Talk:Elizabeth II

Contradictory info in article

In the introduction it says She is the fourth longest-reigning British monarch, after Victoria (who reigned over the United Kingdom for 63 years), George III (who reigned over Great Britain for 59 years), and James VI (who reigned over Scotland for over 57 years).

Yet in the subsection "Health and reduced duties" it says: after which she became the third longest reigning British or English monarch.

I am guessing there are differing interpretations of whether Scotland is to be included in "British" here, but as an American reader, it appears to be contradictory. So, perhaps it should be re-worded. Tvoz/talk 21:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

She is currently the fourth longest. 4: Herself. 3: Victoria. 2: George III. 1: James VI. ðarkuncoll 23:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

In fact, Victoria is the longest reigning monarch in British history, so the list just above ought to be 4: Herself. 3: James VI of Scotland. 2: George III. 1: Victoria. Ondewelle (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

1. She's the third longest reigning British monarch, and the 4th longest reigning monarch on the British Isles. James VI reigned first in Scotland, and later as King of Great Britain, England and Scotland after the Act of Union. Thankfully, after October she'll be the third longest reigning monarch of Britain and in the British Isles, and so we won't need to make the distinction. Benkenobi18 (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Not correct when you mention James VI reigning as King of Great Britain as James I from 1603. The Act of Union between England and Scotland did not take place until 1707. England, Scotland, and Ireland were all completely separate countries with their own legislatures and Head of State until the Act of Union of 1707 (where England and Scotland merged to form the country of Great Britain, with the Scottish House of Lords and Commons being abolished. However, Ireland was not part of this Union, and contiuned as a completely separate country with its own House of Lords and Commons until the formation of the United Kingdom in 1801). So James VI ascended the throne of Scotland in 1567, and separately ascended the throne of England in 1603. Since he died in 1625, James VI & I (which is his correct designation) reigned for 58 years in Scotland only and 22 years only in England (together with 22 years only in Ireland). So his most enduring reign of 58 years is solely a Scottish one, NOT a British one. However, if you wish to use 'British terminology' here, you need to adopt the geographical (not political) terminology of 'British Isles'. However, even today this terminology is now avoided since, geographically, this includes the island of Ireland, which is not necessarily welcomed by the Irish! The formal reference used for the 'British Isles' in Foreign & Commonwealth memoranda is 'North West European archipelago'. So, to be politically correct, and up-to-date, if you wish to refer to James VI's 58 year reign in Scotland in a geographically (and not politically) British context, you need to rank him in reference to the delightful term 'North West European Archipelago'. So it is incorrect where it states in the article that Her Majesty is the 'third-longest' reigning monarch in 'British/English' history. In terms of the British Isles, she is fourth longest as noted above (1. Victoria 63 years as Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland 2. George III nearly 60 years as King of Great Britain and Ireland and then United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland 3. James VI 58 years as King of Scotland 4. Elizabeth II currently 57 years as Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). 'Third longest' is wrong factually within the context of the British Isles, and 'British-English' is terribly wrong in both political and geographical terminology from every angle you care or wish to mention!!!

Ds1994 (talk) 10:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ds1994 (talk • contribs) 10:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 

Nothing on protocol when meeting the Monarch.

Hmmm. I just heard a commentator on CNN says that there was "no protocol when meeting the Queen." So I decided to check here if Wikipedia had anything on protocol. What does everyone think? is it worth it to start compiling?

• For example you're not supposed to extend your hand out to shake the Queen's(or Monarch's hand) unless they extend theirs first.
• Michelle Obama did a big "no-no". You're really not supposed to hug the Queen or touch the Monarch in anyway outside of their hand.

I also thought it was funny they gave HM an IPod but she has already done quite a few Podcasts. CaribDigita (talk) 21:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If memory serves Her Majesty already had an iPod. As protocol isn't really a set of written rules, I don't think we need an article on it. However I do find it rather nice to see the president bowing to The Queen...especially as nowadays Brits aren't 'expected' to let alone foreigners. --Cameron* 22:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh, Obama bowed? He weren't suppose to, as he's also a Head of State (or as the US calls it, Chief of State). GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean, "as the US calls it"? Since when? -Rrius (talk) 03:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The President of the USA is described as Chief of State. I'm sure I read this somewhere. GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

He's also Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm very surprised Obama bowed. There was a minor kerfuffle when Ronald Reagan declined to bow and some palace official got his knickers in a twist about it; Reagan explained that the U.S. President is head of state of a sovereign country and does not bow to other heads of state. The rules about who should bow/curtsey surely do not extend to people who are not subjects of the Queen, and certainly not to heads of state. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I remember the exact opposite. Reagan did bow, which caused some surprise because the official protocol was for him not to bow (nor the Queen to bow to him). DrKiernan (talk) 07:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, one of us is mis-remembering. I wonder which one it is.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 09:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Who says Obama bowed to the Queen? I've only heard about his bowing to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. -Rrius (talk) 08:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You can see a video of the "bow" on the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7977618.stm . DrKiernan (talk) 08:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Concerning protocol for addressing royals -

• Nod, bow, curtsey... but never kow-tow
• THE WORLD; The President's Inclination: No, It Wasn't a Bow-Bow

What I find is not about Reagan bowing but Nancy refusing to do so...and the palace's official position is that there is no protocol for foreigners meeting the royals..please see this.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 10:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to distinguish between a formal bow and simply nodding the head when you meet someone, which many of us do, including the Queen herself — I have often seen her nod briefly when she is shaking hands with someone. Ondewelle (talk) 17:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Queen's dogs

Please can someone assist? What's the name of the breed of her Majesties dogs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.186.189.87 (talk) 10:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

They are called Pembroke Welsh corgis. -Rrius (talk) 11:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

See also HM's own dog breed (actually a hybrid), presenting the Dorgi...the result of her Corgi's liason with a Dachshund! --Cameron* 19:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

"of the United Kingdom"

Why does the title read... Elizabeth of the UK? Isn't she monarch of sixteen independent realms? Surely it should be: "Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth"?

It is unacceptable the title of this article ignores the fact that Her Majesty is queen of 16 separate countries. Regardless of the fact that she is mostly associated with the UK, that does not accurately reflect reality. I realize that simplicity is an issue, but an extermely large percentage still believe that she is Queen of England and not Queen of Canada, Australia, etc in addition to Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. As such, I recommend that the article be re-titled Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth. Some have previously stated that this is unacceptable because the title simply does not exist. Well, "Elizabeth II, ... Head of the Commonwealth" appears in all of her titles throughout the Commonwealth Realms, so this seems to be satisfactory and reasonable naming convention. Nonetheless, the present title "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" should continue to exist, but only as a page that is linked to the newly renamed article. --Jagislaqroo (talk) 19:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

A request to move the title, reached no consensus (see near bottom). GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

This comes up from time-to-time. "of the Commonwealth" would be rather in an invention, she isnever referred to as such. Yes she is Queen of 16 independent countries but the UK is where she is largely based, in the other 15 coutnries the duties and powers are exercised by the relevant Governor-General in her name. The article can only exist at one title, all the other relevant national titles redirect here anyway. David Underdown (talk) 10:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It would be alot easier if we could just have Queen Elizabeth II as the title, but stupid wikipedia naming conventions come into play. This articles name isnt as bad as James I of England though, he was the Scottish King and yet it is placed under an English title, very misleading and offensive. But wikipedia doesnt operate via commonsense sadly. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You have to remember that James I of England and James I of Scotland were completely different people. James I of England also happened to be James VI of Scotland, but we can't have 2 articles on the same person. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Archive 14#Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth Realms for a list of links to previous discussions. —JAO • T • C 19:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to end the "unjustice" and/or "offensivness". If historians tend to call one man James I of England more often than James VI of Scotland, why should Wikipedia call him the way we think is "fair"? Historians tend to refer to Elizabeth II as Queen of the United Kingdom much more often than as Queen of Tuvalu or Queen of Commonwealth (which is a non-existing title). Wikipedia relies on secondary sources, not on "commonsense" or "fairness". Surtsicna (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be James I of Great Britain? As for Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth, she's never referred to as such. Benkenobi18 (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Nope, it was James I of England and Ireland & James VI of Scotland. There was no 'Kingdom of Great Britain' during James' reigns. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and I see someone has done that with Anne so that it is Anne of Great Britain. Benkenobi18 (talk) 19:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, the 2 Kingdoms were united under Queen Anne. GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

James VI declared himself "King of Great Britain" by proclamation in October 1604, but the English Parliament refused to allow him use of the term in English legal documents. DrKiernan (talk) 07:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

cromwell

There is an error re. her being the longest running head of state - it says she will overtake Richard Cromwell in 2012...

can someone correct it please! Thanks. S —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.169.153.190 (talk) 22:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not clear what you think the error is? Richard Cromwell was Oliver's son and briefly acceded as lord Protector following Oliver's death and prior to the Restoration. David Underdown (talk) 08:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand, 94.169.153.190. In 2012, she would be the longest-lived British head of state. While R. Cromwell was only briefly head of state, he lived to a ripe old age. -Rrius (talk) 08:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that the whole paragraph containing the Richard Cromwell remark is a paragraph of hypothetical statistical matter of little interest which is well below the general standard of the Elizabeth II article. It reads

"To become the longest-lived British head of state, Elizabeth would have to live to 29 January 2012 when she would overtake Richard Cromwell. If Elizabeth lives until 19 September 2013, and her son Charles, the Prince of Wales succeeds her, he would become the oldest ever to succeed to the throne, surpassing William IV, who was 64. To overtake Queen Victoria and become the longest reigning monarch in British history, Elizabeth would have to live to 10 September 2015, when she would be 89. To surpass the reign of King Louis XIV of France, and become the longest reigning monarch in European history, Elizabeth would have to live until 26 May 2024, when she would be 98."

Let's delete this, please.

Ambrose H. Field (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Whereas others find it interesting, notable, and worthy of inclusion. Let's keep it in. -Rrius (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Could be shortened to:

"Elizabeth could become the longest-lived British head of state surpassing Richard Cromwell on 29 January 2012, the longest reigning monarch in British history surpassing Victoria on 10 September 2015, and the longest reigning monarch in European history surpassing Louis XIV of France on 26 May 2024."

Sounds good; it might be good though to include her age (89) for the middle one to help people calculate ages in their heads for the other two. -Rrius (talk) 08:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I found it difficult to put that into the sentence without it becoming confusing. So, I've put her age for the final one instead. DrKiernan (talk) 08:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Records

when will the queen breack the record of longest ruling monarch in europe? or even all time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.237.54.62 (talk) 06:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

See List of longest reigning monarchs of all time article. GoodDay (talk) 14:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Valid link for Prince Charles

In right side info bar. Prince Charles is not linked. Someone forgot to put the brackets around his name, therefore rendering it not hyperlinked to a subsequent page. I'd do it myself, but it won't allow me to edit even though I'm logged in. Thanks. Dferg47 (talk) 05:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

He is linked a few lines further up though, under "heir apparent". I guess that avoiding double-linking is why the one under "issue" has not been linked, although I wouldn't see any harm in the extra link here. (By the way, if you're interested, see WP:AUTOCONFIRM for the reason that creating an account in is not enough to edit this article.) —JAO • T • C 08:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Well done

I have just read the article for the first time today and think it's very good indeed. Why it's not a featured article is a puzzle, but thanks to everyone who has contributed to it anyway. Taam (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth the first of Britain

When King James VI of Scotland unified the crowns of England and Scotland in 1603 he became James I of Britain. Therefore really the present Queen should only be Queen Elizabeth I of Britain as the previous Elizabeth was only Queen of England not Britain. Neil MacCormick a Scottish solicitor famously argued this in court in the 1950's and in Scotland she should be styled Queen Elizabeth I. Stevephillip (talk) 14:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, he didn't argue it successfully. Convention is to use the highest number throughout the Commonwealth, so, although there has only be one Queen Elizabeth of New Zealand, since there has already been a Queen Elizabeth elsewhere in the Commonwealth, she is referred to as Queen Elizabeth II of New Zealand. There are several Scottish kings' names for whom the same rule would apply were there to be a monarch with that name. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

There is an article about the case: MacCormick v. Lord Advocate. The case was dismissed because the crown cannot be sued, and the numbering is a Royal Prerogative. Another point: King James VI of Scotland didn't actually became James I of (Great) Britain, although he wanted to be styled as such; both England and Scotland were independent of each other albeit in a personal union. He was James VI in Scotland and James I in England. --Joshua ^{Say "hi" to me!}_{What I've done?} 18:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Right, James VI was before the Act of Union (but after the Union of the crowns) - there was no united kingdom for James to be king of (despite his best efforts to claim otherwise, "Great Britain" remained a dream and the separate kingdoms of England and Scotland resisted his dream). "James" was actually the name I was thinking of: it's been speculated that Charles will be "King James VIII" - I'll see if I can dig out a ref (and if anyone can tell me why monarchs don't use their real names it would be appreciated!) Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• You might be interested in this Highfields (talk, contribs, review) 17:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Monarchs do use their own names. They use one of their baptismal names as their regnal name. The Prince of Wales's real names are Charles, Philip, Arthur, and George. That means that he could reign as King Charles III, King Philip (II, if King Philip of England is considered a monarch), King Arthur, and King George VII. Princess Beatrice could reign as Queen Beatrice, Queen Elizabeth III and Queen Mary III, etc. Surtsicna (talk) 21:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, they can rule under any name they want. The Queen could've chosen to be Queen Jane II — that would be within her royal prerogative DBD 20:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Nationality

