This is an archive of past discussions about Elizabeth II. 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.
I would like consensus to add a sentence to the intro mentioning the 16 countries she was previously queen of in addition to the ones she is still queen of. The proposed edit was reverted here. In my opinion, being a last monarch of these countries is important enough to go in the intro section. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
We already have these former realms, mentioned in the infobox. Best not to crowd up the article's intro, which has been stable for years. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm not proposing to list them in the intro, merely to mention that she was queen of 32 countries. Saying that she is queen of 16 countries is a misleading omission. This will become even more true when Barbados becomes a republic and the intro says she is only queen of 15 countries. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:10, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't think it's required. If Barbados does become a republic, we merely change "...and 15 other..." to "...and 14 other..." in the intro. Then add the 'end date' in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I wouldn't change it to that, after her passing. We can add those former realms, some where's else in the article. Remember, we'll likely be going with "and 14 other", in Charles' intro, by then. GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Why wouldn't you change it after her death? As far as history is concerned, the line goes "she was Queen of the UK and 31 other countries" not "she was Queen of the UK and 15 other countries". Why would we deliberately lie and give the incorrect number in the first sentence and expect people to read the article to find the real number? —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
That's not a reason to tell a lie in the article. It would be factually incorrect to say "She was queen of the UK and 15 other countries". Why would we intentionally put an incorrect number? —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
When she passes, we can add 'somewhere' in the lead (but not combined with the current realms), that she reigned over other countries that are now republics. GoodDay (talk) 02:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Okay, but why would we give the incorrect number in the first sentence only to give the correct number later in the lead? This is an encyclopedia, all numbers should be correct. Why would we start the article with a lie? —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, we will have to make changes to the lead when she's dead, such as correcting 15 to 31, or removing the number. DrKay (talk) 07:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Considering that she is 95. Here's a suggested change for the lead, when the time comes: "... was Queen of the United Kingdom and 14 other commonwealth realms, her entire reign. She also reigned over 17 other realms until they became republics." We're assuming of course, that Barbados will become a republic before then, though so far no word on a referendum in that country. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
It might need a slight re-wording because only four of them were independent realms during her entire reign, but I'd agree to something along the lines of your example. I still don't understand why we don't want to mention that she was queen of 32 countries today. To me, it seems important enough to make it into the first paragraph. But if there is no apatite for it I'll leave it be. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Try "...was Queen of the United Kingdom and three other commonwealth realms, her entire reign. She also reigned over 28 other realms, from the time of her accession or their independence, until they became republics"GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
What about "Elizabeth II was Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand from 6 February 1952 until her death in ????. In addition to that, she was also Queen of 28 other Commonwealth realms during different periods in her reign. Her reign of ? years is longer than the reign of any other British monarch in history, and was marked by a great decolonisation of the territories of the British Empire, and its transformation into the Commonwealth of Nations." ? Peter Ormond 💬17:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
That's too much for an intro. Also, let's not go down that Canada, Australia & New Zealand road, again. She's most associated & recognised with the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
That isn't too much. See Victoria's intro, for example. And within the Commonwealth realms except UK, the Queen and the monarchy have a close and strong relationship with Canada, Australia and New Zealand, apart from other realms; and also she is the first monarch to be titled separately as Queen of these realms. Also, apart from the UK, she will remain the monarch of these realms her entire reign. So, I don't see any harm in mentioning Canada, Australia and New Zealand in the intro. Peter Ormond 💬17:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
As I've done before. I would oppose adding Canada, Australia & New Zealand into the intro. We've already came to an agreement (after many discussions) to show the United Kingdom alone, as it's the oldest realm & the one she's most associated with & recognised as monarch of, per WP:WEIGHT. -- GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Until then, we maintain the intros status quo. PS: changing "and 15", to "and 14" of couse, if Barbados becomes a republic, before her passing. GoodDay (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
It's not too much for an intro, plenty of good articles have opening paragraphs longer than one paragraph sentence. But, I agree that mentioning all four countries by name is a bit too wordy for the opening paragraph. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Then, what about "Elizabeth II was Queen of the United Kingdom and 31 other Commonwealth realms. Her reign of ? years is longer than the reign of any other British monarch in history, and was marked by a great decolonisation of the territories of the British Empire, and its transformation into the Commonwealth of Nations."
