Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 40

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2019
Change this paragraph: Elizabeth and Philip were married on 20 November 1947 at Westminster Abbey. They received 2,500 wedding gifts from around the world.[51] Because Britain had not yet completely recovered from the devastation of the war, Elizabeth required ration coupons to buy the material for her gown, which was designed by Norman Hartnell.[52] In post-war Britain, it was not acceptable for the Duke of Edinburgh's German relations, including his three surviving sisters, to be invited to the wedding.[53] The Duke of Windsor, formerly King Edward VIII, was not invited either.[54]

To this: Elizabeth and Philip were married on 20 November 1947 at Westminster Abbey. They received 2,500 wedding gifts from around the world.[51] Because Britain had not yet completely recovered from the devastation of the war, Elizabeth required ration coupons to buy the material for her gown, which was designed by Norman Hartnell.[52] In post-war Britain, it was not acceptable for Philip's German relations, including his three surviving sisters, to be invited to the wedding.[53] The Duke of Windsor, formerly King Edward VIII, was not invited either.[54]

Because: It's confusing to refer to someone by name then later on only by title in the same paragraph, especially in context of a wedding in which titles change. There may be other examples but this one was particularly confusing to me. 2601:600:967F:FF10:B9C4:C5CC:6796:6C3A (talk) 23:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done Highway 89 (talk) 00:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Introduction - no citation
Article claims Lizzie is popular - no proof of this, and it's not really universally agreed. Either include a source or delete the last line of the introduction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.78.74.123 (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Per WP:CITELEAD, citations are not necessary in the lead when the material is cited in the article body (4 polls showing support of between 75 and 90%). DrKay (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Title of this entry
Is there a reason that this entry isn't titled Queen Elizabeth II ?

Searching for Queen Elizabeth doesn't show this entry. Her mother is entered as Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother...
 * Quite simple. You add II after the queen's name, where's you don't after her mother's name. GoodDay (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

"Elisabeth I of Scotland" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Elisabeth I of Scotland. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

"Queen Daughter" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Queen Daughter. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Title and content is incorrect: Queen Elizabeth is not the II of the United Kingdom
Rather, she is Queen Elizabeth II of England and Northern Ireland, and I of Scotland.

Queen Elizabeth I of England and Ireland reigned prior to the Union of the Crowns (which unified English, Irish, and Scottish crowns for the first time). Therefore there can be no Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, because there has been no Elizabeth I of the United Kingdom. In fact, our current Elizabeth is Elizabeth I of the United Kingdom, if we wanted to phrase it that way.

While you may think this pedantic, the title QEII of the United Kingdom is an erasure of Scotland's independent history, and a historical inaccuracy given that the United Kingdom was formed upon the death of Elizabeth I, and not before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.28.69.5 (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry but the title is supported by reliable sources, millions of reliable sources calling her "Elizabeth II" it would be doubtful if you could find anything of the same strength that calls her "Elizabeth I". Perhaps have a read of Proclamation of accession of Elizabeth II and you will probably find that the Queen can call herself anything she wants and doesnt have to take any notice of previous names used. Note that the Queen of England and Queen of Scotland ceased to exist after the Act of Union. Pretty sure that Queen of England and Northern Ireland has never existed. MilborneOne (talk) 15:41, 29 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Queen Elizabeth II was both born and coronated after the United Kingdom was formed and England and Scotland had ceased to be independent countries with their own monarchs. Therefore she is Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom as "Queen of England" and "Queen of Scotland" don't exist any more. Elizabeth I of England, however, was born and coronated when England was still an independent country. So I see no problems with calling her Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. J I P  &#124; Talk 07:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Apparently, the current convention is to use the highest numeral. So if she'd been called Margaret, she'd be Queen Margaret II of the United Kingdom, despite there being no previous Queen Margaret I of England, as she would be the second queen regnant of Scotland called Margaret. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * More accurately, the second Margaret as queen regnant over Scotland. But yay, that's suppose to be the convention. To date, it looks like it's gonna be awhile before we see the 'Scottish' half of this put in action, per the next three British monarchs likely to be Charles III (no problem there), William V (some Scots will still complain) & George VII (no problem there). GoodDay (talk) 12:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Quite apart from the legal position (she can use whatever numeral (and indeed name) she likes - she could have declared herself Queen Artemisia XLVII had she so desired), it is perfectly normal for the numbering of monarchs to continue rather than restart when new crowns are created/merged/otherwise altered. For example, the second German Emperor was Frederick III, continuing the numbering used by the Kings of Prussia, despite the fact that there were no German Emperors called Frederick I or Frederick II. It would be incredibly confusing were the numbers to restart. We'd have had George I, George II and George III of Great Britain, then in 1801, George III of Great Britain would have morphed into George I of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. George IV and William IV would have been George II and William I, and Edward VII would have been Edward I (all previous Edwards having been Kings of England (or Scotland, if you accept Edward Balliol as a valid King of Scots)). George V would have started off as George III, but then (like the first George III) would have become another George I (the third in two centuries) in 1927, when the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Edward VIII would have been Edward I again, just like his grandfather. George VI would have been yet another George II. Schoolchildren all over the country would not thank you for that arrangement! Proteus (Talk) 12:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There seems to be an inconsistency here. If she really can call herself whatever she wants, what's stopping her from calling herself "Elizabeth I of the United Kingdom"? Of course, it might be that she just chooses not to. J I P  &#124; Talk 13:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Because she was already proclaimed as Elizabeth II before anyone made a fuss about this and the number was entirely consistent with her uncle, her great grandfather and her great great great great (?) uncle. She's also Elizabeth II of each and every one of her other realms, regardless of when they became independent countries or when separate titles were adopted or even if the places were even known about in these isles, let alone settled, in Elizabeth I's day. A lot of rationalisation has emerged to support this but most of this was an after the event thing when there were objections raised to "II" by some protestors in Scotland (which, IIRC, hadn't been seen with the Edwards or William but that probably says more about the growth of organised Scottish nationalism than anything else) and it was (re)asserted that the monarch can call and number themself what they like, with a rule of using the higher number worked out and announced but this was a retroactive justification. If a future monarch wants to call themselves "Ramesses Niblick III Kerplunk Kerplunk Whoops Where's My Thribble" there is nothing to stop them and they would bear that throughout the rest of the inevitable regency. Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Anyways, since there's no plans to change the title & intro to Elizabeth I, I reckon we're all guilty here of WP:FORUM ;) GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Children
Missing in the TOC: "marriage and children". -DePiep (talk) 20:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There are two sections: one called "Marriage" and one called "Issue". DrKay (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, marriage is in there. I was actually looking for a list of their children, heirs to the throne!, which is not in the TOC. What does "Issue" have to do with this? -DePiep (talk) 20:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "Issue" means "progeny", "all lineal descendants". DrKay (talk) 20:49, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 1 Move it to/near "Marriage" then, and 2 apply WP:LeastAstonishment: change wording. -DePiep (talk) 20:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't find it astonishing. It's also more correct, unless we remove all the other descendants and just restrict it to children. Also, I don't approve of repeating information in the Marriage section (of the first two children) in an immediately adjacent section. The current layout is common and consistent with other articles covered by WP:BRSG and more widely is common and consistent with many other articles about aristocrats. DrKay (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