Elizabeth II was the Time Person of the Year in 1952. What flag should be used to signify her nationality? I think that it should obviously be United Kingdom, but someone thinks that she has no citizenship and the flags of UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and every other commonwealth realm should all be used, which is excessive. The other was to use her personal flag, which is not representative of a country like for others on the list, so no flag would be better than that. Since she was born in and lives in the UK and likely has only a UK passport, I think it would be common sense to use that flag. What do you say? Reywas92^Talk 16:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It's true that the Queen holds no citizenship, or passport, in any of the countries of which she is sovereign.[1] This obviously makes Elizabeth a very unique person. I agree that 16 flags is excessive, to say the least, but also see that the UK flag alone is a WP:POV violation. If her personal flag is not acceptable as an identifier, then I'd suggest no flag is the best alternative. Either way, a footnote should be provided to explain the anomoly. --Miesianiacal (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The citation you provided does not support your assertion. It merely says that she has no passport. The Queen is a British citizen - she was born in the UK, as were both her parents, and under British nationality law she is, therefore, unequivically a British citizen. So the Union Jack is perfectly appropriate to identify her nationality. ðarkuncoll 07:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The argument you present is merely that: an argument. To avoid committing WP:OR, you'll need a reliable source to support your claim. --Miesianiacal (talk) 11:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, it's you who'll need to supply a reliable source - such as an Act of Parliament or amendment thereto - for the extraordinary claim that she was somehow exluded from the British Nationality Act. As I said, she may well be Queen of loads of countries, but her personal nationality is British. ðarkuncoll 12:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't claim she was excluded from the Nationality Act. I didn't claim she wasn't, either. Please be careful not to read into my comments things I didn't say. --Miesianiacal (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You did state - without apparent foundation - that she had no citizenship, which runs contrary to the British Nationality Act. It was a reasonable inference, and one TharkunColl was not alone in making. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You do realise we're dealing with a sovereign here, don't you? She's exempt from her own passport regulations, so what's to say she isn't exempt from her own Nationality Act as well? That's not to say definitively that she is (I earlier misinterpreted the Buck House site), but there's so far no source to say that it applies to her either. Further, citizenship and nationality are not synonyms. Further still, you're dealing with a sovereign of sixteen countries, not one, where concepts of foreignness and subjection come into play. This isn't a cut and dry issue, I'm afraid. --Miesianiacal (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

To be exempt from the Nationality Act of 1948 would require a specific clause in that Act, or a subsequent Act of Parliament. If you believe such a thing exists, you will have to find it (hint: it doesn't). In any case - not that it's particularly relevant - it wasn't her Act, but an Act of her father's. No clause excludes the monarch from the Act, and the Queen has not renounced her British citizenship. Indeed, quite the contrary - Philip was naturalised as a British citizen prior to their marriage in 1947 precisely so that no doubts, however tenuous, could later be cast on the Queen's Britishness, under the provision for women marrying foreigners of the 1914 Act then still in force. ðarkuncoll 15:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That still isn't a reference to support that the Queen's sole nationality is British. --Miesianiacal (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is. The British Nationality Act. It's you who needs to show that it doesn't apply to her. ðarkuncoll 15:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're asking us to prove a negative. Do you have any sources that state the Queen has any nationality other than British? A positive should be considerably easier to prove than a negative. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] Not at all. I'm saying proof is required to affirm that the Queen's sole nationality is British. You must prove that she is foreign to the countries she is sovereign of. A source was already provided that says she's not a foreigner of Canada, at least. In the absence of evidence that the Queen is a foreigner to 15 of her 16 countries, nobody can claim that she is. --Miesianiacal (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you're mixing up two concepts here. Citizens of Commonwealth countries are not considered "foreigners" under British law, and have certain rights that actual foreigners don't. It's at least possible that Canada has a similar set up. But whatever the case, being a citizen and not being foreign are not equivalent. ðarkuncoll 15:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you give me a pointer to that source? I've scanned the discussion but can't see it. I don't feel comfortable replying further until I know what I'm talking about ;-) Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed; sorry, I forgot I left the source not here but at the other symmetrical discussion that was taking place elsewhere. In this Federal Court ruling, the sovereign and royal family are twice separated from foreign royalty and heads of state ("In Canada, military compliments are paid only to the Sovereign, the Governor-General, members of the Royal Family, recognized foreign royalty, foreign heads of state..."[14.4, 23]), and says the Queen specifically is "more than a foreign monarch, she is the Queen of Canada."[14.5] Also, the Department of National Defence differentiates between the Queen and foreign heads of state and royalty here[pp.4-3-11, 12.2.2].--Miesianiacal (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

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

No worries! Again, though, there is a difference within the Commonwealth between "foreign" and "not a citizen of". The Queen is "not a foreign monarch" (indeed, she is Queen of Canada), but I can't see anything that states she is a Canadian citizen (I searched the PDF for "citizen" - it did occur, but not in relation to the Queen). As an aside, I'm not a foreigner in Britain; for example, I have the right to vote (as do all Commonwealth citizens). I am not, however, a UK citizen but a citizen of New Zealand. So far as I'm aware there is nothing in NZ law making the head of state (or any previous head of state) a New Zealand citizen, nor requiring that the head of state be a Kiwi. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

We're not talking about citizenship, though. The list in question places numerous flags for some individuals based not on their citizenship, but their nationality instead - Wallis Simpson (American and British), Pope John XXIII (Vatican and Italian), Pope John Paul II (Vatican and Polish). One user tried the solution of using the flags of all countries of which Elizabeth II is queen, but it was (rightly, I think) decided that it was a bit too much. Hence, the no-flag-with-an-explanatory-note solution was reached as a neutral compromise. I still see no reason why that compromise should be violated. --Miesianiacal (talk) 17:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

In terms of nationality, there seems to be a decent consensus that the Queen is British; I did think that nationality was far more clear-cut than citizenship, as we're all agreed that the Queen was born in Britain and primarily resides in Britain. The examples you list all seem equally clear-cut - Wallis Simpson was a US citizen who obtained British citizenship (or vice versa - was she British before she married her first husband?), Pope John XXIII was an Italian who became head of state of Vatican City, and likewise (via Poland) for Pope John Paul II. In the case of the Queen she was a British national before she became the British head of state. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

But of course she is British! I think one would have a very hard time proving that she is not. However, the question is: is she only British?

Not to get too OT, but was Wallis Simpson ever granted British citizenship? And is the Pope a citizen of the Vatican? If not, there may be parallels between popes and the Queen: head of state of a nation but not a citizen of it, could the Pope somehow therefore be foreign to the Vatican state? --Miesianiacal (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent - getting dangerously close to a different sub-thread...!) In the absence of sources saying she's a Canadian/Aus/Kiwi national, then yes, she is only British.

There already are sources to say she's not foreign to Canada; if she's not foreign to a nation, what can she be other than part of it? --Miesianiacal (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

If you're referring to the earlier PDF, it drew a distinction between the Queen and "foreign heads of state" - which is quite natural, given that the Queen is head of state of Canada. But regardless, I'm not foreign to Canada, either, but I'm not a Canadian national (or a Canadian citizen). Within the Commonwealth "foreign" refers to non-Commonwealth. I can vote - as a Kiwi - in the UK, for example. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The sources make no distinction between Commonwealth and non-Commonwealth, only Canadian and not-Canadian. The President of South Africa, for instance, though head of a Commonwealth country, would be treated as a foreign head of state in Canada. Heck, even I - a Canadian citizen - am treated as a foreigner by the UK. The Queen, however, is not regarded as a foreigner in Canada. As the Canadian head of state, not foreign to the Canadian nation, how can she not then be of Canadian nationality in the same way she is of British nationality (note: not citizenship)?

Regardless, as interesting a debate as this is, it's most important illustration is that there is doubt circling around the claim that the Queen has one nationality only. As long as doubt in the assertion exists, the assertion cannot be made with certainty. Hence, I say leave the list with no flag for EIIR, exactly as is done with other international persons/groups/organizations listed. --Miesianiacal (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

With respect, the only doubt seems to be yours. You've not provided any references stating that the Queen is a national of any country other than Britain. We can all agree that she's head of state of Canada (and Australia, and New Zealand): that doesn't - so far as the references thus far provided show - make her a national of those countries. Britain has had German heads of state before, for example.

(off topic) Would the RSA President be treated as a foreign head of state in Canada? In New Zealand Commonwealth heads are treated differently to non-Commonwealth heads (genuine question - I'm unsure how Canada treats the Commonwealth). As regards you being treated "as" a foreigner in the UK - you certainly won't be treated as a UK citizen would be, but equally you would have more rights than a non-Commonwealth (and non-EU - EU citizens trump Commonwealth citizens) citizen. You may feel you are being treated "as a foreigner", but as a Commonwealth citizen you have more rights than many other visitors.

At this point I believe there's consensus that (a) the Queen is a British national; (b) there are no sources claiming that she is a national of any other country - in the absence of sources I don't believe there is any justifiable doubt.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not see a clause in the British Nationality Act that explicitly says the Crown is bound by the act. Without such, it doesn't apply to the Queen. ([2] "Legislation does not presently bind the Crown unless there is express provision to say that it does." Also [3] "The general principle in law that statutes do not bind the Crown unless by express provision...") --Miesianiacal (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? When she was born, she wasn't the Queen, and was a subject of George V. If you think that her accession as Queen somehow deprived her of the citizenship she was born with, you really are going to have to provide proof of that. ðarkuncoll 23:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The act doesn't bind the Crown. (And no, she wasn't Queen when she was born.) --Miesianiacal (talk) 23:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Would it be reasonable to say, then, that everyone apart from Miesianiacal agrees that the Queen is a British national, by virtue of her having been born in and continuing to reside in Britain, and that there is no evidence to suggest that she is a national of any other country? Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 21:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, now that the proof that she is a UK citizen has been put to rest as invalid, we're going to start to create facts via the consensus of a minute group of editors? Wikipedia, does not work that way, alas. --Miesianiacal (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed not. You have posited not one but two extraordinary claims - (1) that the British head of state, someone who resides in Britain, a descendent of the first British monarch of the House of Windsor, is not British, and (2) that she is/isn't/may be/which way is the wind blowing? a national of one/some/all Commonwealth countries. You've offered no references to support either claim. Numerous editors have tried to explain why the few references you've provided don't state what you believe them to, with varying degrees of success. Right now there doesn't seem any doubt apart from Miesianiacal that the Queen is a British national; the onus is on you to prove a negative, not on everyone else to prove what seems crystal clear. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 21:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Please don't pull the focus away to trivial and inaccurate slander. You know full well that I have never contested that the Queen is of British nationality; I feel such to be true because as Queen of the UK she must be of that country's nationality. You, however, have asserted that she is only of British nationality, relying not on feeling, but on the British Nationality Act as the sole proof of this claim. You thus demanded the same kind of proof to show she is a national of her other countries. Now that your lone piece of evidence has been discounted, the bar has suddenly lowered? Sorry; either you need legislation or other official papers, or you don't. Do make up your mind. --Miesianiacal (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, so you do accept that the Queen is a British national. Do you have any evidence that she is also a national of any other country? Britain has a long history of common law and an unwritten constitution; Canada and other Commonwealth realms do not, and it should be trivial to find any laws making the British head of state a national of a Commonwealth realm. Again, the onus is on you to prove a positive; neither I nor any other editor can prove a negative.

On the subject of "trivial and inaccurate slander" I apologise if I have misrepresented your case, but it does seem logical when you - apparently - would prefer to avoid the Union Flag to infer that you doubt British nationality. I have found it increasingly difficult to follow your arguments. For example, the British Nationality Act is not "my" (it was raised by another editor) proof of this claim (a claim you state you accept, by the way), nor could it "prove" that the Queen is solely a British national - I find your comments here bizarre: the act covers British nationality; it does not exclude others. If, as you say, you accept that the Queen is a British national then the existence of the act is moot.

I do believe it is reasonable to say that (a) we all agree that the Queen is a British national, and (b) we (less Miesianiacal) are still waiting for any evidence that the Queen is a national of any other country. In the absence of any evidence I continue to find it reasonable that the Union Flag be used to represent the Queen.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 22:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Other than evidence that shows the Queen is not a foreigner of Canada, no, I do not have concrete proof that the Queen is a national of any country other than the UK. At the same time, there is no concrete evidence that she is a national of the UK, either. We're all, therefore, left with nothing but our own theories. Yes, I feel it to be a self-evident fact that she is British, and I feel this is so due to her being Queen of the UK. As this theory of mine can be applied equally to her other realms, I (and others) see her as being just as much also of Canadian, Jamaican, Australian, & etc. nationality. You (and others) feel it to be a self-evident fact that she is British because she was born in and lives in Britain. As this theory of yours cannot be applied to her other realms, you (and others) see her as being nothing more than British. We thus find ourselves having cycled right back 'round again to the point pretty much where we started: no real guidance one way or the other. In such circumstances in Wikipedia, it isn't up to us to invent fact, even when more people at a given time hold one opinion than hold the other. --Miesianiacal (talk) 22:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not asking you or anyone else to invent facts - we all accept that she's a British national (no theories necessary since there's no dispute, but the fact that she's descended from Britons, lives in Britain, and is head of state would - I suggest - strongly indicate that she, like her ancestors, is British), and there's no evidence that she's a national of any other nation. Guidance seems clear: use the Union Flag. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 22:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Without definitive sources it is indeed an invented fact to say she has no nationality other than British. Guidance thus seems clear: use no flag. --Miesianiacal (talk) 23:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, using the Union Flag does not explicitly claim that she has no nationality other than British. Secondly, how so? There's no evidence that she's a New Zealand national, and only one editor suggesting that from this we should infer that she might be. Without wishing to trivialise the issue, Barack Obama might be a Kenyan national, Leopold II might have been Congolese (and his sister might have been Mexican), but at some point it becomes reasonable to say: there is no evidence for this, it's purely conjecture. Thirdly, how it is not an invented fact to claim or imply (by the absence of a flag) that she has multiple nationalities (or no nationality, as the absence of a flag would seem to imply)? Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 23:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't claim such a thing, but it implies it; what other conclusion is a reader to draw from seeing only one nation's flag next to her name? Plus, there's no evidence, really, that she's a British national. I don't want to seem like I'm playing some sort of devil's advicate here; I do actually side with you in believing the Queen to be of British nationality, but, despite that, it really only remains our opinion. And we differ in our reasoning; yours gives her one nationality, mine gives her multiple. Who's actually right, then? Consensus won't tell us. Your third point is a valid one that I had given some thought to two weeks ago when this was being worked out at the Time Person of the Year article; I thought the explanatory note there - which doesn't mention nationality, merely sovereignty - was sufficient to explain why no flag was shown. --Miesianiacal (talk) 23:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I really don't believe that it does boil down to opinions: I doubt there's any reasonable dispute that she is at least a British national (she was born the child of a British father, in Britain, after her grandfather ditched a Germanic sounding name and announced that he and his children were British) and that there's no evidence to suggest that she holds any other nationality. This isn't opinion, all of this is verifiable. Since there's no evidence that she's not British (and plenty that she is), and there's no evidence that she's a national of any other realm, it seems to be less a matter of opinion and more of ... well, I don't know what forces you encountered at Time Person of the Year (and it probably wouldn't be diplomatic to speculate...!) Your compromise there ("No single flag is presented for Elizabeth II as she was in 1952 the sovereign head of more than one independent state") may well be appropriate (was she chosen for her role as a multi-national sovereign? I'd guess so?) but I don't think it would necessarily be an appropriate compromise across the board: on, say, an article about the various branches of Canadian government the Union Flag would be entirely appropriate rather than no flag. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 23:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] Well, it certainly isn't a conclusion supported by verifiable sources. You present facts, yes, but they're put together in order to prove a theory, and all that's being said is your evidence is better than mine - "she's born there" is better than "she's queen of there" (and if you want to talk about familial lineage, she's predominantly a German-Scottish mix, with many more thrown in). I could start to drag out the quotes where the Queen calls Canada home, and where her mother called herself Canadian, but, really, none of it is absolute proof one way or the other. Other contexts are different matters; in this one we should simply leave it blank and a note to explain why - it's not unprecedented in the list. --Miesianiacal (talk) 00:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

