparent that George VI and his wife Queen Elizabeth were unlikely to have any more children, including a son who could supplant Elizabeth from the succession, there was some discussion about her being named Princess of Wales in her own right, but that never happened.  She could not have been named Princess Royal while her aunt Mary, Princess Royal and Countess of Harewood was still alive, and by the time Mary died, Elizabeth had been Queen for 13 years.   --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  19:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Why hadn't Princess Elizabeth held the title of "Her Imperial Highness"? Wasn't she the daughter of an Emperor and an Empress? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.11.51.68 (talk) 00:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Although George VI was the last Emperor of India, that title was specifically only used in the Indian Empire itself, and not in any other part of that Sovereign's realms and territories.Ds1994 (talk) 18:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

queen heir
what dose heir mean — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack93885 (talk • contribs) 08:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * See Inheritance. Scopecreep (talk) 08:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Objectivity
This article hardly passes as objective. It extolls the subject relentlessly while passively referencing her misgivings, tilting the article towards bias. As much attention should be given to her failings, of which she has many, as to her successes. I shall be quite glad to give reliable and verifiable sources. This issue may have been mentioned beforehand but it wasn't adequately addressed, perhaps its time to do so now.41.206.37.147 (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Great! Thanks for contributing. But rather than saying "this article is biased", could you give specific examples of information you think should be excluded or included? Look forward to working with you to make changes! NickCT (talk) 13:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Britain's colonisation of Africa could be a starting point. Although by the time she ascended to the throne the scramble for Africa had been on for some time, this doesn't belittle her influence over what she could have done to reign in some of the excesses of the colonial government. Granted, she doesn't, and didn't, have executive authority but her influence is undeniable. Some of the most notable cases of notoriety was Britain's colonialisation of Nigeria and Kenya which involved cases of exceptional British brutality. Details can be found here. It is interesting that colonialism has been left out in the article despite the fact that Britain continued colonialism in some cases twenty years after her ascension. It could be argued that it is after she became Queen that most British colonies were liberated, but this would be misleading as the majority of the credit falls to freedom fighters in the colonies and/or progressive British leaders. I cannot edit this in but maybe you can if you agree.41.206.37.147 (talk) 08:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * These comments misinterpret her role. She was and is duty bound to listen to, and accept the advice of, her political advisors, rather than take any decisions on her own.  By the way, you seem to have provided the wrong link.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So it's her fault when the British were brutal, as she didn't reign them in, but not when the British gave countries independence, where credit goes to freedom fighters and the progressive British leaders? That's not a strong argument even not taking into account comments like Ghmyrtle's. It's just as easy to say that she influenced the British leaders to become more progressive. CMD (talk) 09:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that here it is. So she was bound to endorse those actions then? I hardly think so. Even if Chipmunkdavis is correct in suggesting she may have helped shape later political ideologies, she cannot be completely absolved of blame or responsibilty.41.206.37.147 (talk) 10:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * She's not mentioned anywhere on that page. Your analysis looks like synthesised original research: taking one fact (actions of one person) and melding it with another (existence of another person) even though there is no direct connection in the sources. You need reliable sources for any allegations of complicity. DrKiernan (talk) 10:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, constitutionally she was bound to accept the advice of her advisors - that, is, British politicians and those of the other Commonwealth countries. But she is unlikely to have been told everything that was known to politicians at the time.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That she may not have been told everything ,as you say, or even known what had been happening is highly doubtful for a person in her position (Queen). It's not synthesis, I haven't drawn any parallel conclusions I was merely referencing some of the British excesses during colonialism.

I would also like to reference the Paul Burrell scandal, where she allegedly interfered in the case of a former butler the reason for which has been known to be dubious.41.206.37.147 (talk) 11:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What you think is "highly doubtful" isn't relevant, unless you can show sources demonstrating a close knowledge of the advice she received at different times. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough.41.206.37.147 (talk) 11:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * She did not "allegedly interfere". That is a misrepresentation of the sources. Burrell told the police he had informed the Queen that he was holding onto the property, but the police never interviewed her and none of the lawyers in the case ever contacted her. So, it was only after she saw newspaper reports of Burrell's testimony that she said "yes, that's quite right. He did tell me." In Burrell's view, she was the heroine of the case because by coming forward she prevented an injustice. Making witness statements is not interference; that is what witnesses are supposed to do. DrKiernan (talk) 12:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 April 2012
I don't think Elizabeth II's coronation was the first to be televised. According to http://www.birth-of-tv.org/birth/assetView.do?asset=BIRTHOFTELEV19001___1115651555931, King George VI's coronation was the first, in 1937.