 * In agreement with DrKay. GoodDay (talk) 21:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Problematic edit
I know nothing about Queen Elizabeth II, but this edit is no good. If you want to add the words, "One newpspaper article in 2006 alleged without proof that" to the Wikipedia article, you need to add a source that says that there was only one newspaper that made the allegation, and that there was no proof for the allegation. The source has to tell us that information. Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


 * No, buster, if you can be arsed to go read WP:BURDEN, you will learn that "burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material." There is ONE source given at the end of the sentence I edited, and that is what I referred to.  If you want to add the sentence back in as it was, the burden is on YOU, not me.  Textorus (talk) 01:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Hey, I'm just trying to help- let's make the article better. If the information is mistaken, then maybe the whole sentence (in its original form) doesn't pass for Wikipedia material. What is the source for the claim that "One newpspaper article in 2006 alleged without proof"? If you don't have that source, then you can't add that clause to Wikipedia. If you think the whole sentence isn't verifiable, then I would add a 'better source needed' tag at the end of the sentence. Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


 * See if you like what I've done now. Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Capitalization situation
Are we going to have the intro decapitalized as queen, while using King & Queen in the intros of the other British monarch bio intros. Not to mention the English, Scottish & Irish monarch bio intros? GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Speaking for myself, I didn't comment because I don't understand what's going on. Taking the two examples at the guideline ("Nixon was President of the United States/Nixon was the president of the United States" and "Louis XVI became King of France/Louis XVI was the king of France") and applying them to English and British monarchs, we would have "Edward was King of England" and "Edward was the king of England", but instead we have this article and others being changed to "Edward was king of England". It simply doesn't make any sense. DrKay (talk) 08:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I merely changed some of the other British monarch intros to decapitalized form, so this article wouldn't be out-of-synch. I just wasn't interested in getting into an edit war with, who seems uninterested in talking it out here (and on other talkpages) & instead has chosen to steamroll through multiple head of state/government bio intros. GoodDay (talk) 13:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Death claim
Is there any verifiable, credible source for the claim that she is dead? Culloty82 (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Likely not, as she's still alive. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * At this time, it seems to be Twitter drivel based on a hoax WhatsApp message. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  22:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the editor who claimed she was dead since this editor also vandalized Sandringham House recently, which rules out innocent error as an excuse. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  22:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2019
she is dead 82.43.169.236 (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No, she's not. GoodDay (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