No, because she didn't reign over "...and 31 other Commonwealth realms" for her entire reign. My proposal at 17:04, 4 Sept, is best. GoodDay (talk) 06:42, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
I still don't see what's wrong with "was Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms from 6 February 1952 to her death." Opening sentences should aim for simplicity per MOS:FIRST. DrKay (talk) 06:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
The number of realms varied but she was always queen of all the realms at any one point in time. When a realm became a republic, it was no longer a realm but she stayed queen of all the extant realms. DrKay (talk) 07:17, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
"Elizabeth II was Queen of the United Kingdom and three other realms from 6 February 1952 until her death in ????. In addition to that, she was also Queen of 28 other Commonwealth realms during different periods in her reign. Her reign of ? years is longer than the reign of any other British monarch in history, and was marked by a great decolonisation of the territories of the British Empire, and its transformation into the Commonwealth of Nations." Peter Ormond 💬07:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
I suggest we make a section for controversies regarding Her Majesty during her lifetime and rule. Whether that be her position as queen, her as a person or the monarchy in general. As there have been quite a few controversies during her lifetime eg. footage of a young Elizabeth doing what appears to be a 'Nazi Salute' with her relatives and not hiding the rift between her a PM Margaret Thatcher.
That runs the risk of WP:POVFORK/WP:COATRACK - although the point of the section you removed is more to do with “exemptions” than “lobbying’ so I don’t see it as a particularly appropriate home for it anyway. The point of WP:CRITS is to weave the “criticism”/“controversy” naturally through the article narrative rather than hiving it off (highlighting it) into a separate section or article. Bringing it back but not as a separate section would be my preference. DeCausa (talk) 08:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
I have removed the text from that article. If there is a consensus to include criticism and controversies on Wikipedia, then I reckon Bettydaisies's suggestion of including encyclopedic-significant information at different articles. Peter Ormond 💬08:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
I would prefer to reinstate my original section as it was. The suggestion of moving the section into other articles could be seen as an attempt to hide it. I accept it is not Wikipedia policy to create Controversy sections, which is why I weaved the content into the main narrative. Finally, I note that the editor who removed the section displays strong royalist beliefs on his User page and may therefore not be fully impartial. Sadgrove (talk) 17:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Review, summary and proposal
This is a summary of what I believe people are saying, and my response. If I have misrepresented you, I apologise. I have tried to act in good faith.
Beatrix TBS reckons we should have a Controversies section on this page.
This is opposed by DrKay and DeCausa, on the grounds that controversy sections are deprecated in Wikipedia. I’m inclined to oppose a Controversies section, on the additional grounds that there is little evidence of controversies attaching to Queen Elizabeth.
This being the main opinion, I would suggest we do not create a Controversies section on this page.
I therefore propose to review alternative suggestions on how to deal with the section.
Peter Ormond would like it moved to Lobbying in the United Kingdom. DeCausa is opposed to that on the grounds of it becoming tangential. If the article were solely about lobbying I would be in agreement with Peter Ormond, but as DeCausa points out, the section is more about the exemptions gained, with the extent of lobbying being less clear or significant.
Peter Ormond also suggested it might go to Personality and image of Elizabeth II. I don’t think the content is about her personality, but is more about legislation and how it is arrived at.
Bettydaisies suggests it could go to Finances of the British Royal Family
There is merit in this. It de-personalises the material, and I am unclear how much the exemptions are due to the Queen herself, rather than a question of benefits that accrue to the royal family in one way or another.
I therefore propose to move the content to Finances of the British Royal Family because the exemptions would fit neatly there, and the question of lobbying to achieve those exemptions could be relevant.
I will also add a link at the See Also section.
However, I will wait seven days to see if anyone has opposing views.