If you're happy with the Time... article as it is, so be it - it appears to make sense in this context. However, I remain concerned with both the wider issue, and with your accusations of WP:OR - the only facts are: there's no dispute that she's a British national, and there's no evidence that she's a national of any other country. Under the circumstances I don't believe it's WP:OR to suggest that she's (a) a British national, and (b) not a national of any other country - but I gather you think one or both of those claims is WP:OR? To avoid arguing around in circles could you clarify which claim you think is WP:OR? Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 00:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Please provide proof that she has any nationality other than British. How many times do I need to ask? ðarkuncoll 23:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Please provide proof that she has British nationality. --Miesianiacal (talk) 23:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

We can cite that she doesn't have a passport; beyond that anything else is currently original research. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources; so far there are no sources. That said, I agree with the solution outlined below - she is undeniably a UK national, and the UK flag is perfectly acceptable to represent UK nationals as well as citizens. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 14:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims do indeed need extraordinary sources; so, such a source is needed to confirm the Queen is only of UK nationality. There have already been sources presented that, at least, put the claim into doubt. --Miesianiacal (talk) 14:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Liz must have British citizenship. Surely, the UK 'head of state' isn't a foreigner in the UK. GoodDay (talk) 13:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The same would then apply to all other countries of which she is head of state. But all this remains mere argument, from all of us. We need sources, folks. --Miesianiacal (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources, anybody? I'm too lazy to look. GoodDay (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, and no time right now. So far as I'm aware, the only requirement for New Zealand's head of state is that they're not Catholic (the relevant law being inherited from the UK, rather than passed at Parliament). Bloody stupid law, but I gather the argument is that it would need to be repealed in all Commonwealth realms in order to get rid of it. I'd be highly surprised if the UK had any law specifying that its head of state had to be of a given nationality - if for no other reason than the UK has had "foreign" monarchs in the past, and it might be useful to have them in the future. Nationality is a relatively modern concept. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

The onus is now on those who dispute the Queen's nationality to find the clause excluding her from this Act - or, for example, to find an Act of, say, the Canadian parliament granting her Canadian citizenship. Good luck - you'll need it! ðarkuncoll 16:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That's still not proof that her sole nationality is British. --Miesianiacal (talk) 17:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

@Miesianical - the British Nationality Act only refers to who gained UK citizenship when the concept was created in 1948. Under that law she has citizenship. The Act and her place and date of birth are completely citable so the use of a British flag is supported. Other commonwealth countries created similar laws at the time as their citizenships were created. For example Australia's law gave citizenship to anyone born in Australia, having permanant residence there for at least 5 years prior to January 1949 as well as various family issues and special provisions relating to Papua New Guinea. There is no mention of the Queen acquiring citizenship. If someone wants to trawl through the acts and find justifications for any of the other flags then they can post back here, for now she only has one citizenship and that is British. The USA has a constitutional provision that the head of state be a natural born citizen. Commonwealth coutnries in general have no such provision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.212.36.188 (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It may have become muddled in the lengthy discussion, but citizenship was not the topic; nationality was. Nationality (as the Nationality Act illustrates, actually) is a separate concept to citizenship, even if the Nationality Act did apply to the Queen, which, as it does not say it binds the Crown, it does not.

Vote: Is the Queen British?

• Yes. By virtue of all Nationality Acts in force during her life. And there's no evidence she's anything else. ðarkuncoll 23:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
• I couldn't care less. By virtue of this being a rather useless dispute. All this useless original research and expressions of one's point of view is because of a tiny flag which doesn't need to be used at all? Aren't there more important issues regarding this article and many others? Surtsicna (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
• Yes. Her grandfather was British, and there's no evidence she or her father renounced British nationality. Equally, there's no evidence she holds any nationality other than British - plenty of monarchs have ruled over territories without being nationals of those territories. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 23:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment This poll isn't really going to achieve much as it won't prove that the Queen is solely British. --Miesianiacal (talk) 23:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Response And if you think she isn't, please provide proof. How many more times must I ask? ðarkuncoll 23:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
    • As many times as one must ask you for proof that she is a British national, I imagine. --Miesianiacal (talk) 23:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

      Well, you've never denied on this page that she's British, and you have explicitly acknowledged that fact. What you've argued is that she is not solely British. But now you're saying there's not any proof even that she's British? Get real, sir/madam. Just what is your position, Miesianiacal? -- JackofOz (talk) 00:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between fact and opinon. I've argued my opinion that the Queen is British, but never claimed it was fact. It is my opinion that she is not just British, but never claimed it as fact. What is a fact is that the evidence submitted to prove the Queen was British is not admissable. We all therefore remain holding nothing but our opinions. Is that clear? --Miesianiacal (talk) 00:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

No. There have been several pieces of evidence presented to prove that the Queen is British, and it's unclear to me that any of them have been found to be invalid. Taking them separately:

• The British Nationality Act, 1948. Enacted three years before the current Queen ascended to the throne, at a time when her father was "the Crown". The act may not bind the Crown, but it did bind all other British subjects (e.g. children of the reigning monarch).
• The British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914. Again, possibly not binding on the Crown but binding on all other British subjects (e.g. children of the reigning monarch).

So, it's unclear to me why these have been invalidated? The current Queen wasn't reigning monarch at the time either of these were passed - she was in the former case a British subject.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 00:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, your position is now clear, but, with respect, it's nonsensical. Do we actually need a cite to say that Vladimir Putin is a Russian national, or that Barack Obama breathes air, or that the Queen's farts stink? Extreme examples, I hope, but they're in the same category as what you seem to be arguing. We most definitely do not need a cite to say that QEII is British. We would need a cite to say she's a national of any other country. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The entire thing is becoming nonsensical because the usual double standard is being applied: some opinions are allowed to stand as merely that, while others must be supported with heaps of evidence, none of which is ever enough. I proved that the Queen is not foreign to Canada, but the logical conclusion that she is therefore a part of the Canadian nation was batted away as irrelevant so long as there was no source that explicitly said, "The Queen has Canadian nationality." Yet, on the other hand, while we've no source that says "The Queen has British nationality" (the Nationality Act doesn't apply as we're not discussing the Queen before her accession), her British nationality is none-the-less openly accepted as fact, merely because some grumble and nod amongst themselves and agree that her being born in the UK is enough evidence for that. Why the unfairness, then? Let's have all claims meet the same standards of verifiability.

I personally don't expect explicit, specific, impossible to find sources; I think that's actually counter-productive to this project. So, I haven't, and wouldn't, ever contest the British label being applied when the topic covers the Queen clearly in a British context; it's already evident enough that the Queen is part of the British nation. But it is unacceptably unjust for one to insist that the British label be applied to the Queen everywhere, regardless of the context, dismissing that the Queen’s inclusion in other nations is evident enough, and demanding as proof of any error on their part the kind of evidence they couldn’t even supply to support their own take.

The no-flag-with-a-note solution seemed acceptable to everyone at Time Person of the Year until Tharkuncoll took it upon himself to challenge that compromise two weeks after it was reached. If Knowzilla, Reywas92, Highfields, and myself, plus Surtsicna and you, TFOWR, all think that no flag is appropriate for the context, I can't see why this discussion should proceed any further. I didn't instigate this dispute, and I certainly am not going to start anything like it anywhere else. --Miesianiacal (talk) 01:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Bear in mind that I, at least, haven't looked in detail at the Time... case, and I'm assuming that the editors who did took reached a compromise specific to that case, based on the Queen's multi-national executive role.

I also continue to fail to understand why the Nationality Act doesn't apply: it was enacted when she was a British subject, she became (if she wasn't already) a British national, and her accession to the throne did not change that.

There is no double standard here - no evidence has been presented that the Queen is a national of any country other than Britain; evidence has been presented that she is a British national. I'm sorry if that seems unfair. I do appreciate that you worked hard to find a workable compromise at Time... but based on what I've seen here it's not a suitable general solution.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 02:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of what she was before her accession, the Queen is the Crown. The Nationality Act does not apply to the Crown. The Nationality Act does not apply to the Queen.

The only arguments that remain for why she is a British national are a) she was born in Britain and lives mostly in Britain, b) she is the descendand of the founder of the royal house of Britain, c) she is Queen of the United Kingdom. This is good enough to explain why she's a British national.

The only arguments that remain for why she is a Canadian national - for example - are a) she recognised by government as being not a foreigner to Canada, b) she is the descendant of the founder of the royal house of Canada, c) she is the Queen of Canada. This is not good enough to explain why she's a Canadian national.

That is a double standard, weighted heavily in favour of one POV, simply because it's the most popular. --Miesianiacal (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

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

The Nationality Act came before her accession. It affected her. Then she became Queen. The act of becoming Queen didn't strip her of her British nationality (or, if it did, I'm yet to see any evidence that that's the case). Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course it affected her before she became Queen. And of course it doesn't affect her now that she is Queen. The act doesn't bind the Crown. The Crown is the Queen. Where, exactly, is the confusion? --Miesianiacal (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Right, so the act was passed. Elizabeth became - if she wasn't already - a British national, as she was - then - bound by the act. She didn't need to be bound by the act once she became Queen, as she was already British. My confusion is in the suggestion that the act acted overtime, that it didn't serve to make her British at one moment in time, but that the act of becoming British was a continuous process in some way affected by becoming monarch. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

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

• Yes, as that's how the international community views her. GoodDay (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment, also the article is named -Elizabeth II of United Kingdom-. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Detailed examination of the Queen's nationality

Further to the above, the relevant points are covered here History_of_British_nationality_law#British_Nationality_and_Status_of_Aliens_Act_1914 and here History_of_British_nationality_law#British_Nationality_Act_1948.

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

The 1948 Act divided British Nationality between the dominions. All those who had been born in the UK and its remaining dependencies automatically became what were now called Citizens of the UK and Colonies. This included the Queen of course. ðarkuncoll 08:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it might even have gone back further than that. The UK Aliens Act 1905 was I believe the first act that separated nationality in the once unified British Empire. It allowed the UK to determine who could move to the British Isles. It give the U.K. the right to deny "Right of Abode" esp. in cases if a person was deem to be an "Idiot", "undesirable", or other reasons. That is seen as one of the first moves of separating the Mother Country and its inhabitants from the rest of the empire. CaribDigita (talk) 13:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there a way of contacting Buckingham Palace, for clarification? GoodDay (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Well there is a contact-us portion of the Monarchy website.[4] I can't see why you would need contact them? Is it to ask which what their nationality is? Or which of these Acts effects British Nationality? If it matters, the Queen pays taxes in the U.K. I doubt (although I can't prove) that she pays any taxes in her other realms? CaribDigita (talk) 03:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The OP refers to both nationality and citizenship in the question. It might be best to stick to nationality, as citizenship for a monarch is a tricky question we don't need to get into. That makes it a much easier question to answer: her nationality is British, and we don't need any expert reference to tell us that. Why is it British? Because she was born there, has lived there all her life apart from official trips o/s, reigns over the country ... What more do we need to establish nationality? That fact that she is also head of state of 15 other countries is beside the point. Her personal nationality is British. The flag of the UK is a symbol that can be used to indicate either British nationality or UK citizenship or both, so use it to mean the former only, and problem solved. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I've no problem with using the Union Jack, or calling her British. GoodDay (talk) 13:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Likewise. From a Commonwealth perspective, the flag "retains an official or semi-official status in some Commonwealth Realms, e.g. in Canada, where it is known as the Royal Union Flag". It flies over the flagstaff at Waitangi, for example, alongside the flag of the United Tribes, and beneath the Flag of New Zealand. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

My, my; a lot of people here seem to feel they're in a position to speak for the Queen. --Miesianiacal (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

My taxes (without my permission) pay for her Canadian trips. GoodDay (talk) 13:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I know! Just a while back someone was even claiming she wasn't a UK citizen! Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Ah, then we should label her as English. That's what she's most widely recognized as, after all. --Miesianiacal (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

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

My apologies, then. I did not infer that from your previous comments. --Miesianiacal (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a citation that she's been granted any other nationality than British - or, that she's been excluded from British nationality. ðarkuncoll 22:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You need only ask these things in one place. --Miesianiacal (talk) 23:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

So instead we must rely on unsubstantiated opinions on your part? Please supply some evidence for your assertion that she somehow lost her British nationality upon becoming Queen. In any case, see Talk:Time Person of the Year for my proposed draft of a letter to the palace to clear up this ridiculous argument. ðarkuncoll 09:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Even if MickMacNee's opinion was unsubstantiated (which it is not), yours is as well. Why is it you are immune from the demands of proof you place on others? And don't forget, by not being able to leave an accepted resolution alone, it was you who started this "ridiculous argument" in the first place. I trust you won't continue it until you receive a response from the Palace. --Miesianiacal (talk) 13:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

German nationality law states that even considering the Windsorian/Commonwealth (as opposed to Saxe-Coburg-Gotha/Empire) revolution, the Royals are still Germans, at least the Queen. LutetiaPetuaria | 11:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The article you've linked indicates that to be German one must be born in Germany or have a German parent, so she can't be German. DrKiernan (talk) 14:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

George VI was born a German subject, as was his brother Edward VIII and father George V, his father Edward VII and his father Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Elizabeth's German status in this case, needs only her father, whether or not George V rejected their German status for WWI. LutetiaPetuaria | 18:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You're confusing "subject" status with "nationality" status. George VI, as a Duke of Saxony, was a subject of the German empire (until he renounced the title, and the empire was abolished) but he was never a German national or a German citizen.

