Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 18

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

A second nudge that in the lead, the Commonwealth realms are all linked to articles about their monarchies. Eg., Jamaica is pipelinked to

11:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is this controversial? No-one objected last time, so I don't see why you just don't make the edit, unless they've been arguments over it in the past.

talk

) 12:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Names

Throughout this entire article, I have noticed that there are references to "Elizabeth" and "Philip" written. Not only is it disrespectful it is downright inaccurate. Who ever has written this article should be ashamed. "Elizabeth" as she is negligently called is in fact, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN and "Philip" is in fact known as PRINCE PHILIP or as the DUKE OF EDINBURGH. Calling Her Majesty The Queen simply as "Elizabeth" is equivalent to calling the President of the United States simply as "Barack"

It needs to be fixed, Wikified, and it needs to be encyclopedic.

--Kildruf (talk) 01:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

How about we just use their surname? Oh, wait...never mind. -Rrius (talk) 03:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

'Elizabeth' & 'Philip' is all we need, afterall they're not special. GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh haha GoodDay. However, there is no need to change the wording, keeping on saying 'The Queen' all the time in the article isn't a very good idea. --~

Knowzilla ^(Talk)

14:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotection review

The protection logs show that for about a six-month period starting at the end of 2006 this article became the focus of massive vandalism and was semiprotected.

I'd like to review this now quite old decision to see if it's still considered necessary. As well as welcoming comments from regular editors, I've contacted the admins who placed this article under semiprotection. --TS 03:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out a misspelling in the article on Queen Elizabeth II. On the opening page it gives a title for her as LORD OF MANN, and it should of course be changed to LORD OF MAN (meaning the Isle of Man). It is so confusing to suggest an edit for a protected article that I cannot figure out how to do it, and leave my suggestion here instead, hoping someone will see it.

See Lord of Mann. The island is Man, the ruler is Mann. Just another one of those weird historical things the British do so well. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The Queen appears to use a single n: http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandCrowndependencies/IsleofMan.aspx

talk

) 07:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Queen uses or whoever wrote that section of the website uses? Timrollpickering (talk) 10:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Isle of Man parliament also uses a single n: go to http://www.tynwald.org.im/ and click on "Tynwald of Today". Both forms are acceptable so why not use the easier form?

talk

) 11:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Because it is amusing to correct people who think that they are correcting Wikipedia? It seems that this is the only reason why Lord of Mann is better than Lord of Man. Surtsicna (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

One reason would be if "Mann" is more common than "Man". Another is that "Lord of man" is a title sometimes used for Jesus. Even if the chance of confusion or offense is small, why bother with it? -Rrius (talk) 03:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

"Man" is much more common, e.g. 18 million ghits for "Lord of Man" (without "Jesus") 80 thousand for "Lord of Mann" (without "Jesus"). Same goes for gbooks and gscholar searches.

talk

) 07:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Assuming that reflects reality (usage on the internet may not be the same as overall usage), that leaves the Jesus argument. I doubt too many would be convinced by that one. Perhaps this should also be taken up at Lord of Mann? -Rrius (talk) 07:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed this should be debated at Lord Of Mann, and whats decided there implemented across wikipedia including here. As the Royal website / Man government website uses just Man, they probably all do need changing. No problem with the Jesus thing, he was just the son of God, we are talking about Her Majesty the Queen, she outranks him!. Also as Lord of Man redirects to Lord of Mann already and no one has tried to insert Jesus (as far as i know) or require a hatnote so it should be fine. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Does it mention any where who the head chef at this wedding was?I was told he was a greek named Harry Lambini?Does any one know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.76.128.156 (talk) 19:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me rather bizarre that there are THREE photographs relating to visits to or by American Presidents on the wikipedia page of the British Head of State. Throughout her reign, and up until the present day, Her Majesty has maintained a highly active programme of incoming and outgoing visits involving a wide variety of nations all over the world, not least to those in the commonwealth, and is the most widely travelled monarch ever anywhere (as stated in this article). Can this not be reflected better in the images used on this page, which at the moment give the impression that The Queen's visits are cheifly concerned with the USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.96.237 (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

very good point, theres several decent images on Monarchy of Canada, one from there should be added to this page and replace one of the USA images. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The reason the so many of those images are used is because they are the work of the Federal government of the US, and therefore public domain. ninety:one 22:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The last time I checked

) 20:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, it was just a disruptive IP. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a heads up. The government of Dr.

is getting close to approving the staging of a national referendum to vote on a new constitution. Within the new constitution it effectively terminates Q.E. II as Head of State and replaces that office with a non-executive President. So depending if the public votes 'YES' or 'NO' it determines whether Q.E. II would likely still be Head of State in St. Vincent.