G7 picture
Any particular reservations for me re-captioning the image of the Queen meeting with the leaders of the G7 in 1977? At present the caption does not make clear teh connection to the G7 meeting being held in London at the same time. At present the caption reads: "Elizabeth (centre) in 1977, with national leaders Pierre Trudeau, (Prince Charles far background), Princess Margaret, Takeo Fukuda, James Callaghan, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, Prince Philip, Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, Jimmy Carter, Giulio Andreotti, and Helmut Schmidt" It would read better as: "The Queeen, members of the royal family and leaders of the G7, London, May 1977. From left: Pierre Trudeau (Canada), (Prince Charles far background), Princess Margaret, Takeo Fukuda (Japan), James Callaghan (UK), Valéry Giscard d'Estaing (France), Queen Elizabeth II, Prince Philip, Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, Jimmy Carter (USA), Giulio Andreotti (Italy) and Helmut Schmidt (West Germany)."--Goldsztajn (talk) 11:05, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It should probably reduced down to 'Elizabeth with members of the royal family and leaders of the G7, London, May 1977' in the same way as has been done for the picture of her with Commonwealth leaders in 1960. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:17, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * My main concern is the recognition of G7 event (since that is the context of the photo) - happy with this formulation; would suggest including a link to the 3rd G7 summit in the caption.--Goldsztajn (talk) 12:17, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅--Goldsztajn (talk) 13:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2020
CHANGE (FORMATTING): to

EXPLANATION: BEGINNING of article: says instead of, leading to the whole non-included part being included. Mksas (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. DrKay (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Queen Elizabeth II on her Coronation Day.jpg

Longest Reign
Should there be added a line that she is the longest reigning monarch of multiple monarchies now that she surpassed Franz Joseph II?148.77.10.25 (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No. GoodDay (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Why not? 148.77.10.25 (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Which section would you put it in? GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * We'd need an explicit source first, since this is either relatively obscure or arguable (Louis XIV was king of France and Navarre). But there are enough superlatives in the article anyway. I don't see any added value from yet another record of longevity. DrKay (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

What makes the UK so special?
The opening sentence says "Elizabeth II...is Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms." The UK has equal status with all the other realms of the Commonwealth. So why explicitly mention it? HiLo48 (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Because, the UK is where she lives, thus no need for a governor-general & per WP:COMMONAME & WP:WEIGHT, she's most often known & described as Queen of the UK, via sources. PS: This is an old argument to which a consensus was reached over a year ago, to go with Queen of the United Kingdom an the other Commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Many of the inhabitants are special. DrKay (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Surprise to see an Australian complain about this, btw. It's usually Canadians. GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Looks like I need to clarify. My question was triggered by a reversion overnight of an edit to Commonwealth realm, by a relatively new editor, to say that the head of each realm is the British sovereign. I understand the technicalities around the matter, but the reason for someone wanting to make such a change is obvious. In many places, including here, the UK is given precedence when the monarch's role is described. So this is not a personal vendetta of my own. (Nor, I must say, a complaint, given the edit conflict I just had with the unhelpful comment from U|GoodDay above.) It's about making it 100% clear to readers that the monarch's various role are of equal status. Right now I can hardly point to this article as evidence of that fact. HiLo48 (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * We've got '...and the other Commonwealth realms in the intro & infobox, which shows that she's queen of those countries, too. GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Why, if they are all equal, is there the UK, and then the others? It's pretty easy to read that as saying that "the others" aren't as important as the UK. HiLo48 (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Because sources often describe her as being the British monarch. GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Then it's our job to make sure we don't reinforce that misapprehension. HiLo48 (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No, that would be original researching, to try & twist the sources into what we may want them to say. GoodDay (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think she has equal roles. Her role in the UK is more politically involved and direct than in any other realm. The realms have equal status, but the monarch's role in them varies from heavy involvement to virtually none. DrKay (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Politically involved????? Seriously? Because she has to show up for the opening of parliament? And read a speech written for her by the party in power?? Has no vote, no say, performs ceremonial roles only. Wouldn't call that politically involved. Odd wording *at best*. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B80B:6130:D5CF:6483:FFD1:1038 (talk) 06:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * She meets the prime minister weekly to be briefed on government business and has access to all government papers, the most important of which she receives daily in red boxes. If someone was to argue an extreme point, they could claim that she illegally prorogued parliament by using her left-over personal power to subvert the will of the elected house of Commons. Someone else could rejoinder that she used that power to impose the will of the people as expressed in a democratic vote, against the will of a recalcitrant parliament elected by a flawed voting system. She had the power to refuse the government's request to prorogue parliament. She had the power to advise the government that such a lengthy prorogation at such a time was unusual and unlawful, but she chose not to. She, personally, chooses not to exercise the remaining powers of the monarch, but it is her personal choice. Her predecessor, herself and her successor held, hold and will hold important remaining powers that can be used politically. So, yes, the role of the monarch is "more politically involved" [note the word "more" -- I was making a comparison between some involvement and weaker to no involvement] in the UK than in any other realm. DrKay (talk) 08:13, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Her powers in the UK are real, but essentially worthless. She can only realistically exercise power by threatening to use them, which would create a constitutional crisis. If she exercised some power - perhaps by rejecting a bill - then there is suddenly conflict, and the monarch as the notional head of the Defence Force, could create a lot of trouble and uncertainty.


 * It almost goes without saying that the government would prevail, but it could get very messy. Charles I could vouch for that. Edward VIII was the poster boy for constitutional crisis. As the king, he could have married Wallis Simpson against the advice of the government, but they would have resigned, leaving him without a government and a nation in chaos.