74.105.174.163 (talk) 01:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The procession to the abbey was televised in 1937, but not the ceremony itself. DrKiernan (talk) 06:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Is Elizabeth II the proper article heading?
She's Elizabeth I of Scotland, after all, and some Scots at least get shirty about this. Paul Magnussen (talk) 21:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * She's not Elizabeth I of Scotland any more than she is, say, of Australia. A monarch's regnal number is a matter for the royal prerogative, and need have no real connection with the actual number of monarchs of that name who have reigned. There have, for example, been 11 kings of England/Great Britain named Edward, and 9 named Henry. ðarkun coll 21:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for filling a gap in my education. Who was the extra Henry? Paul Magnussen (talk) 22:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Henry the Young King. ðarkun coll 22:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Who are Edwards IX-XI? 101090ABC (talk) 12:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Edward the Confessor, Edward the Martyr, and Edward the Elder. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Should have remembered the Confessor. By the way, why aren't ordinal numbers used for these Edwards? 101090ABC (talk) 10:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Using ordinal numbers was a French fashion, not practiced by the English. When, later, ordinal numbers were adopted, the formula "since the conquest" was added. ðarkun coll 11:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Although subject to the Royal Prerogative, an agreement was reached with regard to ordinal numbers in relation to the Kingdoms of England and Scotland by an Order in Council of the Privy Council in 1952. It was agreed that the highest number would be taken from either list of monarchs from the Kingdoms of England and Scotland up to the Acts of Union of 1707. So a future James would be James VIII of the United Kingdom, or a David would be David III of the United Kingdom. Either way the Scottish nationalsist will have it their own way regardless of what is agreed.


 * As far as the numbering of Edward's is concerned, King Henry III very much wished for his son to be crowned Edward IV, since he reverred his ancestor Edward the Confessor and all the Anglo-Saxon kings, and indeed not only rebuilt Westminster Abbey in the French gothic style but also made the shrine of the Confessor the absolute hub and pinnacle of the building. When Edward became king he simply disregarded his father's wishes and insisted, in his inimitable and brutal way, that he should be Edward I.


 * Taking this one step even further (and here we enter the realms of fantasy), Henry VII named his eldest son Arthur Prince of Wales, and being imbued with the Arthurian legend insisted his eldest son be crowned Arthur II. Of course this never happened as Arthur died young, but it does illustrate the flexibility of the ordinal numbering system and the force of the Royal prerogative.Ds1994 (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't "of the United Kingdom" be added? - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 23:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Of the United Kingdom" was dropped in 2010 after years of debate. -- Ibagli ( Talk ) 03:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Records of Queen Elizabeth II.
Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: Queen Elizabeth II. is in 85 years and 60 years of the reign of Prime Minister witnessed the change of 12, 12 American presidents and the Pope as much as 6. Only three years missing to reach Queen Victoria and become the longest-lived queen in history. God Save the Queen! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.2.119.173 (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Supreme Governor
I think the second sentence of the lead: "In her specific role as the monarch of the United Kingdom, one of her 16 realms, she is Supreme Governor of the Church of England." should be removed. The lead paragraph should be for the most important points, but it is not a point of tremendous relevance. She is not known as a religious leader, and has no real power in the Church of England. The role derives from her position as head of state rather than something she is appointed to as a separate office. The sentence contains caveats that are repetitive and cumbersome. DrKiernan (talk) 09:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Diamond Jubilee portrait
Hi again, guys. I'm so glad this article made it to FA status, and I'm really excited for when it's featured. If any of you are interested, two official photographs of the Queen were released especially for the Diamond jubilee. I think this one could make a good infobox picture. The photographs are free for all non-commercial use, so downloading them onto Commons should be rather easy. They have watermarks, but I think those could be cropped out as long as copyright information is provided. You can find all that here. Rockhead126 (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Commercial use of the work must be allowed for images to be hosted on commons. Same here, it seems. DrKiernan (talk) 15:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Need to get in the infobox list of the governor generals in all the realms — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.201.47 (talk) 10:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That information's easily found in a number of other places and not at all necessary in this article. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)