• Article: Gonsalves' political gamble - 9/16/2009 (Nation Newspaper, Barbados)

CaribDigita (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, lets see what happens, recent referendums in Australia and Tuvalu, trying to remove the Queen both failed. However this one seems to come along with other things, which may or may not be desirable to the people of that nation, and it all seems to be in only one vote, without letting voters decide separately on each issue. Tricky one that. --~

Knowzilla ^(Talk)

10:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I feel it is essentially a done deal. When you couple this with the statement made by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom the Caribbean has essentially been told to "get on with your lives" from the UK side. The President's comments have created a media fire storm in each of the islands, with all leaders now talking about terminating their final colonial linkages with the UK. Each isle is very likely to roll this into overall constitutional reform, since the constitutions must be changed to remove provisions of using the UK's court system for appellate jurisdiction. Opening the constitutions is a tough enough exercise in the Caribbean, let alone attempting to do some multiple times for many different provisions. They'll probably just do it once and be done with it. CaribDigita (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Not really. Don't forget, many countries have gotten rid of appeals to the British Privy Council, and have kept the Queen. We'll see what happens. --~

Knowzilla ^(Talk)

07:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It would seem that former Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Prime Minister Sir James Mitchell (he is also one of the longest serving Prime Ministers in Caribbean history) has called on voters to reject the new Constitution, saying it will be "chaotic". He has also specifically said he wants The Queen kept. 1. Also, the thought that all governments of the Caribbean

Knowzilla ^(Talk)

11:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Vote-day is here. Election results are expected by Midnight.

• REFERENDUM DAY: Historic vote in St Vincent and the Grenadines
• Royal referendum: St. Vincent to vote ties to queen on eve of monarch's visit to region

CaribDigita (talk) 18:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The referendum has failed. [1] --Ibagli (Talk) 04:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

That marks three republican referendums lost in the last decade: Australia, Tuvalu, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines. Excellent! --

MIESIANIACAL

04:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

'Excellent Smithers!' 'I want this letter mailed by gyroscope to Prussia'.If you want to play constitutional ping-pong: India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malta, Cyprus, Republic of Eire, South Africa, Fiji, etc. (no offence, I just like to see the old fighting G2bambino come out occasionally lol)--Gazzster (talk) 06:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Fiji is the odd one out here, as the monarchy was deposed by a coup d'etat there. --Igor Windsor (talk) 08:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that just about none of the Commonwealth realms which became republics changed to a republican form of government by a referendum or vote by the people of that country. And in the case of South Africa for example, even thought there was a referendum, it was a white only one. And in the Fiji there seems to be indication that they will return to a constitutional monarchical form of government at the same time the country returns to democracy. --~

Knowzilla ^(Talk)

09:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Referendum failed? not surprised. Disappointed, but not surprised. GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it failed then. This referendum can be put to bed... It wonder though if Mr. Gonsalves was trying to coincide this date for the referendum with the visit of the Queen to Trinidad. She's planning to travel to Trinidad for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. Any-who this is another one for the history books. CaribDigita (talk) 15:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

"Since Elizabeth rarely gives press interviews..." When has she ever done so? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 14:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this may depend on both what is meant by press and what is meant by an interview. The Queen has responded to questions posed by television personalities during the programmes in which she has participated, and she has given interviews to professional biographers. But as to a full interview to a newspaper journalist, no, I don't believe she's ever given one. The easiest thing to do here is simply to remove "press".

talk

) 15:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't recall whether is was a press interview, per say, but I have seen one televised question and answer segment with the Queen, from sometime back in the 70s, I think. I later read commentary about how rare such a thing is. --

MIESIANIACAL

16:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I have found a source here [2] that states that HM personally supports Arsenal F.C., should it be included in the article? The C of E (talk) 09:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that the Queen says she supports and follows every sportsman she meets. She may not be truly interested in any sport unless its shooting or riding.

talk

) 10:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see it made clear that there is currently no exceptional concern for Her Majesty's health unless, of course, there is a source to say that there is. I don't feel that I can do this impartially and I lack the substantial knowledge of this article's history to be able to place it appropriately, but I feel it should be clear, not least since implying, with the purest of intentions, that Her Majesty is in poor health could be defamatory. HJMitchell You rang? 05:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Elizabeth became Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon upon the death of her father, George VI, on 6 February 1952.

this is according to the article where as in 1947 pakistan was independent ... !!! kind verify before posting the information ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.125.132.122 (talk) 08:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Pakistan was independent from 1947, just as independent as the other dominions (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Ceylon) were, and just as independent (more or less, at least) as the

Iskander Mirza, also became the first President of the Pakistani republic when it was established, so formally succeeded Elizabeth as the head of state in 1956). —JAO • T • C

09:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

What's her military rank?