 * However, it is only in the United Kingdom where the power of the monarch is of any political significance. In her Realms, there is the office of a Governor-General to exercise the powers of the crown. In Australia, the powers of the monarch are almost non-existent. The monarch must act on advice and has almost zero discretion. 1975 was the test case. The power of appointing ministers is given directly to the Governor-General, and when Sir John Kerr sacked PM Gough Whitlam, that was something the Queen could not do herself.


 * There has been some discussion on this over the years, but the consensus is that the long-standing wording works, and we don't have to go into lengthy explanations in the lede, nor list every one of the Queen's many Realms. The UK is her predominant Realm, and that's all we really need to say. --Pete (talk) 10:14, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to be crystal clear, all of the above is consistent with what I said. DrKay (talk) 10:28, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * None of that addresses the reason I brought this matter here, which was detailed in my second post of the thread. HiLo48 (talk) 10:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, didn't England get there first? Didn't it make the Commonwealth? Didn't it . . . HiLo48 you cannot be serious. Eddaido (talk) 11:04, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You said you wanted to make "it 100% clear to readers that the monarch's various role [sic] are of equal status". The roles are not equal. Pete and I demonstrated that. There are, as far as I know, no sources for such a claim. The opening sentence reflects the real world and reliable sources. DrKay (talk) 11:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Try an example, HiLo48. Elizabeth II has opened the British Parliament almost every year, accept for 1959, 1963 & 2018. But how often has she opened the Australian Parliament, or the Canadian Parliament? Has she ever opened the Tuvalu Parliament, or the St. Kitts Parliament? GoodDay (talk) 14:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Another example: How often has Elizabeth II resided at Australia's Government House & Admiralty House? I betcha no where near as often as at the UK's Buckingham Palace, Osborn House, Windsor Castle, etc. PS - I'm still annoyed with the intro to Canada's Rideau Hall btw. GoodDay (talk) 14:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I am well aware of all of that, but as I said just above, none of it addresses the reason I brought this matter here, which was detailed in my second post of the thread. Yes, I'm repeating myself, for obvious reasons. HiLo48 (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We're explaining to you, why the intro is "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms". GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Anyone with half a brain would be able to tell that I was looking for broader help with Wikipedia than just the specific question I asked at the beginning. Perhaps I could have worded it better, but I think my second post explained the issue more completely. And you have completely ignored that broader issue. I was not trying to cause trouble with my question. I was trying to make Wikipedia a better encyclopaedia. Unfortunately, the goal of some here seemed to become proving that I was wrong with what they wrongly thought was a misapprehension of mine. HiLo48 (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We have a link to the other Commonwealth realms, in the infobox, to make it clear to less familiar readers. What more do you want? GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I want your help to make Wikipedia a better place. What I don't want is a bunch of smart-arse editors telling me things I already know. My knowledge in this area is not the problem. Did you actually read and fully understand my second post in the thread? HiLo48 (talk) 23:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I read your second post. You're concerned that the intro of this article doesn't convey enough info or accurate info for less familiar readers. IMHO, the intro does convey enough & accurate info for less familiar readers. GoodDay (talk) 00:16, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem to be working. HiLo48 (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We shall have to disagree. GoodDay (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What are we disagreeing about? That I told the truth in my second post? Do you think I lied? HiLo48 (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You believe the intro to this article isn't accurate or informative enough for less familiar readers. I disagree. GoodDay (talk) 02:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That comment seems to ignore what I wrote in my second comment. (This seems to have been a problem throughout this discussion.) HiLo48 (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with the intro or the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 02:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

"It's about making it 100% clear to readers that the monarch's various role are of equal status." At the very least, the monarch in the UK deals directly with the head of government, and she has all of the prerogative powers of the Crown. This is not the case in Australia, where the PM can advise the monarch on a very limited range of powers, chief amongst them the rubber-stamped appointment of the Governor-General. The monarch is unable to appoint Australian ministers, she is unable to prorogue Parliament, she is not the commander-in-chief of the armed forces etc. etc. --Pete (talk) 07:42, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I won't push this any further, but still insist that editors here have failed to consider all the issues I have raised here, especially in my second post in the thread, while telling me lots of things I already knew. I'm quite puzzled by this behaviour, but will go away and think about it. HiLo48 (talk) 09:38, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, what is your point? I looked at your second post, pulled out the statement that seemed most in need of correction, and addressed it. The only thing that is equal in the relationship between HM and her Realms is that she is Queen of each one separately. Queen of the United Kingdom, Queen of Canada etc. But her relationship with the UK is so very special and different that it needs special attention. She is Queen of Australia only because she is firstly Queen of the UK. If we Australians decided Liz was getting too decrepit, Chuck had ears that stuck out, and we'd do better with William V, do you think for a moment that the UK would follow suit? Or Canada? Or Papua New Guinea, or Antigua?


 * She lives in the UK, and every week she has the British PM in for a chat. She doesn't do any of that with ScoMo or Jacinta or the other ones. She's hands-on with British government, and lets the others do their own thing unless they jump up and down and tug at her sleave.