Similarly, until 1983 every Commonwealth citizen was a British subject, regardless of whether they were a Canadian citizen, or British national, or Tuvaluan native, or whatever. So, for example, until 1983 all Pakistani citizens were also British subjects but that did not make them British nationals or British citizens. DrKiernan (talk) 07:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Varrrrry Intaresssting. GoodDay (talk) 14:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it can be true. German nationality laws came into force in 1913, based on those of Prussia. Prince Albert was born in 1819 in Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld. ðarkuncoll 19:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The House of Windsor was founded in 1917. LutetiaPetuaria | 19:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

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

But the Royal Family was exclusively German from 1714 until the Queen Mother married the future George VI. Prince Philip is also German (NOT Greek) which means the half German Elizabeth married the wholly German Philip.78.86.226.253 (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

George VI's parents were both born in Britain. Philip's father was born in Greece, his paternal grandfather was born in Denmark, his paternal grandmother was born in Russia, his mother and maternal grandmother were born in Britain, and his maternal grandfather was a naturalised British subject born in Austria. DrKiernan (talk) 07:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Being born in a barn doesn't make one a horse. THey were all ethnically German. 78.86.226.253 (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Was Eisenhower German or American? Was Stroessner German or Paraguayan? Ancestry does not equal nationality. DrKiernan (talk) 07:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Queen's role in american countries of the British Empire

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

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

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

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

In the Americas the Governors-General tend perform all the duties of the Queen. In the British overseas territories the Chief Ministers or Governors do the same on behalf of the British government. The powers of the Queen have been widdled-away over time. Currently she is mainly a Figurehead as opposed to an executive head of state.(Like the U.S. president is.)

Antigua and Barbuda - "Her Majesty is represented in Antigua and Barbuda on a day-to-day basis by a Governor-General."[5]

"The Queen maintains direct contact with the Governor-General, although she delegates executive power to the Governor-General in virtually every respect."[6]

You'll see this on almost all pages.

Her role as Queen may be cut-short in some of the Caribbean realms. Once again the Prime Minister of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago is stumping (again) to take more countries into regional political union.[7] Already he has a plan for a political union with Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) but, I believe he is pitching for even more island-territories to join-in with oil & gas rich T&T into political union. He said in the past he favoured some kind of Executive President. I wouldn't count the chickens and eggs yet on the 21st the leaders of the respective countries will say exactly what form this may take. So for Grenada and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Antigua seem to be onboard with some pledge by St. Lucia to look closely at it.[8] CaribDigita (talk) 08:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

There are no "American countries" in the British Empire; if, indeed, there's any British Empire to speak of any more. --Miesianiacal (talk) 11:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, if there is a British Empire, then the British overseas territories are certainly part of it, and many of them are clearly American, while their status as countries are much less certain. —JAO • T • C 18:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

American countries of the British Empire? Holy smokers, it's gaulling enough that my country is a monarchy. GoodDay (talk) 13:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Gaulling? Heh, there are no British countries in Gaul, either.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Giggle, giggle. GoodDay (talk) 13:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I might point out that as Duke of Normandy, the Queen is head of state of the various Channel Islands, which are off the coast of France, where the laws are written in French dialects and the signs are bilingual. Semi-gallic, at least. --Pete (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

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

See Monarchies in the Americas. --Miesianiacal (talk) 22:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't Queen Elizabeth II of England Queen Elizabeth I of the United Kingdom?

Good Queen Bess, (Queen Elizabeth I of England) never reigned over Scotland.

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

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

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

See above. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 21:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Because the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland do not exist since 1707. Therefore, she rules only one European kingdom and is only Elizabeth II of that kingdom. BTW, kings named Charles had the same regnal number in England and Scotland, because the first king named Charles was born after the Union of the Crowns. Only kings named James had different numbers. Coincidentally, there was a Mary in England and a Mary in Scotland before the union of the Crowns, so Mary II of England was also Mary II of Scotland. Should Prince Henry of Wales succeed to the throne, he could choose to reign as David III, although no David has ruled England. Surtsicna (talk) 22:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

And to beat the dead horse a little more, the UK numbering scheme was decided upon in 1830 when William IV acceded. He might as well have reigned as William I, as he was the first William to reign over the UK (it's been discussed over there as well, although not nearly as often as here). I guess he didn't do that because a) it might be confusing, and b) because it might sound presumptious, like he's equating himself with some other William I. At any rate, it's been this way since 1830, so I don't quite get why people started complaining about it just a few decades ago. —JAO • T • C 22:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

No risk at all, since there is nothing to stop them taking a different name if they became monarch. And yes, England did create the UK (and the Kingdom of Great Britain) by bullying and coercing its neighbours into a union. ðarkuncoll 10:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Howabout we wait and see, concerning future British monarchs with Scottish regnal names. There's no point in arguing something, that hasn't occured yet. GoodDay (talk) 13:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Well, they could, but it's unprecedented, and I can't see new precedents being created in this day and age. Only 3 monarchs have used anything other than their first given name as their regnal name, and they all used their last given name, coincidentally:

• Alexandrina Victoria > Victoria
• Albert Edward > Edward VII
• Albert Frederick Arthur George > George VI.

And the tradition continues. Charles Phillip Arthur George has indicated he will be known as George VII. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

He's not completely settled on that, but it is one of his preferences. A tribute to his maternal grandfather. GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Currency in 'Finances' section

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

GBP is only one of her national currencies. --Miesianiacal (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

But USD is not one of her national currencies... Jk4q (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

True. --Miesianiacal (talk) 01:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

So... maybe change it? Jk4q (talk) 22:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

To what? --Miesianiacal (talk) 22:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest GBP would be fine. The other major currencies used in the Queen's Realms are CAD, AUD and NZD, and I suppose these would be OKish, but GBP strikes me as a better option - we have a source, and GBP is "even more major" than CAD, AUD and NZD. I guess it boils down to "what currency (a) is most appropriate for the topic, and (b) will readers be familiar with"? The Queen mostly resides in the UK, and her wealth tends to be stored and recorded as GBP. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 09:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It's probably best just to stick with the original source (and say accoring to Forbes etc). In compiling the list they will have used whatever exchange rates were appropriate at the time they were making the list, The Telegraph will then have re-converted this into sterling, probably using a different rate, of course the amounts are only expressed to a few significant figures, so this isn't likely to make a huge difference, but we have no way of knowing the "true" original sterling value. David Underdown (talk) 11:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

shooting incident probably not in 'the mall'

The article says; "Elizabeth's personal courage, as well as her skill as a horsewoman, was shown in 1981 during the annual Trooping the Colour ceremony.[63] Six shots were fired at her from close range as she rode down The Mall. She kept control of her horse, Burmese, and continued on."

This struck me as incorrect. I found one source on the net [9] which says the shots were fired as the queen turned down horseguards parade. As far as I can see the route is the mall, Horseguards road, then onto horse guards parade ground. the Marcus Sarjeant article says he took up a position between the Mall and horseguards avenue, which is totally wrong unless it ought to say horseguards road. so I suppose right on the corner. I don't now recall the details of what was reported, however, I saw the queen's horse (with her on it) skittering sideways away from the crowd as she came down horseguards avenue. At the time I thought it quite poor horsemanship. It was not apparent that anything else had happened until I saw it on the news. Hard to say whether the horse was out of control or whether she had directed it sideways away from the gunshots, which at the time she would not have known were blanks. Anyway, this was happening in horseguards road, not the mall. Cant say whether she was strictly within horseguards road when the shots were fired, though if she had still been in the mall, I would have thought she would have gone sideways in the mall itself. I would have said, she had turned the corner and come into sight before anything happened. Anyhow, seems saying simply 'the mall' is probably wrong. Sandpiper (talk) 22:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:EGG

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

Holds each crown separately

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

United Kingdom

I think this article should be called Elizabeth II of England, because whoever heard of the United Kingdom? Furthermore, she’s a queen and so might her daughter be. Everybody knows what England means. It’s the southern half of one of the British Isles. --Chuck Marean 23:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Every single person that knows her as the Queen of England is wrong. There has not been a Queen of England for over 300 years. Queen Elizabeth II is the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Along with Queen of all her other realms (Canada, Australia etc). I dont like the current title, Queen Elizabeth II should be the title of this article but the stupid wikipedia naming policies prevent it sadly. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

"whoever heard of the United Kingdom?" Really? Anyway, as BritishWatcher says, she's not the Queen of England. Shortening and simplifying to the point of "wrong" is, well, wrong. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 00:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

lol, i wanted to be to the point further details can be found on where Queen of England Redirects.

"After the death of Elizabeth I of England in 1603, the crowns of England and Scotland were united under James I and VI. By royal proclamation James titled himself 'king of Great Britain'. England underwent political union with Scotland in 1707 to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain. Since that date the title King or Queen of England is incorrect, though has remained in usage to the present day. In 1801 the Kingdom of Ireland, which had been under English rule since Henry II, became part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland following the Act of Union, which lasted until the secession of Ireland in 1922 and the subsequent renaming of the state to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland."

I also should of said sadly the American media fails to stop making this mistake despite them all clearly being wrong when ever they use the phrase "Queen of England". I have even sent in emails to these international organisations which should know better but sadly they never learn or reply to my emails. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to thank you for mentioning it, btw -- as an Ignorant Yank(tm), I really wasn't aware the details of Elizabeth II's status. (I think I thought that she was the Q of the UK in addition to the Q of E, the Q of NI, the Q of W, and the Q of S.) (Sometimes, I like abbrevs.) -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 00:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

While she is none of these, it might interest you that there seems to be some disagreement on whether she might be the Queen of New South Wales, the Queen of Victoria, the Queen of Queensland, the Queen of South Australia, the Queen of Tasmania, and the Queen of Western Australia. See Talk:States and territories of Australia#States as constitutional monarchies. —JAO • T • C 05:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

1. It's interesting also that Queen Elizabeth II of Canada is also Queen in right of each of it's Provinces, they can somewhat be considered constitutional monarchies themselves, Queen in Right of Alberta is used on official level, for example.

2. This article MUST and SHOULD RIGHTFULLY be named Queen Elizabeth II, or even simply 'Elizabeth II'. Having the current article name, "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" undermines the sovereignty of Her Majesty's Other Realms. They are all equal in status. Several of the other Wikipedias have named their articles about the Sovereign as Elizabeth II only, and rightfully so.

3. It would be silly to have this article at 'Elizabeth II of England'. "Queen of England" is a big mistake many make. --Knowzilla 12:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

If you go through the archives of this talk page, you'll notice that the title of this article has been the subject of criticism almost since its creation. I have been part of that dissenting group, and have noted that the title is a gross violation of Wikipedia's own neutrality policies. I believe the biography articles of monarchs should simply be titled with their regnal name - i.e. Elizabeth II or James VI and I or Carl XVI Gustaf - and if there happen to have been individuals with the same name and ordinal, a disambiguation page would amply sort out any confusion. Alas, the biased naming policy has become entrenched, and is guarded by some very, er... adamant individuals. So, without some massive wiki uprising, I don't see them changing any time soon. --Miesianiacal (talk) 12:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record i dont blame Americans who fail to understand all this just the American media. Sadly theres probably alot of people who think shes "Queen of England" in the UK aswell. The issue of if shes Queen of provinces / states in Canada and Australia is a far more complicated, in the case of England/Scotland however we know for certain both have never had a monarch for 300+ years although they do call certain members of the royal familiy by different titles in Scotland.