--Dojarca (talk) 00:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

As monarch, I assume it's Field Marshall (Army), Marshall of the Air Force (Air Force) & Admiral of the Fleet (Navy). Though I'm not sure. GoodDay (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Commander-in-Chief. --

MIESIANIACAL

00:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I though she also had Armed Services ranks. Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII & George VI had them. GoodDay (talk) 01:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

She's Lord High Admiral isn't she? As well as Colonel of a number of regiments throughout the world.--Gazzster (talk) 03:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Colonel-in-Chief" is not a military rank either.--Dojarca (talk

) 03:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

When she wore a uniform to Trooping the Colour, she wore the insignia of a colonel (which is what all colonels-in-chief and honorary colonels wear unless they have higher rank). The uniform is on display at the Guards Museum at Wellington Barracks. I don't believe the Queen has ever taken any military rank other than Second Subaltern in the ATS.--Ibagli (Talk) 04:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

She was Junior Commander in the ATS.

talk

) 12:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Well according my research colonel of the regiment gives temporary colonel rank for the period of holding the Colonel of the regiment office. Since the Queen most likely will not retire from such office, her rank may be most accurately described as colonel, though her permanent rank is Junior Commander which is equal to Leutenant. This is in accord with other European royal persons: for example,

Nicholas II of Russia was officially called Colonel Romanov by the Provisional government after he abdicated.--Dojarca (talk

) 15:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Duke of Lancaster

Needs to be edited to show she is also Duke of Lancaster.

How can that be done on a locked article please?

78.93.176.39 (talk) 14:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I never said that it still exsisted. However what is left of the empire has not evolved into the Commonwealth. Therefore the whole empire has not 'eveolved into the modern Commonwealth' - but 'most of' it has. Flosssock1 (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Howabout something like: 'most of the former empire evolved into the commonwealth'. GoodDay (talk) 18:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I would admit though there *is* an appearance given across many country articles that the British Empire has evolved into the Commonwealth. Many of the Commonwealth country articles use a common catch phrase. This phrase often reads something like "(~insert country name here~) became an independent country in the Commonwealth of Nations."

It would be better to say something like: "(blank) became an independent country, at which time it established membership to the Commonwealth of Nations. The former statement gives an appearance of a graduation- to the status of the Commonwealth of Nations from the former British Empire. CaribDigita (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

That's acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say something similar to GoodDay's proposal, something like 'and the former countries of the empire joined the modern Commonwealth' Flosssock1 (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Whatever is decided, I'll go along with it. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally I prefer just putting 'most of' in. Now that I've explained, what do you think of that? Flosssock1 (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

If nobody will complain about it? no prob. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

If I'm correctly understanding the various edit summaries left, the issue is not if the Empire evolved into the Commonwealth - it clearly did - but whether or not there is any British Empire left. I initially thought that the British Overseas Territories would count as the last remnants of the British Empire; but, as part of the UK, those territories are therefore now part of the Commonwealth. So, in this case, DrKiernan may be right. --

21:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

"most of" is unacceptable because it may be misread as meaning that the remainder of the empire still exists.

Flosssock1 and I are using different definitions of the word "empire". She thinks it means "the area over which George V had reigned as sovereign" whereas I think it means "a state in which the sovereign is an emperor". If the sentence is so easy to misread, then it should either be removed or redrafted.

I don't see the problem with the Overseas Territories. They are listed at the Commonwealth Secretariat, at the Commonwealth Games Federation, and in the Commonwealth section of the Queen's website. As defined by section 37 1(a) of the British Nationality Act 1981, as amended by the British Overseas Territories Act 2002,: "Every person who— (a) under the British Nationality Acts 1981 and 1983 or the British Overseas Territories Act 2002 is a British citizen, a British overseas territories citizen, British National (Overseas), a British Overseas citizen or a British subject; or (b) under any enactment for the time being in force in any country mentioned in Schedule 3 is a citizen of that country, shall have the status of a Commonwealth citizen."