 * If your point is that you think Australia should have equal listing with all the other dozen Realms, just say so. A noble objective as an Australian, but everyone here seems to have addressed that point already. If you have some other point that everyone else has missed, then forgive our obtuseness and spit it out. I'm hardly the most perceptive of fellows, so help me out. Please. --Pete (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Pete, I have no intention of taking your bait. I've seen it all before. Goodbye. HiLo48 (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If I may make an observation: We say the crowns of the Commonwealth realms are of equal status, but is that really so? Isn't it almost truer to say that, for any one of the crowns, the other 15 crowns do not exist at all? For example, when she visits Australia, she does so as the Queen of Australia only, on the advice of her Australian PM only. If some crisis occurred in the UK while she was physically in Australia, requiring her agreement to some course of action proposed by the UK PM but not requiring her to return immediately, I suppose she'd have to temporarily abandon her Australian crown, assume her UK crown, conduct the UK business, then swap crowns again and resume her Aussie itinerary. But even this switcheroo would require, I imagine, the concurrence of her Australian PM. That's the only circumstance I can imagine where even the very existence of any other crowns is acknowledged by the PM of the realm in question. (Maybe the status of the Australian state governors gets us into that territory as well.)
 * Another point. When she does leave the UK to visit one of her other realms, does this require the concurrence of the UK PM, or is it treated as a private visit as far as the UK is concerned? Does it come under the same arrangements as would apply if she visited some non-Commonwealth country such as France, USA, Germany, wherever?
 * How do these musings relate to the point HiLo48 is raising? It seems to me that equality of status is a concept that only applies in relation to some external entity. But as there is no external entity here, just the 16 crowns, then it's better to talk of them as being sovereign, not equal. By analogy, the USA and Luxembourg are both sovereign nations, but it has no meaning to say they are equal (or unequal, for that matter) in status, in the absence of some particular context.
 * Now, even if we do stick with the term "equal in status", we should point out that that does not mean the Queen's relationships with her realms are identical. They (almost) would be, were it not for that pesky UK that seems to want to take pride of place. Like Margaret Thatcher, Britannia is "prima donna inter pares".
 * I don't know whether any of this gets us closer to addressing this question. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:58, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONNAME & WP:WEIGHT very much settle the matter. GoodDay (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * A catch-phrase/slogan such as "equal in status" does little to elucidate, and more to obscure. Here is a quibble about for any one of the crowns, the other 15 crowns do not exist at all:- when present in any one of the realms as Monarch, the Queen is also represented there in respect of the monarchy of every other realm by the several representatives appointed by each of those others. The Queen herself and all the others involved seem to be able to cope with this multiplicity well enough, and each of them can conduct the business of the moment in respect of this or that realm as occasion requires, wherever they happen to be at the time, even if one realm was in some dispute with another. Where a signature is required it will be the same, where a seal is required we may expect that the responsible officer will see that an appropriate one is used. Qexigator (talk) 00:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think JackofOz is on the right track, but not completely there. HM is simultaneously monarch of 16 realms, and she doesn't stop being the British Queen if she has to "switch hats" to sign some New Zealand warrant or whatever. She is also Duke of Normandy - a head of state position for the Channel Islands - head of the Commonwealth of Nations and a hundred other things besides. Honorary Colonelships and so on. All at once.


 * But all those things happen because she is the British monarch. Everything flows from that. If we said that she was Queen of Australia and 15 other Realms, there would be the most godalmighty outcry from a million offended Poms, and Kiwis and Canucks and so on, and rightly so. The longstanding wording works fine, and we've had this exact same discussion several times before. Perhaps we could make a note at the top of the talk page pointing out what the consensus is, and we wouldn't have to have it again? --Pete (talk) 06:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "The longstanding wording works fine..." If that was true, I would not have brought this issue here. HiLo48 (talk) 06:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I wish that we could make everybody happy, but sadly this is not the case. We have a consensus on the wording. There was an RfC on the wording, we have had many tedious discussions on the wording, and what we got works for a consensus of Wikipedia editors. You are entitled in yourself to grumble about it and be twitchy in your troubled dreams, but please don't be disruptive and raise the topic again barely a month since the last time. Merry Christmas. --Pete (talk) 06:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As is so common, you argue against something I haven't disputed, ignoring my main point (my ONLY point in that comment actually), and make your response personal. Bye again. HiLo48 (talk)
 * Well, what is your main point? It's not a secret, surely? You seem to be disagreeing with the consensus wording, and I can't understand why. It's not personal; I'd say the same to anybody seeking to overturn long-established consensus for no good reason that I can see. --Pete (talk) 06:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