On the naming issue, this is something that really bothers me. I can understand why in most cases its useful to put the country where they are monarch in the title but Queen Elizabeth II is one of very few monarch who reigns over more than a dozen countries. (especially as those countries include UK/Canada/Australia/NZ which are English speaking countries. Queen Elizabeth II or Elizabeth II should be the title of this article, i know there are some very hardcore defenders of wikipedias naming conventions but in this case they are just wrong. When was the last time there was a major push for a name change? Ive not been involved in one before. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with removing countries from the monarch article's title. But, it would be a long drawn out (and likely futile) attempt, to change the guideline. GoodDay (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

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

I would oppose any move to further separate the Queen from her own country. ðarkuncoll 07:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean Canada or England? (joke) DrKiernan (talk) 09:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Just be aware, folks, that this issue spills over at least to George VI of the United Kingdom and Edward VIII of the United Kingdom, and possibly to George V of the United Kingdom, Edward VII of the United Kingdom, Victoria of the United Kingdom, William IV of the United Kingdom ........... So, be prepared for not just one but many battles. -- JackofOz (talk) 10:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

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

On the contrary. Wikipedia policy states that a monarch should be idenified under his or her most well known title. Hence James I of England, rather than James VI of Scotland (with the latter simply a redirect). ðarkuncoll 14:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

After reading Wikipedia policies and naming conventions, I read that if a monarch is extremely well known, there is no need to include a country in the Monarch's article name. If other current monarchs much less known can have it that way on their article names, then why not the article of the most famous Monarch in the World? --Knowzilla 15:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The naming of the James VI article is awful aswell, infact i find that one more offensive and incorrect than having the United Kingdom in this title. I dont see what harm it would do in removing "of the United Kingdom" in this case. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit of a stickler for consistency, so I lean towards the belief that if this article is to lose the country name in its title, all articles on monarchs should follow the same format - thus addressing the equally biased titling of articles like James I of England and Oscar II of Sweden. --Miesianiacal (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I too agree that other unfairly named articles should lose it's country name, if the Monarch ruled over more than one nation equally. If country names are really wanted, then only for those monarchs who reigned/reigns over only one country (or several states - but the rest being subordinate). The article name of QEII's article undoubtedly MUST change. --Knowzilla 16:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Hopefully, ziltch. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) The only reason I would prefer the current title of this article? It would be kinda unusual to change the titles of hundreds of monarchial articles, just to accomodate one article. GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, after reviewing the talk page archives at the article, it seems that the title of James I of England has been, with regularity, called out as biased since that page was created. I wonder if the naming policies for monarch biography articles were created in Wikipedia's infancy, when there were few participants and less information collected. It seems more than obvious that they need updated in light of the fact that they not only contradict more core WP: policies, but also cited facts in the encyclopaedia. --Miesianiacal (talk) 10:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I suppose, if anyone wants to change (or update) the guideline, that would be cool. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Queen Victoria's UK and Queen Elizabeth II's UK

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

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

Indeed. On the original point, it was an entirely correct statement by me. JackofOz's edit was akin to saying the United States today is a different United States to that 200 years ago, because it covered different territory. Do we count Konrad Adenauer as having been Chancellor of a 'different' Germany just because it didn't include East Germany? I think not. Same United States, same Federal Republic of Germany, same United Kingdom. Bastin 18:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Those are not analagous examples. The United States of America did not change its name every time it acquired new territory (which the Kingdom of Great Britain did when it became the first UK; and changed its name again to the 2nd UK when it lost Ireland). Adenauer was only ever Chancellor of West Germany. When West and East were unified, the new state became simply Germany. We would never say Adenauer was Chancellor of "Germany". Just as, we would never suggest Queen Victoria reigned over the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, or that Elizabeth II reigned over the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Elsewhere on WP, we make a clear distinction between the monarchs of:

• Kingdom of England
• Kingdom of Scotland
• Kingdom of Great Britain
• United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and
• United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

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

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

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

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

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

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

How about: "She is one of the longest-reigning British monarchs, after Victoria of the United Kingdom (who reigned for 63 years, 217 days), George III of the United Kingdom (who reigned for 59 years, 96 days), and James VI of Scotland (who reigned for 57 years, 246 days)." Surtsicna (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

That would be better, but we still have problem with George III because now we're using only his latter title, which applied for less than a third of his total reign. We could try ".... George III of Great Britain/the United Kingdom ...", I suppose, but it looks clumsy.

My preferred option is:

• "She is one of the longest-reigning British monarchs, after Queen Victoria (who reigned for 63 years, 217 days), King George III (who reigned for 59 years, 96 days), and King James VI (who reigned for 57 years, 246 days)."

The James VI reference focusses solely on his Scottish reign, because that's where his longevity as a monarch lay, and it can be validly considered separately from his other crowns. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Coronation

I'm curious: was Elizabeth II crowned Queen of Canada, of Australia, and her other realms, or was she just crowned Queen of the United Kingdom? No, this has nothing to do with "of the United Kingdom" problem. I'm asking because the information would be helpful for the coronation article. Surtsicna (talk) 17:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The oath she took seemsto have included all the then extant realms, see http://www.oremus.org/liturgy/coronation/cor1953b.html see also Coronation of the British Monarch. David Underdown (talk) 09:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, at the Coronation, The Queen promised to "govern the peoples of the United Kingdom of GB and NI, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan and Ceylon according to their respective laws and customs", all Realms of the time were mentioned, and Her Majesty was crowned Queen of each of them (and over their Territories as well), not just of the UK. --Knowzilla 15:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

MOVE PAGE

QEII of the UK should not be the page title. She is equally sovereign of (I think) sixteen other realms - according to long established precedent (1930s) they are all considered equal. Unless there are separate pages for all her realms this is a ver inappropriate article name. I propose moving to just QEII and dropping the "of the UK" bit. 78.86.226.253 (talk) 23:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This was discussed ages ago (check the archives) & the consensus was to leave the title as Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

But somehow it keeps coming up again and again, from so many different people.... hmmm. Even more, many of the other Wikipedias have their article on Her Majesty at Elizabeth II. Hmmm.--~   Knowzilla   ^(Talk) 13:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

A good point, Knowzilla. --Miesianiacal (talk) 13:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

And it will keep coming up over and over again until she dies sadly, unless ofcourse it is moved to Elizabeth II or Queen Elizabeth II. I cant understand people coming here and saying why does the article title say "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom". It is only the naming convention that is keeping this awful title, not consensus. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You are right in your concerns about this awful article title. Bad wikipedia naming policies are to blame so sadly this article wont get moved. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

My guess is, the current 'naming convention' was agreed to, because there's monarchs with the same name from different countries. Examples: The common international monarchial names of Charles, Philip, Henry, Frederick, Francis etc. GoodDay (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"Common international monarchical names"? --Miesianiacal (talk) 14:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Historically speaking? Yep. GoodDay (talk) 14:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[several edit conflicts later]: Well theres no other Elizabeth II. So we can move this one and other ones, such as James VI/I's article. It's only neutral that way. --~   Knowzilla   ^(Talk) 14:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a Elisabeth II of Bohemia (though slightly different spelling). PS: Anybody notice, the Japanese monarchs don't follow the current 'convetnion'. GoodDay (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

A disambiguation page would suffice to resolve any such issue. And yes, the Japanese and the Thai monarchs articles aren't bound by the same odd requirements this and other pages are. Very odd. --Miesianiacal (talk) 14:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) If anybody wants to push for a change of the 'naming convention'? I won't dispute it, if it's achieved. GoodDay (talk) 14:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

If other articles about monarchs from different countries dont need to follow the convention why do we here? especially as there is clear justification for not using the "of the United Kingdom" in this case as she is the current monarch of more than a dozen realms. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It's best to get the 'naming convention' changed first. Afterall, we don't wanna give Tharky a heart attack. GoodDay (talk) 14:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no Elisabeth II of Bohemia. A Wiki user invented that title ages ago. Both Elisabeth "I" and Elisabeth "II" were daughters and wives of Bohemian monarchs, but not monarchs themselves. This was a good example of a terrible original research or hoax, whatever it was, as it confused (and still confuses) lots of people. As far as that's concerned, Elizabeth II is good. Surtsicna (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

What? I was hoaxed? The trickery of it all. Oh well. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the consensus here is to move the article. With all expect GoodDay supporting the move (and not even he opposes a move), I'd say we should request an admin to do so. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 14:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd recommend getting the 'naming convention' changed, first. Changing just one article, will raise eyebrows. Anyways, it's out of my hands. GoodDay (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

What does it take to add to a 'naming convention'? Can any user with good reason add to it? I propose an addition along the lines of: "If a Monarch reigns over more than one independent sovereign country equally and separately and if there are no conflicting article names, the said article can be at <monarch name><regnal number> only". Hows about it? --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 14:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Very good and reasonable proposal, i dont see why people would object to it. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Will such an amendment, effect the British monarchs way back to George I of Great Britain? Afterall, he & all of his successors have ruled over mutilple countries. GoodDay (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, do people think those article should be without a country name? If there have been several requests on their talk pages of the sort and if there are no conflicting names. Then why not? In meantime, we can move this article anyhow, because I read in naming convention that if a Monarch is famous known without the "of country" part (ie- QEII is known more as Queen Elizabeth II than Queen of the United Kingdom) then an Monarch's article need not have a country name afterwards. So, shall we request an admin to move this article now please? --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 15:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm still iffy about it, as we've got her predecessors names 'including' a country. It's the lack of consistancy, I'm concerned about. Anyways, you're (of course) free to make a request. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus to rename. You might want to take this issue up at a higher level, to see if the naming conventions for monarchs can be changed in situations like this where one person is the monarch of multiple distinct entities. —harej (talk) (cool!) 00:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom → Elizabeth II — Just add this here so it's listed at the requested moves page, so admins can see (all the reasoning and discussion is already above the box (and now below it too), so I won't be adding a reason here). --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 15:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support I've made my reasons known above as well, but to summarise: 1) Elizabeth II is neutral, unbiased, and doesn't contradict sourced facts within the encyclopædia. 2) A disambiguation page can deal with similar names, as is done for other individuals. 3) Some monarch biographies are inexplicably exempt from Wikipedia naming conventions already. --Miesianiacal (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral I'd be supportive of this proposal, if all monarch article's title were similiarly changed (removing the of country). GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support of course. Elizabeth II is where this article should be at. The current article name is biased. The realms are equal, independent and sovereign. Queen Elizabeth II reigns over each of them equally and separately. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 16:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment Isn't she more commonly known as Queen Elizabeth II? Jack forbes (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, exactly why there is a proposed move. Only thing is, 'Queen'/'King', etc isn't included in a monarch's article name. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 17:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know that. Why is that the case when it flies in the face of most commonly used name? Jack forbes (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not my ruling, it's Wikipedia policy. So, 'Queen Elizabeth II' is most used, just take off the title of Queen, and theres what the article name has to be, according to WP policy: Elizabeth II. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 17:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Then Elizabeth II it should be. I don't mean to be picky, Knowzilla, but could you point out to me the policy concerned please? Thanks. Jack forbes (talk) 17:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think it's due to titles being regarded as giving undue weight, but I couldn't swear to that. If I'm right, the idea is that we should avoid articles titled "President X", "Queen Y", "Professor Z", etc, because X, Y and Z are no more (or less) important than A, B and C, but their titles might give the reader the opposite impression. Hang on, and I'll have a dig and see if I can find the policy I'm thinking of... Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Post (e/c): Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people): "Do not have additional qualifiers (such as "King", "Saint", "Dr.", "(person)", "(ship)"), except when this is the simplest and most NPOV way to deal with disambiguation". Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Hey! TFOWR, You've changed your name, well kind of. Jack forbes (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No! It isn't me! I mean, you must have me confused with someone else ;-) TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake. ;) Jack forbes (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. The same Wikipedia guideline (not policy) that recommends leaving out Queen also recommends including of Kingdom. HM's ancestors are called of England, of Scotland, of Great Britain, of the United Kingdom, as the case may be; most of them have to be disambiguated (look at Henry IV to see why), and Queen Elizabeth should be in the same style. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

However there is no other Elizabeth II. Also that naming convention doesn't seem to be consistent with WP's NPOV policy. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 19:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there is: Elizabeth II, Princess-Abbess of Quedlinburg. Surtsicna (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, per WP:NCNT. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose --Snowded ^TALK 18:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support Or else create a lot of separate pages for QEII of Canada; QEII of New Zealand; QEII of Australia. What is more important WP:NCNT or WP:NPOV? I'd say it's the latter - therefore the page must be moved. 78.86.226.253 (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose'. If the reason for moving the article is that all her realms are equal, wouldn't it mean moving all the monarch's pages since the Statute of Westminster? As the United Kingdom is the seat of the monarch and its origin, "of the United Kingdom" is appropriate.--Johnbull (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Queen Elizabeth II is the first to be officially titled "Queen of Canada" or "Queen of Australia". So it can start with QEII instead. The United Kingdom, while it may be the seat of the British monarch, it is most certainly not of the Canadian monarch, though the same person, they are legally distinct positions, the Canadian monarch's seat is in Ottawa. The current article name violates WP's NPOV policy. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 19:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. First change the naming conventions and then change titles of articles. Fairness and equality are not convincing enough to create inconsistency. Surtsicna (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

But this isn't about fairness and equality, the title is a clear breach of wikipedia's NPOV policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.226.253 (talk) 20:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

What point of view? Who denies she is Queen of the United Kingdom? (Any remaining Jacobites should remember that we title for de facto, not de jure, reasons; but they wouldn't call her Elizabeth II.) If there is a serious movement that she is Queen of Canada only, then we may be non-neutral towards it; but it would be news to Gordon Brown, as it is to me. Citation needed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The point is that the page name highlights only one aspect of her (sovereign of the UK) and by implication stresses that as more important than all the others when we know by the Statute of Westminster that all of the realms are independent of each other and all are equal in status. If the page name was "QEII of the Bahamas" I think most people would say that was ridiculous. It is no less ridiculous being "QEII of the UK"". NPOV trumps the naming convention and this page should be moved. 78.86.226.253 (talk) 22:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