So, the Overseas Territories have evolved into a part of the Commonwealth. The problem arises from the Arab countries that were once within the area of the empire but are not part of the Commonwealth. If the reader thinks "empire" means "area" rather than "state" then the sentence is misread.

) 12:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

When Elizabeth was born, the

. On his death...

Or:

When Elizabeth was born, the

. On his death...

I fail to see what you mean DrKiernan. To start with, George VI was only emperor of Inida, not the whole empire, also the British Overseas Territories are not part of the Commonwealth, and when I think of the British Empire I think of a large empire that, generally by convention, ended in the late 20th century. When I think of the British Overseas Territories I think of overseas territories that were part of the British Empire and that today make up what is left of the empire. Which is correct. So you could say that the British Empire evolved into the Commonwealth and British Overseas Territories. Which would be correct. Therefore I think that slipping 'most of' in sorts the problem.

Also please don't refer to me as 'she', I can assure that I am not a woman. But no hard feelings, Flosssock1 (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

But given the links posted above, in what way are the BOT (or for that matter territories of other Commonwealth states such as the Tokelau, not part of the Commonwealth? David Underdown (talk) 19:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure about other countries' territories however I do know that British Overseas Territories are not part of the Commonwealth. Citizens of British Overseas territories do have 'status' of a Commonwealth citizen, however as I said, the territory itself is not part of the Commonwealth. Flosssock1 (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see from http://www.commonwealth-of-nations.org/xstandard/65-82.pdf that you are strictly correct:

Only independent countries are members of the Commonwealth, although member countries’ overseas territories and associated states – mainly small island developing countries in the Caribbean and the Pacific – are eligible for assistance and may take part in certain activities. Some of them contribute to the Commonwealth’s development funds. The restriction of membership to sovereign states has helped to retain the sense of equal partnership in the forums in which Commonwealth policy and programmes are discussed.

but given that it's not just the UK that has dependent territories, , I don't think it's correct to describe the BOTs as the remnant British Empire either, the former Empire is now the Commonwealth, plus the dependent territories of all the sovereign states taht make up the Commonwealth. David Underdown (talk) 09:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I will not accept "most of". I have now provided four alternatives to the current wording [4][5][6][7], without agreement from Flosssock1.

In contrast, Flosssock1 has suggested: "most of", "most of", "most of", "most of", "most of", and "most of". Proposing the same rejected phrase over and over again will lead nowhere.

As a fifth alternative, may I suggest:

Her father,

George VI, became King-Emperor of the British Empire in 1936. The empire was a pre-eminent world power, but World War II and the empire's continued evolution into the Commonwealth of Nations led to Indian independence, and the abandonment of the title of Emperor. George VI became the first Head of the Commonwealth

, a symbol of the free association of the independent countries comprising the Commonwealth. On his death...

This would then revert back to the wording employed in the last stable revision before my edit of 12 November.

talk

) 09:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thats a very good point David. Other nations that are in the Commonwealth have territories that could be classes as being what is left of the BE as well as BOTs, also only most nations that have gained independence from the UK have joined the Commonwealth, but not all.

If we were to go down the route of changing the wording then I still think it would be best to put 'most of' in, however as someone previously stated this may need explaining, it would obviously go into too much detail for the intoduction. Therefore I think it would be best for the introduction to remain the way it is/was. Regards, Flosssock1 (talk) 12:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Propose changing it to read:

Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is the

, she is politically neutral and by convention her role is largely ceremonial.

Nope. No reason to single out the UK as somehow special above the other countries. --

MIESIANIACAL

03:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Erm yes, every reason! 86.133.55.3 (talk) 03:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC).

Well, you'll have to argue your case better than that. --

MIESIANIACAL

03:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It's so blindingly obvious that the UK is in a special position wrt the British monarchy that it really needs no further explanation. 86.150.101.4 (talk) 12:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC).

Blindingly obvious if you believe only the UK has a monarchy headed by EIIR, sure. As others have noted, we've dealt with this issue already and arrived at the current wording. It's fine as it is. --

MIESIANIACAL

12:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. What I should have said was that the UK is in a special position wrt to the monarch. 86.134.43.204 (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC).