Thank you all for your valid and useful points. Sadgrove (talk) 19:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Rightly or wrongly, monarchists (who assumingly would edit or maintain 'monarch' bio articles) are not likely to accept controversy or negative sections. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. The issue with so-called "Controversy" sections is that they invariably tend to invite edits which are quite often more along the lines of "yellow journalism". Which is precisely why Wikipedia discourages such sections in the first place. Earl of Arundel (talk) 15:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Need consensus for adding 'Head of the Commonwealth in the infobox
Whoever keeps adding Head of the Commonwealth to the infobox of this bio article & George VI's article? please stop. Want to add it? get a consensus on the talkpages first. GoodDay (talk) 01:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm astonished that the word racism isn't mentioned once in this article, given the extensive criticism she and her family have faced over documented racist actions and views, including her policy of not hiring non-white people. [1] Imagine if the head of state of any other European country, such as the presidents of France or Finland, had such white supremacist policies in place in the instititions he/she was ultimately responsible for? --Tataral (talk) 21:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Nope. As far as I remember it was her chief financial manager, so she was not involved (at least not directly). The criticism was aimed at the courtiers not her. Keivan.fTalk06:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Interviews
I noticed that there was an edit war, about whether she has given any interview or not. Here are two:
I'm curious why her surname, which is verifiably and indisputably her surname, is listed in both the infobox and in the early life section, but not in the lead. Would like to hear a consensus on whether to do anything about this. DeaconShotFire (talk) 22:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
It was a compromise between those who supported & opposed its addition to the bio article. PS - As mentioned in an earlier discussion, there's inconsistency about this, across all of King George V's descendants. GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
@DeaconShotFire: When a user added a piece of info to the lead that you disagreed with, you advised them to seek consensus on the talk page. I don't know why you don't follow your own advice. User:DrKay and I both removed a piece about Andrew from the lead, which is not covered in the article's body. Don't you think it would be your responsibility to clarify the reason behind your edit as you're the one who's making change to a stable version of a featured article? Keivan.fTalk04:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I advised them to seek consensus because the information they were trying to submit was verifiably false. What I should have said was enquire about this on the talk page. DeaconShotFire (talk) 13:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Anyway, I added the required info to the article's body. Users are welcome to check and offer any better alternatives that they might come up with. Keivan.fTalk04:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
@GoodDay This seems like a very odd choice. If it's being included as her name elsewhere in the article, it really should be included in the lead. Perhaps we should open another discussion about this either here or in an RFC, given that the last one was 18 months ago? DeaconShotFire (talk) 13:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Your choice. I only request that you expand the RFC to include all of George V's sons & their descendants. Noting of course, that some of George V's descendants go by Mountbatten-Windsor. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Religion in the infobox
I believe somewhere on the 'pedia, it was agreed to not show the person's religion in the infobox. Also, I'm getting a whiff of socks, around this issue. GoodDay (talk) 23:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2021
This edit request to Elizabeth II has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Two points here:
1. I believe that giving a regal number to the current occupant counts as "encompassing the death of the monarch" and, as such is treason.
2. The United Kingdom includes Scotland (at present). The current monarch of Scotland, if we ignore point 1, is better described as Queen Elizabeth I of Scotland and regarded as Elizabeth II by most other countries inside and outside the previous empire.
My suggestion is that all references to regal number should be omitted. Thus the title would be "Queen Elizabeth".
That's not how it works here. Overwhelmingly, sources call her Elizabeth II & therefore, so does Wikipedia. Same thing with William IV, Edward VII & Edward VIII. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Not only reliable sources - it was decided in law in the Scottish courts 70 years ago - see MacCormick v Lord Advocate. (And I’d be interested in the source that backs up giving a Regnal number to the current monarch is treason given that every Act of Parliament and almost government document bears the EIIR royal cypher!) DeCausa (talk) 07:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
FWIW, I'm neither for or against the inclusion of the Andrew/Epstein story, in the article. Just wish ya'll could come to an agreement on its inclusion or exclusion. GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Unnecessary at this point. I don’t see a big dispute in the edit history. It’s been in the body of the article uncontested for some time. There were a couple of reverts from the lead (not they body) - that’s all. If it’s reverted again it should come to the talk page for discussion. Rfc is only necessary if it doesn’t get sorted on the talk page. DeCausa (talk) 07:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm not against it being a part of the body of the article, but seems wholly inappropriate in the lede. After all, the lede is supposed to act as a summary, and it's not really a key point to her personally or her reign. Neither is the ongoing Harry/Meghan debacle (which isn't mentioned there). --Jkaharper (talk) 01:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
As both Megxit and the Epstein incidents are now included in the lead, I think it's prudent to have a discussion. Personally, I think these issues warrant further nuance - the sentence itself states that "Elizabeth has faced republican sentiment and criticism of the royal family [after various controversies]". The phrasing is a bit tricky, since the body doesn't outright state that Megxit or Epstein led to republican sentiment themselves. [[4]] section of the British royal family article also describes these events in more detail. Personally, I think the Diana and Epstein points should remain, as Elizabeth's own actions have been under scrutiny (reactions after of her death, allegedly shielding him from being charged, etc) but I don't think she has been criticized personally in the aftermath of Megxit, which doesn't imply a strong relevance to her biography.--Bettydaisies (talk) 00:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Let's keep in mind, the British magazines live on (indeed create or stoke) the controversies. I highly doubt the British monarchy has been in any danger of abolition, in centuries. GoodDay (talk) 00:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
I completely agree, but I also think that the Epstein and Megxit stuff should be included. Even though I added the Megxit stuff to the lead, I accept that there hasn't been as much scrutiny of the Queen's response after this (though there were been a lot of comments along the lines of "this is all she needs right now" from some corners, that seems more of a slight against Harry and Megan than the Queen). —AFreshStart (talk) 01:52, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
I guess whatever it is that we put in the lead should be a controversy that could potentially damage 'her' reputation. The reputation of 'her family' and their sagas should be covered in the appropriate criticism section on the British royal family article (which to the best of my knowledge has already covered these topics). I don't think her reputation has been damaged by either Andrew or Harry and Meghan's activities and sources regularly criticize them rather than Elizabeth herself. Keivan.fTalk02:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Where to place 'Head of the Commonwealth' in the infobox.