If the article did not begin by noting that she is Queen of Canada, as well as the Solomon Islands, there would be a point to this; but it does. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, for reasons stated many times previously. Deb (talk) 20:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Individual cases decide policy/guideline, not the other way around. A guideline is changed by changing individual articles, and certainly not all of them at the same time. Don't point to a guideline when the objection is clearly to that guideline, and gives good additional reasons. NPOV is a policy, monarch naming is a mere guideline. The name proposed is more neutral - those who see this as a violation of consistency will find their efforts much better spent cleaning up articles and categories in much worse shape.    M   22:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Those who feel this their duty to Canada would find their time much better spent watching fireworks. There is no future in this; Charles III is hopelessly ambiguous. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose -- This conforms to a longstanding convention that monarchs have their kingdom used as if it were a surname. Much as I would like the article on my Queen to be plain Elizabeth II, convention does not permit this. There is also Elizabeth II of Bohemia, currently a redirect. The fact is that she actually reigns in the UK, whereas elsewhere a Governor-General exercises royal powers on her behalf. Furthermore, her chose title is something like Queen of the United Kingdom and of her other dominions and realms. I expect the correct form is in the article (which I have not checked) as I write this. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no Elizabeth II of Bohemia. She was just a queen consort. That title was a hoax. There is, however, a Princess-Abbess of Quedlinburg called Elisabeth II. Surtsicna (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

She has multiple titles. Most of them (all except Canada?) place the country the title is used in first. --Ibagli, RNBS, MBS (Talk) 05:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose for the following reasons:
  1. First, let's propose this change at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles), so that those who are interested in monarchs' titulature but not particularly in Elizabeth II can see the discussion & be heard on its wider implications.
  2. Also, so that the many previous discussions on monarchical titulature can be reviewed and considered (e.g. here and here under "Monarchical titles").
  3. This seems a rush to judgment, with people in the discussion above having felt that because those participating at that moment were in agreement, and some find the current location objectionable, that there was both urgency and consensus in making this change, when there is neither.
  4. Encyclopedic consistency is a legitimate concern, and titles of other monarchs of all or part of the realms ruled by Elizabeth II should be coherent with whatever rationale is used to decide this case. But how would that apply to disambiguating Kings John of England or George II of Great Britain or William IV of the United Kingdom? And what about the many realms ruled by other monarchs, e.g. Henry IV of France was simultaneously King of Navarre, yet he was not the second named "Henri" there, nor was Pedro I of Brazil, who was also King of Portugal, the first "Pedro" to reign in Lisbon.
  5. The rule that monarchical article titles reflect the realm most widely associated in English with that sovereign was adopted after weighing the objections that a monarch's subjects of differing nationalities may object, versus the need to disambiguate monarchs with the same name, versus resolving the issue that most monarchs have ruled more than one realm during their lives but it's impractical to indicate that in an article's title.
  6. Finally, the claim that any usage of Firstname of Realm is unacceptably POV with respect to any other realms of which s/he was sovereign is a red herring, because that principle applies to neutrality between conflicting allegations within articles -- yet no one disputes that Elizabeth II is queen of both Canada and of the UK, as her article explains: But it is not a legitimate purpose of WP articles to title them so as to promote or deprecate terminology, rather it is to reflect prevalent terminology for ease-of-search purposes. Further, NPOV means that we assign proportionate weight to competing claims in articles rather than equal weight Lethiere (talk) 01:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right that this really is a wider matter and should be raised at WP:NCNT. However, the POV argument is hardly a red herring at all. Rather, I'd say it is the disambiguation argument that is a tangential distraction; we have WP:DPAGES for a reason. --Miesianiacal (talk) 05:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Lethiere is absolutely right, especially when saying that encyclopedic consistency matters. Surtsicna (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

He might be right if we actually had encyclopædic consistency to begin with; but, we don't. That's not to say we shouldn't or can't have it, only that there isn't a consistency we're bound by at this point in time. --Miesianiacal (talk) 23:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support per naming conventions. DrKiernan (talk) 08:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

So, even the naming conventions say this article should be at Elizabeth II. Humm. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 13:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

What the section cited actually says is that it is acceptable to title articles with single names: Charlemagne, Fibonacci, Aristotle, and Livy. Whether we should do what we may do is another question entirely. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright, let me reword myself, -the naming conventions also say that we may have this article at Elizabeth II-. Furthermore if several other currently reigning monarch's articles can be without the name of their country in the article title, and they reign over one country one, why not for a Monarch who reigns over more than a dozen countries equally? --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 16:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support - There is no reason why this article should not be renamed to Elizabeth II. It is a shame and a disgrace when conventions prevent common sense. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly - the naming convention was envisaged for one monarch, one realm scenarios. QEII is unique in that she is sovereign of sixteen independent realms therefore common sense dictates that this should be an exception to the naming convention, because it does not fit it in the way that the prince of Monaco or the Sultan of Brunei do. QEII is in a unique position and the page name should recognise that not give partiality to one of the realms. 78.86.226.253 (talk) 17:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. The policy was designed precisely for the situation where a monarch has more than one realm - otherwise, there would be no need for it. ðarkuncoll 17:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

That is complete nonsense. The policy was designed to identify monarchs of the same name. As there isn't a glut of QEII's in history the guidance is not applicable in this instance. 78.86.226.253 (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: If we create a guideline for cases of multiple realms, we would need to rename articles such as Philip II of Spain. How would we name them? Just Philip (as Philip of England) or Philip I (as Philip I of Portugal and I of Naples) or Philip II (as Philip II of Spain)? He was equally king of all his domionions, yet... If we make this article a sole exception, encyclopedic consistency will be lost. Surtsicna (talk) 19:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Alot of monarch articles would need re-naming, if the convention is changed. Take the British monarchs for example: George I, George II & George III were also electors of Hanover. George III, George IV & William IV, were also Hanoverian monarchs. Victoria, Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII & George VI, were also Indian monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Emperors and Empresses of India used the same regnal number as they did in the United Kingdom; ditto for those who were sovereigns of the Commonwealth realms. If the regnal numbering differs, then simply use both: James VI & I is used quite commonly outside of Wikipedia. So, Philip II of Spain would become Philip I and II. --Miesianiacal (talk) 23:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, those are possiblities. GoodDay (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

"Philip I and II" would be original research, as no serious scholar calls him "Philip I and II". Do we really need to invent titles of other articles just to accomodate the articles about British monarchs? Or will we treat British monarchs differently than other European monarchs because of nationalistic feelings? Surtsicna (talk) 12:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

No, we don't need to change the titles of other European monarchs' pages at all. But you asked what could be done if they were. Philip I and II is no more OR than the title of this article, which was decided on by a selective and personal reading of sources by Wikipedia editors as opposed to directly mimicing all reliable sources available. --Miesianiacal (talk) 14:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

So, we should treat British monarchs differently than other European monarchs even though they are no different than other European monarchs who reigned over multiple realms? Philip I and II is more OR than the title of this article, because the title of this article is actually used by sources, while Philip I and II isn't. Surtsicna (talk) 14:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

"More OR" is a little hard to quantify, is it not? This title is OR (besides being POV) because it is a selective choice of one title used by sources over others. Perhaps you could look at it this way: we're not discussing different treatment for British monarchs, we're looking at how to treat monarchs who aren't just British. --Miesianiacal (talk) 16:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• (ec) Support. Until recently I would have opposed this, but having read the above and done some reflection, I think Elizabeth II would work best. When we hear "Elizabeth II", who do we think of? Certainly not Elisabeth II, Princess-Abbess of Quedlinburg. She and any other Elizabeth IIs can be disambiguated, just as any Winston Churchill who wasn't the wartime UK Prime Minister is disambiguated. Searching for "Winston Churchill" gets you straight to the article you're looking for in 999 cases out of 1000. "Elizabeth II" also avoids the entire issue of deciding which of her 16 monarchies to favour in the title - that long-running sore will now be dead. GoodDay's objections above do not apply here, as Philip had 2 different regnal numbers; same for James VI/I and others. That is still a live issue, one that I fear will never go away. If we're restricted (as we are) to choosing one title for a person who had 2 or more regnal numbers, we'll never please everybody. But this issue is not relevant to Elizabeth II, who has only ever had 1 regnal number. Encyclopedic consistency is a very high value, one I normally support, but special cases call for special solutions. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I neither support or oppose. I just rather we get the 'naming convention' changed (for all these monarchial articles), first. I'm not in favour of making just one article European article the exception (noting: Asian monarchs exceptions). GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Jack, the question then arises: what of George VI, Edward VIII, and George V, if not also Edward VII and Victoria, who also reigned over more than one country? (I am, of course, in favour of moving this page; I only ask as I suspect it's an unavoidable and related issue.) --Miesianiacal (talk) 23:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support "of the UK" is just a small part of her titles - just look at List of titles and honours of Queen Elizabeth II  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose as per a pretty reasonable naming convention. - fchd (talk) 06:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Reasonable?!? It's not reasonable at all and doesn't take into mind too much if a monarch reigns over more than one country equally. Even more another part of the naming conventions say we can use Elizabeth II. Furthermore, several currently reigning monarch's article names don't have their country names in their article titles, and they only reign over ONE country. That's very weird and unfair. QEII's article definitely needs to be at Elizabeth II, unlike some other monarchs, who only reign over one country, and nonetheless doesn't have to have their country name in their article name, Queen Elizabeth II reigns over more than dozen countries equally and independently. To favor one over the other in the article title is wrong and not neutral. Besides, Elizabeth II is more used than Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Every knows who we're talking about when we say Elizabeth II. NPOV is a very important policy, and to be neutral, this article must be moved. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 06:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL @ reasonable, the policy imposed on this article title is offensive and a disgrace. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL @ "offensive and a disgrace". Surtsicna (talk) 12:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is somewhat offensive. The current article title is also not consistent with WP's NPOV policy. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 13:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support The correct article title of "Elizabeth II of Antigua, Australia, Bahamas..." is unworkable. Relisted by population, "Elizabeth II of UK, Canada, Australia, NZ..." is also unworkable. We're left with two arguments against: what is the most well-known appellation in English? Well, for the 330 million American citizens and their popular sources of knowledge, that would be "Queen of England", which title does not exist. However, for 1.9 billion citizens of the British Commonwealth, it's rather well known that this person is titular monarch over many different states, so no confusion will arise with the simpler name. The other argument against is that this change will force other changes and/or that this should be taken up at the naming guideline. However the WP:NCNT guideline has alredy given us the answer, right at the top: it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception. This is an exception, and a rather obvious one at that. Franamax (talk) 09:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose as we also have Elisabeth II of Bohemia, and other queens named Elisabeth too. Tfz 20:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

No, there is no Elisabeth II of Bohemia. It's a hoax. There is, however, Elisabeth II, Princess-Abbess of Quedlinburg. I should ask an administrator to delete Elisabeth II of Bohemia redirect, as it confuses too many people. Surtsicna (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Elisabeth II, Princess-Abbess of Quedlinburg, that's another notable Elisabeth, therefore serves for disambiguation. Tfz 01:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Skipping over the possible difference in spelling, standard procedure in cases of overlapping simple names is to compare their prominence/notability. (Normally, we would do that with Henrik's pageview counter but it's broken just now) In this case, the Elizabeth II who is the Queen living at Buckingham Palace will be the overwhelming choice that readers are searching for, so standard procedure is to put a dab note at the article top listing the alternate possibilities, such as {{See also}} or {{Dablink}}. This keeps the primary usage as the first hit when searching but lets the reader find the other usages. Franamax (talk) 02:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, 99.99999% of the time someone looks for Elizabeth II, its for Her Majesty the Queen, not any other Elizabeth/Elisabeth. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 07:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

After doing a quick search on google, even if you look for Elisabeth II, it's about The Queen the results turn up anyhow, not any other person. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 07:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment With regard to other British monarchs in the modern era, the only problem with disambiguation will be with George V of the United Kingdom, where George V can refer to many individuals, including the current King of Tonga (George Tupou V). Victoria, Edward VII, Edward VIII and George VI are amost always used with reference to the British monarchs. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 20:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:DPAGES --Miesianiacal (talk) 20:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

What about it? YeshuaDavid • Talk • 22:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's why we need not worry about any disambiguation problems when it comes to the naming of monarchical biography articles. --Miesianiacal (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose I support the essence of the proposal and I'm all for NPOV, however this is not a new problem. Take, for example James I of England (not to mention many other examples). Simply naming the article "James I", does not only look awful is not really viable (such a solution would miss out the other King James I's (ie James I of Sicily, James I of Cyprus, James I of Aragon etc)). "King James I (England, Ireland & Scotland)" is another no-go as King James ruled as "King James of VI" in Scotland. I can see some of my arguments to not apply to this particular page, however decisions like this do seem to set a precedent and will undoubtedly affect other articles, and unless someone can come up with an all ecompassing solution for this problem, I'm afraid I'm going to have to oppose...--Cameron* 17:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The naming of the James the 1st article is even more of a disgrace. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, however there isn't really a better solution. "James I and VI" looks clumsy and "James VI (Scotland) and I (England and Ireland)" is awful. --Cameron* 10:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes the solution to that problem is far more complicated although i think James VI of Scotland is more approriate than the "Of England", he was king for Scotland for ALOT longer. That article name really bothers me for some reason, i have nightmares about it lol. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, every monarch should be treated the same. Pevernagie (talk) 08:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

May as well close this poll, some people refuse to accept commonsense so nothing is going to happen here. Wikipedia in this case will continue to insult 10s of millions of people as sadly they often do. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a little uncalled for. This is an opportunity for people to present their views, whatever they are, on an issue that's been unresolved for a long time. All reasonable contributions should be welcomed. That you don't happen to agree with some of them doesn't mean they're not "commonsense". Nobody's insulting anyone, but this is clearly an issue that's evaded a simple solution so far, and we can't pretend it's going to be fixed by someone saying their view is obviously the only one worth considering. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to ask this because you mentioned it so many times: can you please prove that the title of an article insults 10s of millions of people? 10s of millions of people don't even know who this woman is; I doubt that a significant number of people would be offended by a Wiki article. You exaggerate too much. Surtsicna (talk) 13:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Er, I'm quite sure that most people in the world know who QEII is. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 17:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