I oppose any change, the current wording is fine. BritishWatcher (talk) 03:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I also oppose any change like that. There have been discussions in the past (and many times too) to move this article from Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom to Elizabeth II, because it's quite a horrible and misleading article name, and you want to make things even worse by making the UK seem more special than the other realms in the opening paragraph? Not going to happen. --~

Knowzilla ^(Talk)

10:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The two things arent't really comparable "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" is not a title that people are familiar with, hence it sounds awkward and unnatural. However, everyone would nevertheless agree that the British monarchy has a special relationship with the UK. 86.150.101.4 (talk) 12:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it does, for example the royal website describes it as the British monarchy however the current introduction is fine. The United Kingdom is listed first and its "of the United Kingdom" in the article title which quite a few people disagree with. Theres just no reason to make a change to the introduction, its stable. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course the UK has a special relationship with the

Knowzilla ^(Talk)

13:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Per my other comment above, what I should have said was that the monarch has a special relationship with the UK. 86.134.43.204 (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC).

(outdent) It's too bad there isn't a way to collapse the introduction, which appears top loaded. GoodDay (talk) 14:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the first sentence is fine. The problem with the first paragraph is the second sentence. The first sentence needs no explanation as it is self-explanatory, everyone knows what a queen is. And the third sentence is clear too. However, in the second sentence a list of titles is introduced, but it is not obvious what any of them actually mean.

talk

) 15:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the 2nd sentence could be placed somewhere else, in the article. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The royal family go back very far in British history, and history of the British throne. This is explained throughout this and related articles. Also her offical residence is in the UK. However her position as monarch in all realms is equal. As others have said, I think that the introduction is perfectly fine as it is. Flosssock1 (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Not overly far back, only 302-yrs. GoodDay (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

But the family goes back even further. Flosssock1 (talk) 19:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

In the form of the English, Scottish & Irish monarchies. GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Today mostly the UK. Flosssock1 (talk) 17:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we're overlooking something, folks. Never mind the UK for the moment. I've no objection to the UK being first. Without the UK, there would be no other realms. But, as I say, never mind that. In the list that follows, why does Canada precede the other realms? Why does Australia precede New Zealand? Why does NZ precede Tuvalu, and so on and so forth? If you notice, the most populous and the most white realms have precedence: everywhere. Why should that be? If all the realms are equal, as they surely are, why should not a ST Lucian user demand that Saint Lucia be first in the list? Ot a New Guinean speak up for New Guinea.

Let's be reasonable about this folks. Obviously someone has to go first.But there's a bias attached to every ordering. Why not try according to order of foundation, in which case the UK would b first. Or alphabetically, in which case Australia would be first. Or in order of prime ministers; birthdays!--Gazzster (talk) 06:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

They are in order of foundation.

talk

) 09:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

That's right. I believe that's been the accepted practice since the beginning of the Commonwealth. As a slightly associated aside, that's also the practice used for the precedence of the provinces in Canada; the first four listed in order of population and the remainder according to the date they joined Confederation. --

MIESIANIACAL

12:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Mais I stand corrected! But if were not gonna give the UK pride of place, what order do we want to use? Leave it as is, I say--Gazzster (talk) 02:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

No change to the order is needed. But if Gazzster wasn't sure what the order means, you can bet others wonder about this too. To make it explicit why they're ordered the way they are, we should come right out and say "in order of foundation", before the list of realms. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

There are reliable sources that say the Great Council of Chiefs consider her still "Queen of Fiji": [8][9][10]. However, her official website[11] says nothing about her being Queen or Paramount Chief. The government of Fiji[12], the Commonwealth[13], the CIA[14], and the BBC[15] all say that Fiji is a republic, and none of them mention any role for the Queen. This video[16] says she was once Queen of Fiji, but she is not now, though she may be again. These sources [17][18] show similar sentiment. Saying she is still Queen/Paramount Chief is bias and poorly sourced. If you're going to include it then it must be backed up by solid, reliable sources, and balanced with the opposing view that she is nothing of the sort.