 * In agreement, Skyring. The longstanding wording works fine & is accurate. We do need something at the top of this talkpage, to notify editors of the established consensus for it. GoodDay (talk) 06:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Accurate, yes, and I never argued otherwise, but not helpful to those editors who are confused in the way I mentioned in my second post above. HiLo48 (talk) 06:32, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What exactly are you proposing we change? GoodDay (talk) 06:33, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yawn. I have made my point. Clearly some don't want to try to understand it, keep arguing against something else, and telling me things I already know. I give up again. HiLo48 (talk) 06:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Very well, let's close this discussion. GoodDay (talk) 06:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * HiLo48's issue seems to be: My question was triggered by a reversion overnight of an edit to Commonwealth realm, by a relatively new editor, to say that the head of each realm is the British sovereign.
 * Yes, that highlighted bit is strictly untrue.  The British sovereign is the head of state of the UK only. The head of state of Canada is the Queen of Canada, not the Queen of the UK.  And so on.  I don't think we say anything to the contrary in this article.  If we do, please point it out.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  08:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not see "British sovereign" in the text of Commonwealth realm (and commenters here will be aware that such wording was carefully avoided/eliminated by editors), but this edit/undo on 31 January may be noted. Nor do I see a contribution from HiLo48 in the 500 from May 2016.There are recurring uses of "British" in the "Commonwealth realms" section "Royal succession" and "regency" which, perhaps, could be better said as "UK", while the use of British in "Dominions emerge" is inevitable. In some places British and UK are in the same sentence. The Notes include quotes that mention British Crown and  British law.. Reference 34 cites British Flag Protocol (for Commonwealth Events held in UK). Overall, it is less than credible that readers looking for information would be misled or offended by any of this. If an explantion is wanted, this may help Qexigator (talk) 09:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Looking at HiLo's complaint, I think he may have been triggered by the line about the British sovereign, which is certainly not one we would wish to keep, but his "It's about making it 100% clear to readers that the monarch's various role(s) are of equal status." presents problems to him. I don't think that they are, in any but a very theoretical sense; the Queen is Queen of Australia, she is also Queen of Canada, Queen of the United Kingdom and so on. The titles may be the same, but in each Realm she is given a different role through the wording of each constitution, and in the day to day relationship.
 * I think, in this article about the person of the current monarch, we need not examine constitutional niceties too closely; the best place to do so is in the article about each Realm, where the role of the monarch in the government arrangements may be explored at greater depth. I don't need to check each article, but I am quite sure already that the wording about the role of the Queen differs from article to article.
 * My view is that the current wording here is just fine. It has been discussed at length, and though every now and then someone proposes a tweak, it's handled through polite discourse and examination of the various options. I think consensus is that we may close this discussion - again! - and proceed on more productive paths. --Pete (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia has overall handled this topic quite well. See Lists of state leaders by age, List of longest-reigning monarchs, List of current heads of state and government, List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office, List of current reigning monarchs by length of reign, Head of state & Commonwealth realm. Where an article concentrates on the individual? we give prominence to the UK. Where an article concentrates on the countries? we don't give the UK prominence. GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I am pleased to see that some editors have at least finally noticed and acknowledged the problem I initially raised. It's taken far too long. I apologise for having no immediate solution for that problem, but it exists, and that's why I raised it here. Rather than just closing this off with some happy back slapping, saying "We all are doing a terrific job and nothing need ever change", and "HiLo48 is just causing trouble again", can anyone please actually suggest a practical solution to the issue I raised? HiLo48 (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There's nothing to solve. GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I must be super-thick. HiLo, is it possible for you to restate the issue you raised? I honestly can't work out what it is you want done. --Pete (talk) 06:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

One sentence paragraph?
Opening sentence instead of a paragraph? I understand that one sentence paragraphs are normal in magazines and news papers....however in academic writing this is not the norm. Centre for Applied Linguistics at the University of Warwick

"..as a guideline, paragraphs should usually be no less that 2 or 3 sentences long and there should be 2 or 3 paragraphs per page.." ( University of Leicester). In academic writing, paragraphs will usually consist of the “standard” 100 – 200 words (Burns, 2002). Smith (2004) supports this concept and confirms that academic writing requires longer paragraphs than those generally found in commercial writing or even story-telling.-- Moxy 🍁 00:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, but merging the second paragraph with the first does not make a good introduction. The first paragraph should define the subject; mentioning Elizabeth's WW2 service in the lead paragraph but not her accession or the defining moments of her reign does not make sense. I tried something else, but GoodDay objected. I do think that being the longest-reigning British monarch defines her better than being educated at home or being the mother of the Earl of Wessex. Surtsicna (talk) 12:59, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Those longevity records are cool, but we don't want to front load the intro & do so in a sea of blue links. GoodDay (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Got to fix this....just horrible from an academic POV......not to mention what it looks like in mobile view...WP:LEADPARAGRAPH is about a paragraph not one sentence, -- Moxy 🍁 13:56, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * In this situation, it's perhaps best to leave it as is. Loosening a bolt, will create a chain reaction. GoodDay (talk) 13:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 60%Of our readers see this.-- Moxy 🍁 15:27, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Whatever you can figure out, without Surtsicna introducing a sea of blue, is fine with me. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That "sea of blue" is already introduced. It is there in the lead section. Putting it in the lead paragraph does not make it any bluer or deeper. Surtsicna (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Just don't list the longevity records, in that manner. GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