As I've mentioned earlier. Change the naming conventions for these articles first. Don't single out this article (particulary, while ignoring the other British monarchs articles & also all the English & Scottish monarchs articles). GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's been an interesting exercise; the results in favour of a move were far more than I expected; nearly 50%. I think this serves to highlight that there are issues with the naming policies that need addressed. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would contest that, the naming policies are awful... ;) --Cameron* 10:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

If anyone wants to try & get the naming convention changed? I won't oppose it. GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Who will oppose it if the proposed conventions are reasonable and usable?Surtsicna (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I too agree that we should do something about the rotten naming conventions first now. So, shall we close this proposal and plan a proposal for the naming conventions now? Anyone have any good ideas for a reasonable change to them? --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 17:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think that, yes, this little survey has run its course. However, changing the naming conventions is going to be a near Herculean task, and will have widespread ramifications... Unless, that is, we maybe focus on developing a new sub-convention that applies only to monarchs who were the fulcrum of a personal union. I don't know; just thinking out... er, through the keyboard. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Whom ever chooses to go to the naming convention, don't forget to mention the Thai & Japanese monarchs articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

New Name

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was withdrawn by nominator without prejudice to other proposals. DrKiernan (talk) 09:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom → Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth — It is unacceptable the title of this article ignores the fact that Her Majesty is queen of 16 separate countries. Regardless of the fact that she is mostly associated with the UK, that does not accurately reflect reality. I realize that simplicity is an issue, but an extermely large percentage still believe that she is Queen of England and not Queen of Canada, Australia, etc in addition to Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. As such, I recommend that the article be re-titled Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth. Some have previously stated that this is unacceptable because the title simply does not exist. Well, "Elizabeth II, ... Head of the Commonwealth" appears in all of her titles throughout the Commonwealth Realms, so this seems to be satisfactory and reasonable naming convention. Nonetheless, the present title "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" should continue to exist, but only as a page that is linked to the newly renamed article. Jagislaqroo (talk) 19:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned in the 'move to Elizabeth II'. We should seek a change at the naming convention. Singling out this article (particularly among the British monarchs), is unacceptable. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Lord in heaven above, no! No! NO! She is not "of the Commonwealth". You ask almost anyone (putting aside most citizens of the other CRs) who Elizabeth II is, they will say, without a doubt "Queen of England". Now, since that's false, we use her true title which closely reflects that. I've seen people suggest a title change umpteen bloody times and they've never succeeeded. Just shut up, man up, and bugger off. Please. DBD 19:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Pure class you are, DBD. Pure class. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. From User talk:Danbarnesdavies: "Please feel free to speak your mind. But, first and foremost - please: Be civil, Be polite, Be reasonable". Ring any bells, Dan? -- JackofOz (talk) 02:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Mies: Cheers. Jack: The one problem with written communication on the internet is you can't read my tone. The tone is one of exasperation, rather than anger or attack — sure, it's slightly more on the boundaries of civil and polite than my usual, but surely you can tell it's not meant for offense (bloody; bugger, rather than "f-bomb" etc) — and I certainly don't mean any. If I've caused some, then sincere apologies. (In case anyone couldn't tell, oppose) DBD 09:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Ye responding to me or Jag? GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

"Upon Elizabeth's accession to the throne, her style and title in full was: Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas Queen, Defender of the Faith, Duchess of Edinburgh, Countess of Merioneth, Baroness Greenwich, Duke of Lancaster, Lord of Mann, Duke of Normandy, Sovereign of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Sovereign of the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle, Sovereign of the Most Illustrious Order of Saint Patrick, Sovereign of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Sovereign of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, Sovereign of the Distinguished Service Order, Sovereign of the Imperial Service Order, Sovereign of the Most Exalted Order of the Star of India, Sovereign of the Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire, Sovereign of the Order of British India, Sovereign of the Indian Order of Merit, Sovereign of the Order of Burma, Sovereign of the Royal Order of Victoria and Albert, Sovereign of the Royal Family Order of King Edward VII, Sovereign of the Order of Mercy, Sovereign of the Order of Merit, Sovereign of the Order of the Companions of Honour, Sovereign of the Royal Victorian Order, Sovereign of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem."

That is certainly counter-productive, but it is her real title at coronation.--Jagislaqroo (talk) 20:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, it's either the current title or 'Elizabeth II'. GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. She may be Head of the Commonwealth, but she is certainly not Queen of the Commonwealth. She's Queen of only 16 of the 53 member states. Associating a regnal number with "of the Commonwealth" would suggest she's Queen, separately, of all 53 states, which just ain't true. This idea is well intentioned but is not a starter, sorry. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. That title does not exist. Pevernagie (talk) 20:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. This article belongs at Elizabeth II (and it confounds me why it isn't there right now), not some contrived compromise. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose I see what you are trying to do, but I would avoid formulations that sound like they are a real title. Elizabeth II is Head of the Commonwealth (an article I have edited extensively) but that is an honourary position and she is only queen of the Commonwealth realms. Please read WP:NCNT for more information, and why thre title you suggest gives the impression that Elizabeth II is queen of all the Commonwealth countries, including republics like India and South Africa. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 00:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Everything I've learned about en;wiki article titles leads me to believe that we should be using the simplest and most unadorned article title: Elizabeth II, with dab links for the less well-known Elizabeth II's. Thumper, I share your confoundment, much as I dislike drawing conclusions on other editor states-of-mind, all I'm left with is a US-centric desire to reflect "no, she's the Queen of England - oh, not, well, United Kingdom then, they mean the same thing, don't they?" We're not allowed to use the full and proper title of the person, neither are we allowed to use a simplified title for the article. Instead we are stuck using a halfway-name. More than a billion readers would understand the nuances of the Commonwealth, but a vocal minority never will. There you are. Franamax (talk) 01:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - the fact that this issue keeps coming up just shows something.... About the proposed move: I would have supported if it were to Elizabeth II, not Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth, because that really doesn't exist, shes Head of the Commonwealth, but not Queen of the Commonwealth. In the end however this article does need to be moved, most certainly to Elizabeth II. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 06:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment For the sake of clarity of argument, I suggest we close this debate per WP:SNOW and as several people have suggested Elizabeth II we re-list with that. Aubergine (talk) 02:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose There is no title "Queen of the Commonwealth" as discussed above, In addition, in the case of Australia, QEII is only Queen of Australia as a consequence of her being the Queen of the UK; the Monarch of Australia will always be the same person as the monarch of the UK. The existing title of this article is clear, unambiguous and does not need changing at all. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose as she does not appear to be styled this way by anyone, anywhere. Concur with Elizabeth II and actually have long wondered why that isn't already the title of the article.  Frank  |  talk  06:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - current name seems to be the best. - fchd (talk) 07:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Current name is most certainly not the best, Elizabeth II would be. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 07:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I'd say this debate should be closed now. Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth isn't a very good article name, EIIR is Head of the Commonwealth, not queen, she is Queen of 16 independent nations within it though, so if theres going to be a move proposal, it should be to Elizabeth II. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 07:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - yeah, this should be closed. Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth Realms could work, but I prefer Elizabeth II (with a disambiguation page to all other Elizabeth IIs, like Isabel II of Spain). Jagislaqroo (talk) 08:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Elizabeth II

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was - closed; no consensus to rename, this article will be renamed to Elizabeth II only after the naming conventions are amended. See here for the discussion to add to the conventions. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 17:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom → Elizabeth II — The last move request generated a lot of talk about renaming this article to just Elizabeth II. Even though this is might break officially with Wikipedia's naming conventions, Elizabeth II is a very unique monarch as she is head of state of 16 developed countries and this ought to be recognized. As with many things, precedent is just precedent and, although considered carefully, shouldn't always be followed. Jagislaqroo (talk) 14:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

George VI was head of 7 separate countries, as was Edward VIII and George V. Georges I through IV and William IV headed two countries, and James VI & I, Charles I, Charles II, James VII & II, William III & II, and Anne ruled over 3 distinct states. So, Elizabeth II isn't terribly unique in regards to being the fulcrum of a personal union; it's only the number of countries she heads that makes her stand out. I think this is why it was also decided at the end of the previous discussion on this matter that this article should not be moved until the naming conventions are first altered - perhaps to make a special provision for personal union monarchs. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus as to that point. As far as I'm concerned, the general guideline that articles should be titled with the most common available option already trumps the specific sub-guidelines in all circumstances. Elizabeth II already redirects here, so there is no question that this is the primary topic for that title. That should, ideally, be all there is to it. There are enough straw men in the discussions above to keep crows off every field in the Realm. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Yea, but WP:NPOV (a policy) trumps WP:NCNT (a convention), and the naming conventions presently contravene WP:NPOV. Incidentally, WP:NCNT allows for the dropping of specific countries from monarchical article titles, perhaps to avoid just such conflicting scenarios. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing "POV" about placing this article at Elizabeth II. It is made very clear in our guidelines that article titles are not intended to endorse any particular position but simply to reflect the most common use. Elizabeth II already redirects here, which I cannot see as being any less "POV" than locating the article there in the first place. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The current article name is POV. Common usage would mean this would probably be at Queen of England or Elizabeth II of England, as actually already suggested. Besides, Elizabeth II or Queen Elizabeth II is used more than Elizabeth II of United Kingdom anyhow. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 16:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

[ec] Indeed, there is nothing POV about "Elizabeth II". However, the title of this page and a redirect to it are not the same thing, as illustrated by the fact that Elizabeth II of England also redirects here. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

That we would opt for one rather than the other is simply because "Elizabeth II" is a more common name for her than "Elizabeth II of England" - again, page titles are absolutely not endorsements. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I would disagree; titles do communicate endorsements, and this one gives a preference to the United Kingdom. Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and Elizabeth II should be flipped, so that the former becomes the redirect to the latter. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NAME#Controversial names: "In particular, the current title of a page does not imply either a preference for that name". The sole reason for moving the article is that the proposed title is more commonly-used than the current one. End of story. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Well then it appears we want the same thing, only for different reasons. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose This exact move request failed less than a month ago, wait at least a couple of months. TJ Spyke 16:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - current name is the best. - fchd (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. The UK is her primary realm, where she lives and reigns in person. ðarkuncoll 17:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

  ... which is of absolutely no concern when it comes to the discussion of the article title. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose as per TharkunColl, for her majesty's realm is indeed the United Kingdom of Great Britain. The proposer of this has only a couple of edits at WP, bit of a puzzle, and poll should be scrapped really. Tfz 19:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• According to the article you linked, said kingdom hasn't existed for over 200 years. Also, I hope I'm not the only one that finds the comment about the proposer to be inappropriate and irrelevant to the discussion, unless you have a specific accusation against said proposer of some specific violation of policy.  Frank  |  talk  19:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Glad someone noticed, for she's often called the queen of England. My comment was not against the editor, I believe that the editor is not long enough around to be instigating polls. Other editors may disagree with me on that issue, and that's ok. Tfz 19:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Erm, you say that "her majesty's realm is indeed the United Kingdom of Great Britain" (it's actually the UK of GB & NI), but the situation isn't the same as it was about 60 years ago. It's no longer the realm, the dominions and the colonies, but it is now the realms and their territories. They are all equally and independently Her Majesty's Realms. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 07:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm inclined to support, but I'm interested in the relevant policy or guideline with which such a move might conflict. I am capable of looking, but I think it's best for all to be coming at this from the same set of information, so I'm asking for others to provide the appropriate alphabet soup to aid in the decision-making process.  Frank  |  talk  17:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment (1) It should be noted that several of the other Wikipedias use Elizabeth II or something similar for their article on The Queen instead, without including the name of a specific country. (2) Articles such as the one of the Japanese emperor or the Thai king don't have their country name included in the article title, how is that when they are much less known than QEII? (3) I suggest we do something about the naming conventions first, just in case, even though one of them says having a article title without a country name in it is fine in the case of very well known people, and Queen Elizabeth II is most certainly very well known. (4) However or whenever it may be done, this article must move to Elizabeth II. This issue will keep coming up and up again, because people know the current article title is not NPOV. I can bet anything that this will come up again, several times probably, before the end of this year. (5) About common use: Elizabeth II or Queen Elizabeth II are terms used much more than Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 17:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, as it would be inconsistant with the other British monarchs articles & their English & Scottish predecessors monarchs articles. IMHO, the United Kingdom is the realm associated the most with the Queen. It's best to get the naming convention changed, not individual articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes the UK is the Realm associated most with the Queen, but it doesn't mean the other Realms are secondary. Yes, I guess we should get the naming conventions changed first. When do we start with that? :P --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 07:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose The naming conventions set down a clear method for handling the numerous monarchs with multiple realms and we shouldn't abandon consistent practice. If people object to the naming conventions then discuss them overall there. Speedy close as this proposed move was discussed barely a month ago and constantly bringing back the issue is unhelpful. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Unhelpful to whom? This is the whole point of Wikipedia. If you disagree, you say so. If not, or if you don't care, then you don't do anything. The simple fact that this issue comes up so often says something. Jagislaqroo (talk) 22:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
    • It comes up a lot because some users do not respect a reasonable cooling off period after a previous discussion has not gone their way. Frequent repeated move requests irritate - see here for one past one (maybe we need a repeat of that) - and raise the suspicion that users are hoping a lower turnout will swing things their way. Too many articles on Wikipedia are not progressing because everyone's filling up the talkpage with endless discussion of what the article name should be. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose moving this article before changing the naming conventions. —JAO • T • C 07:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Please see the naming convention discussion pages.Jagislaqroo (talk) 08:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Heres a link to the discussion. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 08:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - read the section above. Surtsicna (talk) 12:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - Would anyone mind if I close this? It seems there is agreement to amend the naming conventions before renaming this article. So, I invite people to take part in this discussion instead. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 15:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Alright I'm closing this, as it doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Most people would rather see a change in the naming conventions before this article is to be renamed. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 17:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hey all. I'll be reviewing this article for possible GA status. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