) 16:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The Queen is no longer Queen of Fiji, but she is Paramount Chief though. --~

Knowzilla ^(Talk)

16:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Source?

talk

) 16:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Can this article be used: [19]? I understand that, while the Council of Chiefs do consider her Paramount Chief, she herself has not accepted the title; but then again neither has she renounced it. Whatever the case, it is obviously merely a honorific, rather than a proper office enshrined in any constitution or similar. (Though one does not know what the near future beholds in Fiji, to be quite honest.) --Igor Windsor (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I've added the requested source for her being considered Paramount Chief of Fiji. I don't believe it's up to us to decide whether the title is apporpriate or not; we must merely present the facts. --

MIESIANIACAL

18:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we please remove the dubious claim about Fiji for the time being so we can remove that neutrality tag. Far better to leave out the information for the moment than cast doubt over the entire article. On the Fiji issue id say it does need better sources than the ones shown so far. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the bit about Fiji from the introduction, all those damn tags are making a mess. For stuff to be in this article it needs to be very reliable, those current sources provided are not enough. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Amazing that it's been there essentially since the creation of this article and only now has it become such a dramatic issue that even a reliable source is deemed not good enough to support the fact. It's a point about how Elizabeth is regarded by the council of chiefs in Fiji as Paramount Chief, not some claim that she eats puppies for breakfast. --

MIESIANIACAL

21:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, not the corgis. GoodDay (talk) 00:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think she has so many if not for a snack on the go? ;) --

MIESIANIACAL

02:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Her title means nothing anyway if the government of Fiji doesnt recognise it.--Gazzster (talk) 03:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The Council of Chiefs is a part of the constitutional construct of Fiji. --

MIESIANIACAL

03:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It had no legislative power in that Constitution, nor did it appear to have the executive authority to act as a sovereign "fount of honour". Besides, both the Council and the Constitution are suspended. Surely it is obvious that the declaration was a political ploy by one of the competing factions in Fiji, and one that does not seem to have paid off.

talk

) 10:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It has been suspended, not abolished, and no, I don't see anything as obvious besides what some sources tell us: Elizabeth has been deemed Paramount Chief by the Fijian Council of Chiefs. There's no sense in us ascribing unknown motives to that body. --

MIESIANIACAL

14:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Howabout, the suspended Paramount Chief. GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

That's original, so, no.

talk

) 17:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It's true that she was chosen as Paramount Chief only because she was Queen, and in normal circumstances there would be 1:1 correspondence between the two offices. But Fiji has not had normal circumstances since 1987. The fact that she's no longer the Queen of Fiji does not necessarily mean she's no longer the Paramount Chief. In the same way, if she were to abdicate tomorrow, there's nothing in the rules that says she automatically relinquishes the role of Head of the Commonwealth. It's very unlikely she'd keep that job, but technically she could, as Duchess of Edinburgh or whatever she'd become. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

She was not chosen as paramount chief. The Council claimed that the paramountcy was invested in the British Crown by Cakobau in 1874, and it was never divested from the British Crown. But that is false, since the powers invested in the British Crown by the Fijian Deed of Cession were divested by the British Crown to the Fijian Crown in 1970. So, it is the Fijian Crown that holds the paramountcy not the British one. This is the usual misunderstanding of the Statute of Westminster. The Crowns of the different realms are separate. You can't pick and choose which aspects of the Crown you're going to keep and which you're going to give away.

talk

) 21:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Yet the Chiefs are on record as saying the coup that did away with the Fijian monarchy ended the Queen's governmental position in Fiji but not her traditional role. In other words, the Statute of Westminster and any other legal documents seem irrelevant to the Council of Chiefs and their decision on whether or not Elizabeth II is still Paramount Chief. --

MIESIANIACAL

21:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I checked the infobox at Fiji. What a confusion, Fiji's a republic & yet it's a monarchy. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not a monarchy any more, and the infobox doesn't say that it is, as far as I can see. The fact that it has a paramout chief who happens to be queen of a number of other countries doesn't make Fiji a monarchy. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

And there are more remnants of the Queen's traditional role in Fiji, despite it being a republic: her official birthday is still a national holiday [20], and she is still depicted in the Fijian dollar banknotes and coins [21]. --Igor Windsor (talk) 09:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the Australian external territories are part of Australia, they appear to be treated as such[22]. New Zealand, Niue, the Cook Islands and Tokelau are all part of the realm of New Zealand[23]. So, the way the lead is currently phrased means that the Australian territories are mentioned twice (once as part of Australia and once by themselves) and New Zealand is mentioned twice (once by itself and once as part of the realm of New Zealand). That is bad prose, and unnecessary duplication.