To show or not show the 'last name' in intro & infobox
Why is Windsor being pushed into the intro & infobox? We don't show the 'last name' in this manner for British monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Both sources given, so far, say it's her name. DrKay (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not our practice to show a last name in the intro or infobox of British monarchs (or for that matter, monarchs in general). GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Obviously. Before 1917, they didn't have one. DrKay (talk) 18:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * We aren't using Windsor in the intros & infoboxes at George V, Edward VIII & George VI & so we shouldn't use it here. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Then add it there. You can see the full name of George VI at File:Full marriage certificate of Philip Mountbatten and Elizabeth Windsor.jpg and his and his father's full names at File:Full marriage certificate of the Duke and Duchess of York 1923.jpg. DrKay (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not the practice to use 'last names' in this manner, on these bio articles. Obviously, you & I aren't going to agree on this matter. So, it's best to allow others to chime in. Perhaps, RFC would be best. GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Under English Law the monarch has no last name. This is why all male line royals are known by their first names only. Letters patent state that her children may use Mountbatten-Windsor if they wish but does not proscribe a last name to the monarch. All of that aside unless you want to go through and get consensus to add Stuart, Windsor, Plantagenet and countless other names to over 1000 years worth of English Monarchs WP:Con is clear, it has to go. Natt39 (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * But we do refer to Henry Tudor, Mary Tudor, Mary Stuart, Robert Bruce, Geoffrey Plantagenet, etc. That said, I would like to see a source for your claim about English law. Surtsicna (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * England and Wales is a common law jurisdiction as such these things are dealt with by convention. However, I would direct you to the Queen’s birth certificate which is available publicly online which does not list a surname for either her or her father listed simply as His Royal Highness Prince Albert Fredrick Arthur George. I think we can all agree that birth certificates are a verifiable source for someone’s name, can’t we? Marriage certificates being a much newer document require that someone enter something in the surname box even if one doesn’t actually have one as such they will often adopt a last name for this purpose be it Windsor or Wales or whatever happens to be easiest. That does not mean that that is their last name. All of that being said, whatever you personally wish to call them, this is a matter of consensus and it simply isn’t there as such your “go and add it” argument falls flat. Natt39 (talk) 03:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You must provide a citation, because as I've told editors at this page before, her birth registration explicitly records her surname as Windsor. See for example . Your other claim that marriage certificates are newer documents than birth certificates is also wrong. Civil registration for both began in 1837, though marriages of course have been recorded for far longer in church registers. DrKay (talk) 08:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course, forgive me certified copy of the queens birth certificate issued in 1974  (Working on an iPad can’t quite work out how to get the image alone so you’ll have to take the whole page) I also offer newer birth certificates of the Duke of Cambridge’s children who also display no surname George,  Charlotte, and Louis  Ultimately though this is an issue of consensus I’m sure you’ll agree that it is important that Wikipedia entries are uniform and given that previous monarchs don’t include them and that the site is governed by consensus I argue that it must remain the same. Now as for the age of the certificates while you are correct that they were centrally at any rate introduced at the same time (Intrestingly it was Thomas Cromwell who ordered churches to maintain record, something I didn’t know before researching this) as far as I can tell the format of a modern marriage certificate is dictated by the Marriages Act 1949. Natt39 (talk) 11:06, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no surname on the birth certificate because the field is for "name, if any", not "name and surname". See these examples of birth certificates with no surname in that field:, . Uniformity is not more important than accuracy. Surtsicna (talk) 13:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It says Name, if any because there is no requirement in the United Kingdom to name a child before registering them. It does however require the ‘Name and Surname of the father’ which has not been provided. Natt39 (talk) 13:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

As mentioned in the RFC (below), the birth & marriage certificates-in-question required a surname. Elizabeth II didn't (and doesn't) have a surname, so she merely used one. She could've easily been named on those certificates as Elizabeth York. GoodDay (talk) 13:40, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The official website of her family says that she does have a surname, and specifies what her surname is, and so she could not have easily been named Elizabeth York. Surtsicna (talk) 13:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with GD and Natt. The Queen was born EAM with no surname on the birth certificate. Perhaps the wiki could say (born; EAM)? She doesn't need a surname, and it feels rather strange to refer to her as Elizabeth windsor, as if she is the same as the next Elizabeth windsor on the street. I am questioning why there aren't any other royals who have had a surname put on their wiki? The royals need a surname for when they need a surname. "Elizabeth Windsor" Is not used in any capacity other than documents requiring a surname, all letters signed by the Queen are "Elizabeth R" Putting windsor in makes this wiki look like it's been written by Americans! The Queen's kids, Charles's kids, and Williams kids all don't have surnames, even the wiki for Kate shows her as now not having a surname, seems odd that she has 'upgraded' and yet the Queen is still plain old lizzie w, don't you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesington (talk • contribs) 16:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Like most ordinary babies (with the possible exception of John "the Baptist" - according to Luke 1 v.13), she was born naked and without a given name, but, like other members of the royal family, with the surname "Windsor" according to the law of the land of her birth where her grandfather was the reigning monarch, pursuant to his declaration at the Privy Council meeting on 17 July 1917, and later her baptismal names together with her surname were entered in the statutory register in the local district.  Qexigator (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We should stick with the practice of 'not' showing any last-name in the intro or infobox. Why is this royal bio article being singled out. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The articles of all her children, all of Charles's children and all of William's children show a surname (in a footnote, admittedly). This is the only article of that sequence where editors are demanding that even a footnote be excluded. DrKay (talk) 20:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't object to a footnote - Elizabeth Alexandra Mary  (rough example). GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That is not clear in your comments in the RfC, which I believe are likely to be read by the closer as against any inclusion. DrKay (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Mentioned it in the RFC now. GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Seconded for footnote. There's a lack of continuity here, either give surnames to all modern royals, or footnote them, consensus is footnoting, the Queen should be no different. Her birth name is Elizabeth Alexandra Mary ONLY. For other articles it says birth name, if different..... This is different how exactly?Jamesington (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Howdy, come join the Rfc discussion 'below'. That's where the 'last name' topic has moved to. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Your claim that her full name is "Elizabeth Alexandra Mary ONLY" is contradicted by the numerous sources already cited, which state that Ms Only's full name is "Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor". So please start citing. Surtsicna (talk) 09:46, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Infoboxes for others of House of Windsor
A contributor to the above RfC drew attention to the question of surnames of other members of the royal family, and we may take account of all princes, princesses and commoners listed in the line of succession to the throne.