This article has some serious issues that preclude it from achieving GA status as-is. However, to allow contributors opportunity to address my concerns, I am placing the article on hold. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Writing and formatting

• "and called "Lilibet"" -> "and was called "Lilibet""
  • Corrected
• Should be consistent in whether quote marks close before or after punctuation marks.
  • Whole sentences have quote marks after the punctuation mark, fragments have quote marks before punctuation, per WP:MoS
• "Caesarian section" -> "Caesarean section"
  • Corrected
• Would suggest direct-linking to the section on 1st Buckingham Palace Company
  • Done
• "dubbing Philip as" -> "dubbing Philip"
  • Corrected
• What does the term "cadet relative" mean?
  • Removed
• "During their Maltese visits, the children remained in Britain" - here, "their" seems to refer to the children, but it should be the parents
  • Corrected
• "embarked on a six month, around the world tour" - should use hyphens
  • Corrected
• "though the Prime Minister Eden, denied it" - either extraneous comma (and the) or missing comma, take your pick
  • Corrected
• "are you there Mr. Prime Minister?", -> shouldn't end with a comma
  • Corrected
• "However, evidence mounted that their relationship had hardened as the years passed,[89] until it was revealed in May 2007 that the Queen was "exasperated and frustrated" by Blair's actions, especially by what she saw as a detachment from rural issues, as well as a too-casual approach (he requested that the Queen call him "Tony") and a contempt for British heritage" - run-on sentence
  • Split into two sentences and shortened.
• "Elizabeth could become the longest-lived British head of state (surpassing Richard Cromwell) on 29 January 2012, the longest-reigning monarch in British history (surpassing Queen Victoria) on 10 September 2015 at age 89, and the longest-reigning monarch in European history (surpassing King Louis XIV of France) on 26 May 2024, when she would be 98" - why are there ages for two dates? I would argue for either one or all three. Also, should maintain the "at age..." construction for the last age (if it is kept).
  • "at age" added for other two ages
• Instead of blood pressure, consider linking to hypertension
  • switched
• The long quote under "Canadian national unity" might be better off summarized and cited than simply quoted
  • Removed
• Why are some of her titles only mentioned in the lead and not in the "titles" section?
  • They've been split off into List of titles and honours of Queen Elizabeth II
    • Which means (I assume) that the less notable ones have been excluded from the titles section? In that case, these definitely shouldn't be in the lead. Put the most notable/ best-known titles in the lead, an expanded list in the titles section, and the full list in the daughter article.
• "Elizabeth has received a many honours" - remove "a"
  • Corrected
• "Bibliography" is the term generally used for books written by the subject of the article. I would suggest making the previous section "Notes" and this one "References"
  • Corrected

Accuracy and verifiability

• The lead says she is the fourth-longest-reigning British monarch, but it says third-longest later in the article. Which is correct?
  • Resolved
  • This is not resolved at all. As I stated above in the talk section, Queen Elizabeth II is currently the fourth longest reigning sovereign in the history of the British Isles. The article states 'third' (which is wrong: 1) Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland 63 years, 2) King George III of Great Britain and subsequently the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland 59 years, 3) King James VI of Scotland just under 58 years 4) Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 57 years and closing in on James VI fast); and 'British/English' which is about as confused a terminology that you can devise for describing the political development of these islands. You need to use the term 'British Isles' because 1) England ceased to exist as a sovereign state in 1707 2) the term 'British' does not actually exist as a political entity: it's Great Britain (1707-1801), or the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland/Northern Ireland (1801-present). Can you change this please?Ds1994 (talk) 15:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Changed to "third-longest-reigning monarch of the United Kingdom"
• All quotations need citations for GA status

• I believe this one is done

• Citations needed for:

• To the dismay of the royal family, Crawford later published a biography

• Cited

• her Guides badges

• Removed

• There was some suggestion that the two princesses be evacuated to Canada

• Reference at the end of the sentence

• The ideas were rejected by the Home Secretary, on the grounds that it might cause conflict between north and south Wales

• Reference at the end of the sentence

• Before the marriage, Philip renounced his Greek and Danish titles, and adopted the style Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten, the surname adopted by his mother's family

• Cited

• The marriage was not without controversy: Philip was Greek Orthodox, had no financial standing, and had sisters who had married German noblemen with Nazi links

• cited

• The wedding was seen as the first glimmer of a hope of rebirth

• Removed

• Elizabeth and Philip received over 2,500 wedding gifts from around the world

• Removed

• In post-war Britain, it was not acceptable for any of the Duke of Edinburgh's German relations to be invited to the wedding

 Not done

• in the words of Martin Charteris, "the Queen was naturally sympathetic towards the Princess, but I think she thought – she hoped – given time, the affair would peter out."

• Cited

• She became the first reigning monarch of Australia and New Zealand to visit those nations

• added 2 refs

• Eden recommended that Elizabeth consult...

• Reference at the end of the paragraph

• In both 1957 and 1963, the Queen came under criticism for appointing the Prime Minister on the advice of a small number of ministers, or a single minister

• Reference at the end of the paragraph

• During a trip to Ghana, she refused to keep her distance from President Kwame Nkrumah, despite him being a target for assassins

• done

• In 1969, Elizabeth sent one of 73 Apollo 11 Goodwill Messages to NASA for the historic first lunar landing

• Text changed to match the citation at the end of the paragraph

• The Queen took a deep interest in the constitutional debate, especially following the failure of Bill C-60

• Cited

• Commentators were universally shocked by the apparent attack on the Queen's life, even after it was revealed that the shots fired were blanks

• removed

• it was rumoured that Elizabeth was worried that Thatcher's economic policies fostered social divisions

• Reference at the end of the sentence

• Thatcher later clearly conveyed her personal admiration for the Queen, and expressed her belief that the idea of animosity between the two of them had been played up because they were both women

• fixed

• The Queen called 1992 her "annus horribilis" in a speech on 24 November 1992

• Cited

• In 1991, she became the first British monarch to address a joint session of the United States Congress

• done

• It was initially thought that Elizabeth had very good relations with Tony Blair

• Removed

• until it was revealed in May 2007 that the Queen was "exasperated and frustrated" by Blair's actions, especially by what she saw as a detachment from rural issues, as well as a too-casual approach (he requested that the Queen call him "Tony") and a contempt for British heritage

• Cited

• Elizabeth was rumoured to have shown concern that the British Armed Forces were overstretched, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as "surprise" over Blair's shifting of their weekly meetings from Tuesday to Wednesday afternoons

• Concern cited; surprise (though citable) removed

• Relations between the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh and Blair and his wife, Cherie, were reported to be distant, as the two couples shared few common interests

• Though citable, removed as essentially repeats information already given earlier in the paragraph

• In 2005, she was the first Canadian monarch to address the Legislative Assembly of Alberta

• added ref

• While she continues to have what is described as excellent health and is seldom ill

 Not done

• While Buckingham Palace did not comment, medical experts stated that the Queen would have suffered no pain, and would be back to normal within a week or two, without lasting damage. However, they also mentioned that burst blood vessels, though common in the elderly, could be a sign of high blood pressure

 Not done

• in November 2006, there were worries that the Queen would not be well enough to open the British parliament, and, though she was able to attend, plans were drawn up to cover her possible absence

 Not done

• Sandringham House and Balmoral Castle are privately owned by the Queen, having inherited them from her father on his death, along with the Duchy of Lancaster, itself valued at £310 million and which transferred a private income to the monarch of £9.811 million in 2006. Income from the British Crown Estate—with holdings of £7 billion—is transferred to her British treasury in return for Civil List payments

• resolved

• When told that the separatists were showing a lead in the polls, Elizabeth revealed that she felt the "referendum may go the wrong way", adding, "if I can help in any way, I will be happy to do so." However, she pointedly refused to accept the advice, from the man whom she believed to be Chrétien, that she intervene in the referendum without seeing a draft speech first

• Removed

• Elizabeth personally worships with the Anglican church

 Not done

• When in conversation with the Queen, the practice is to initially address her as Your Majesty and thereafter as Ma'am.

• Cited

• Elizabeth has been Colonel-in-Chief, Captain-General, Air-Commodore-in-Chief, Commissioner, Brigadier, Commandant-in-Chief, and Royal Colonel of at least 96 units and formations throughout the Commonwealth

• Removed

• Following her marriage, these arms were impaled with those of the Duke of Edinburgh (and might also want to explain what "impaled" means in this context)

 Not done

• This same badge is also used as the Queen's personal flag for her role as Head of the Commonwealth, or for visiting Commonwealth countries where she is not head of state

 Not done

• Should "Windsor" be included as part of her name in the lead?
  • This has been contentious in the past, e.g. Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Archive 15#The Queen's "surname"
• Note which of the links require log-in or subscription

 Not done

• Ref 45 needs to be expanded
  • Removed
• The links to the official website are all redirected to its home page, instead of the intended target
  • Updated
• Ref 57 has redundant dating
  • Removed
• Refs 89, 117, 118 appear to be broken
  • Removed or corrected
• Need publisher for Ref 94

• added

• Need consistent formatting for "Further reading" entries

• fixed

• External link 5 is broken
  • Removed
• Should not have the same site in both "References" and "External links"

• fixed?

Broad

No issues noted

Neutrality

• Numerous violations of WP:WTA and WP:Weasel, adding an editorial bias to the article which needs to be addressed

Stability

• While there are no ongoing edit wars, there have been minor issues with stability in the past, including a recent naming dispute. These issues are not, however, significant enough to merit a fail on this criterion.
  • The naming dispute is ongoing and shows no signs of abating, not very stable. LizzieHarrison 18:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Images

• Lizwar.jpg is tagged as lacking author information

 Not done

• Qu&DoE_Wedding.png no longer has a fair-use rationale because of issues with the "Historic fur" tag. This needs to be addressed before GA status can be achieved

• Removed

• Queencrown.jpg is missing a fair-use rationale, and the source is a broken link

 Not done

• EIIR-Aus-1.jpg needs a fair-use rationale specific to this article

• Removed

• Blason_Elizabeth_Alexandra_Mary_du_Royaume-Uni.svg‎'s description needs to be completely translated - only a partial translation is present

• Translated

Follow-up

Looks like there's been plenty of improvement on the article; there are, however, a few more issues that need to be dealt with, as well as a couple of minor problems brought in by recent edits. For simplicity, I will reiterate what still needs to be done.

• Formatting, refs 94 and 121
• References needed for:

• In post-war Britain, it was not acceptable for any of the Duke of Edinburgh's German relations to be invited to the wedding
• While she continues to have what is described as excellent health and is seldom ill
• While Buckingham Palace did not comment, medical experts stated that the Queen would have suffered no pain, and would be back to normal within a week or two, without lasting damage. However, they also mentioned that burst blood vessels, though common in the elderly, could be a sign of high blood pressure
• in November 2006, there were worries that the Queen would not be well enough to open the British parliament, and, though she was able to attend, plans were drawn up to cover her possible absence
• Elizabeth personally worships with the Anglican church
• Following her marriage, these arms were impaled with those of the Duke of Edinburgh (and might also want to explain what "impaled" means in this context)
• This same badge is also used as the Queen's personal flag for her role as Head of the Commonwealth, or for visiting Commonwealth countries where she is not head of state

• Note which of the links require log-in or subscription
• violations of WP:WTA and WP:Weasel, adding an editorial bias to the article which needs to be addressed
• The title of the article is still actively debated, and the page was moved and reverted recently
• Lizwar.jpg is tagged as lacking author information
• Queencrown.jpg is missing a fair-use rationale, and the source is a broken link

Definitely improving, but the majority of these issues need to be addressed before promotion. Ask on my talk page if you have any questions. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 19:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Given that this article has been on hold for well over a month, I'm inclined to fail it if the remaining issues aren't addressed within the week. Please ask questions here or at my talk page, and finish up these last few things so that the article can be promoted. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Bermuda seems to be missing from this site. The Queen is the Queen of Bermuda!

Role in government

There's a problem in this section. It begins by stating, correctly, that she never expresses personal political opinions in public. But in the "Canadian national unity" section, that is, seemingly, exactly what she does as she "publicly praised Canada's unity and expressed her wish to see the continuation of a unified Canada". The truth is that these are not her words or her personal opinion. They are what she was instructed to say by her ministers. I'm inclined to see this whole section as problematic. This article should be a biography about Elizabeth the person, not an explanation of the role of the monarch in politics. That is rightly dealt with in articles such as Monarchy of the United Kingdom or Monarchy of Canada.

Consequently, I'd like to remove this whole section with two exceptions: 1. the first sentence should be kept as the second sentence of "Public perception and character". 2. The link to the political role of the monarch should be moved into a hatnote:

This page is a biography of Queen Elizabeth II. For the constitutional role of the monarchy, see Commonwealth realm#Monarch's role in the realms.

DrKiernan (talk) 16:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

A fair point. It isn't true to say, BTW, that she never expresses her views in public. She has done, for example, in her comments at the Golden Jubilee that stressed the fact that she was crowned queen of the United Kingdom, ie, not of Scotland and England separately, so explicitly criticising calls for England and Scotland to separate. On other occasions she has made private comments which appeared in public (for example, her criticism of Margaret Thatcher on the Commonwealth, her criticism of Tony Blair saying that he had no sense of history, etc). But she takes care to ensure that usually her personal views are not known. They do become known on occasions. Those who know her views believe that she would someone closest to the right wing of the Labour Party or left wing of the Tories, someone of the Harold Macmillan ilk (Macmillan toyed with the idea in the 1950s move moving from the Tories to Labour.) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Disputed Name

There has been no resolution of the name for this article therefore there should be box at the top to say that the title is disputed and probably one to question the neutrality of the title as well. 78.86.226.253 (talk) 12:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no current dispute and no need for tags. The matter was withdrawn first and then when discussed again it was closed as no-consensus.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 12:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)