In contrast, the Crown dependencies (see this government briefing) and the British overseas territories (see paragraphs 28 and 49 of Regina v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs) are neither part of the United Kingdom nor a part of the realm of the United Kingdom.^{Or are they?—See below.}

) 17:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

And no territorial claims in the Antarctic are recognised in international law, which further befuddles the issue.--Gazzster (talk) 19:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The British Overseas Territories are not part of the UK, but by being territories of it, don't they make up part of the realm of the UK? But anyway, I was thinking perhaps theres no need to mention any of that at all (British, Aus, NZ Territories), because if The Queen is head of state of the UK, Australia, and NZ, doesn't it make her head of state of their territories and dependencies as well anyway? We don't say in the lead of Barack Obama's article that he is President of the US, and head of state of <insert US non-federating territories here>, as well do we? So maybe it's best to just remove it all, and make the lead shorter. --~

Knowzilla ^(Talk)

11:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Legislation like this: [24] uses the shorthand "United Kingdom" for Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the Crown Dependencies, and at least excludes BOTs from the meaning of a foreign country, though they are not explicitly included in the UK. She's actually in Bermuda tomorrow, so it would be good to get this sorted by the end of today.

talk

) 11:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

So what's the solution? Do we mention them or not? --~

Knowzilla ^(Talk)

12:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind if you remove all or part of them, but I suspect that others may disagree. I'm surprised no-one else has commented. Maybe try some drastic action by removing the lot and seeing what happens?

talk

) 13:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, before doing that, a question: The Queen is Lord of Man and Duke Normandy by virtue of being the British Monarch, am I right? She is also Supreme Governor of the Church of England by being the British Monarch, right? (I'm thinking about removing all the territories/dependencies bit, as well as perhaps the CoE part, since that can be under Religion - basically removing anything which The Queen is by virtue of holding another position already listed). --~

Knowzilla ^(Talk)

15:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It is unnecessary to mention any title which she holds by virtue of being Queen of the UK. No other encyclopedia does it. They all start off in the first paragraph by saying something like "she's Queen of the UK and her other realms and territories and Head of the Commonwealth" but they don't go further than that (except in some to say "Defender of the Faith"). In fact, I've yet to find one that even mentions her being Supreme Governor. Having it in the lead is undue weight, and smacks of Anglican POV.

talk

) 15:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Go by her official titles. good idea--Gazzster (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

She is officially "Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith" in the Crown Dependencies and the BOTs, as defined by the Royal Titles and Styles Act 1953 which specifically extends its jurisdiction to all territories "for whose foreign relations Her Government in the United Kingdom is responsible". "Duke of Normandy" and "Lord of Man(n)" are informal styles.

talk

) 09:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not think these should be removed. In any case, I would suggest that anyone wishing to change the opening paragraph write their proposal in full here first before introducing the changes in the article. --Igor Windsor (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I concor, Igor The C of E (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's discuss each issue separately, to keep things simple. I suggest taking Australia first.

) 21:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Mentioning that she's Head of State of Australia's external territories as somehow separate from her being Head of State if Australia as a whole, seems inapt, to say the least. Australia is said to have seven sovereignties: the country as a whole (which includes all the states, the internal territories, and the external territories), and each of the six States. Queensland attempted to create a separate title, "Queen of Queensland", but this was blocked in the High Court. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The territories of Australia are a part of Australia, just like the Northern Territory or Canberra. The second mention of Australia should be removed.

talk

) 21:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep.--Gazzster (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

If her official title includes "and of her other realms and territories Queen", I believe both the realms and the territories should be mentioned. In my opinion, the latter include Crown Dependencies and British Overseas Territories, as well as such other self-governing territories as the Cook Islands and possibly also the Northern Territory. Or am I wrong here? --Igor Windsor (talk) 10:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I think if you want to go that route then it would be wiser to change the opening to Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is the

talk

) 10:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, that sounds quite all right. It would then go on to say e.g. The territories consist of

external territories of Australia. The introductory part would then conclude with e.g. She also holds the position of the Head of the Commonwealth and that of the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. How about that? --Igor Windsor (talk

) 13:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

IMO, the lead should be ..is the queen regnant of the United Kingdom and fifteen other commonwealth realms.... But, the article title, infobox & content lead, balance each other quite well, so I'll stick with the current setup. GoodDay (talk) 13:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It's too long. The article should be a biography about Elizabeth Windsor the person not an article about the realms and territories and titles, styles and roles of the British/Commonwealth monarch. That should be detailed in the articles about those subjects. I will not accept the current wording.