In order to add the Windsor surname to other bios where it should also be, some consistency in source citation would help in article improvement.

Briefly, the family's surnames at birth are as declared by the monarch and head of house, until the same or later monarch declares otherwise, as explained and detailed at The British Monarchy official website. 

Would that source suffice? If not, what else?

According to RS (previously referred to on this page) Elizabeth II's untitled male-line descendants are born with the surname Mountbatten-Windsor, and it appears that, when used, the surname of Elizabeth II's male-line descendants is Mountbatten-Windsor, except those who are one of her four children or others who are princes or princesses, and except her female descendants who marry. If so, the exceptions are the ones born with the title prince or princess, listed in the Line of succession as 1 to 6, 8 to 11, and 14, and they are the ones described as "one of her four children or others", namely, 3 Cambridge children, and 2 York daughters (before marriage). Qexigator (talk) 11:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It hasn't been decided yet, whether or not to use any surnames in the intros or infoboxes of the articles-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 13:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Quite so, the decision has not been made, but it was intimated by GooDay above that we should be mindful of his intent to put surnames in the other royal bio articles, and, like him, we need to consider how that would work in practice. Others may also see that as a good thing. Qexigator (talk) 14:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

When adjusting any of the royal bio infoboxes, it could be advisable to note the information available at the Deed Poll Office website. , to which another commenter drew attention in the RfC, as well as the Royal Family name page of the official website, also mentioned in the RfC. Qexigator (talk) 09:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Verifiable sources
The infobox for Charles, Prince of Wales shows "Full name Charles Philip Arthur George" with a footnote to the official website. The link is to a longstanding official statement that seems to contradict itself, by stating (emphasis added) that the Queen made a Privy Council declaration that excepted Charles and the Queen's other children, and others "with the style of Royal Highness and the title of Prince/Princess" , from using Mountbatten-Windsor instead of Windsor, but then, secondly, stating to the contrary, that all the Queen's children would have the surname Mountbatten-Windsor. If both parts of the statement are factually correct, it implies that the Queen has condoned deviation from the declaration (which she is free to do), and in practice the exception in favour of certain of her descendants using the surname "Windsor" is more honoured in breach than observance, or has lapsed completely. It may be that this applies in practice also to the surviving Princes descended from George V. So far there appears to be a lack of any verifiable source cited in the Wikipedia articles to enable this to be clarified or explained. Qexigator (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

If Prince William's facebook page can be relied on, he at any rate is using Windsor as his surname. Qexigator (talk) 21:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Assuming surnames derive from the Royal House, Charles could easily (upon succession) change it to (example) Mountbatten. Of course, since the succession has been updated from eldest son to eldest child, a change of House name is highly unlikely, as British queen-regnants will be more frequent then the would've been under the old succession. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I am wondering whether we are giving more weight to how the royals are calling themselves (which according to their website is nonbinding) rather than how they are called by secondary sources. Darwin Naz (talk) 13:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Given that how they call themselves formally and informally is always notable for this sort of article, irrespective of other sources, which tend to be inexact either way, however numerous. But what secondary sources would you invoke? Qexigator (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2020
could we please have an updated photo of Queen Elizabeth II, in the infobox, suggested File:Queen Elizabeth II on 3 June 2019.jpg, the previous has not been updated for about 5 years. 1.43.35.147 (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That's acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Interstellarity (talk) 15:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

As a constitutional monarch, she has not expressed her own political opinions in a public forum
This makes impression that a constitutional monarch is less likely to express opinion publicly, which is doubtful.--Reciprocist (talk) 10:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Top image
Why must we have a 5-years-old photo at the top? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Has she changed significantly since 2015? I do not think she looks much older. Surtsicna (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That's sort of my point. Remarkable now, which would be nice to see at the top. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You can always propose up-to-date images, here. See how it goes. GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No thanks. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)