talk

) 14:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Well then, how about this as the opening paragraph: Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is the

external territories , New Zealand and its territories and dependencies, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis. She also holds the position of the Head of the Commonwealth and that of the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. --Igor Windsor (talk

) 17:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It's too long and it's too boring. I've just asked my family to look at the article individually and asked them for their views. They all said exactly the same thing, and partly what I've been saying. They get bored reading the first sentence because it is too long. Children tune out mid-way through the first sentence, and will only read on after prompting. Adults just scan the first few words and then skip to the end. After prompting, they will read beyond the first sentence, but then they do not understand the second sentence. It introduces too many concepts, very few of which are explained. The religious title needs to be stripped out. The duplications should be removed. The listy sentences need to be cropped. Otherwise, this article is failing. People come to the article expecting answers, but all they get is frustrated and confused. The article itself is not actually read. Readers come here, look at the first sentence or so, and then they leave. The best that was said about it was: "Nice picture, shame about the article."

talk

) 19:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I must agree, the introduction is bloated. GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am sorry, encyclopedias are meant to be boring. That in itself, however, is no argument for one way or the other. We will, alas, have to wait to hear a better one before we agree to a change in the opening paragraph. No offence, of course, to any families whom it may concern. --Igor Windsor (talk) 20:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

No, that is totally and utterly wrong. They are supposed to be engaging and educational. This article fails on both counts.

talk

) 20:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I am so sorry. I do think, however, that I have tried my best. I shall not accept, however, any less than what is already written in the article. --Igor Windsor (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The Australian external territories were never mentioned before. They were only added very recently.

talk

) 20:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Igor, you have a thing or two to learn about how Wikipedia works. Accept or not accept as you wish, but at the end of the day consensus wins every time, and ultimately you have no choice but to accept that. Or leave. I'm for removal of any mention of territories, because they're included in the realms, for all ordinary purposes. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Jack, Thank you for your input. Please elaborate on the consensus issue. Please let us know where you see consensus here and in relation to what issues exactly? Thanks, --Igor Windsor (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue for this thread is as set out in the header. We're working collectively towards a consensus. It's fine to state one's views, and all views should be accepted for discussion. But for one editor to say, effectively, "I will do whatever I want, regardless of the outcome of this discussion" (which is what "I shall not accept ... any less than what is already written in the article" says to me), is adopting a not very collegiate or helpful tone. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the Australian external territories should be removed from the opening. Being head of state of the Australian territories separate from Australia (if she even is; it isn't sourced) is a direct result of being Queen of Australia. "Elizabeth II...is queen regnant of...Australia...and Head of State of...the external territories of Australia..." is redundant, or at least highly and arbitrarily selective. To me, it's no different than if it said she was "queen regnant of Australia, as well as one of three parts of the Parliament of Australia." One is simply a part of the other, and there's no need to single out one role from her duties as Queen of Australia. I would also apply that to the Realm of New Zealand and even the Crown Dependencies and British Overseas Territories. Acting as their head of state flows directly from her sovereignty over New Zealand and the United Kingdom, respectively. It's one part of her role as Queen in each country, and mentioning it at the beginning of the article gives it undue weight.--Ibagli (Talk) 08:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit spats

I'm sure we can all agree, edit sparring isn't the solution. We don't need to have this article protected, do we? GoodDay (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand

Moving on to the second issue, I don't see why the realm of New Zealand is mentioned twice. The realm of New Zealand is specifically mentioned in the initial list ("the Commonwealth realms: the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand,") and then in the very next sentence it is duplicated: "the Realm of New Zealand". I at first presumed that this was a simple misunderstanding and that the first mention was supposed to refer to just New Zealand itself whereas the second mention was supposed to refer to the associated states and dependencies of New Zealand. However, when I changed the second mention to "associated states of New Zealand", this was instantly reverted. So, as the second mention is not supposed to refer to the associated states alone, and does indeed refer to the exact same entity referred to in the first mention, it is a direct and unnecessary duplication. It should be removed.

talk

) 08:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

British overseas territories

I put these in the article on 22 November [25]. I was instantly reverted within five minutes [26] and since then other editors have said that they should be taken out [27][28][29][30][31]. I do now agree that the insertion unnecessarily bloats the lead. One of the two editors who supposedly disagree with the removal was actually the one who reverted my insertion, and so is clearly not actually bothered whether the overseas territories are included or not. Consequently, given the overwhelming majority for their removal, I am now removing them.

talk

) 10:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.