Well, thanks to the 'decision' at the 'Head of the Commonwealth RFC'? We've got inconsistency between this bio article & George VI's bio article, concerning the placement in the infobox of the title Head of the Commonwealth. I hope those who 'wanted' it placed in those infoboxes, are content. PS - Yes, I'm a tad peeved. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
The lead sentence currently states that Elizabeth is Queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other Commonwealth realms. That will need to be changed on 30 November, when Barbados is expected to become a republic. Векочел (talk) 23:36, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
We're already prepared for it. Changing it to "...Queen of the United Kingdom and 14 other Commonwealth realms", when the time comes. GoodDay (talk) 23:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Add title as Supreme Governor of the Church of England
I believe that the title Supreme Governor should be added alongside Head of the Commonwealth and was wondering if everyone else would be in agreement with that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beatrix TBS (talk • contribs) 20:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
@Peter Ormond: & @DrKay:. I knew by having Head of the Commonwealth added to the infobox, here & at George VI? It would open up the floodgates for attempts to add Supreme Governor of the Church of England & yes, eventually Defender of the Faith. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Disagree. It's part of being Queen of the United Kingdom, along with Commander-in-Chief, Duke of Lancaster, Lord of Mann, Sovereign of the orders of chivalry, etc. It is sufficient to list the all-encompassing title of Queen. Infoboxes should be simple and succinct. They lose functionality when over-loaded with sundry roles that are incidental to the main role and this infobox is already over-long. DrKay (talk) 20:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
OPPOSE. "Supreme Governor of the Church of England", "Defender of the Faith", "Duke of Lancaster", "Duke of Normandy", "Lord of Mann", "Fount of Honour", "Fount of Justice", "Seigneur of the Swans", "Chieftain of the Braemar Gathering", etc etc are always vested with the British monarch, whereas "Head of the Commonwealth" is not. Peter Ormond 💬20:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Introduction Redo
The introduction has almost no sources at all and doesn't appear to be written in a neutral way (especially the last sentence talking about popularity of the monarchy and the Queen).
It should either be removed or properly supplemented with sources and should probably be written less like a letter of recommendation. 24.15.236.163 (talk) 21:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
This edit request to Elizabeth II has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please include the controversy about her designation as Queen Elizaberh the second, as she is the first Queen Elizabeth of the United Kingdom and certainly Queen Elizabeth the first of Scotland. Broke Royal protocol but court case in the 'House of Lords ruled that the Royal perogative means the Queen can do what she likes. QEII postboxes were bombed in Scotland and she is generally referred to without the addition of 'Second'. 217.16.212.223 (talk) 22:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Should Operation London Bridge be included in the article?
Information on Operation London Bridge has been hidden from the article by GoodDay, who doesn't agree with its inclusion while Elizabeth II is alive. I disagree, as I believe the plans have been well-publicised, although I understand its inclusion in the section where I moved the content may be seen undue.
I usually don't make 'emotional-based' edits (note, I'm a republican), but it just appears 'morbid' mentioning the topic's funeral plans etc, while they're alive. We already have an article on that topic, concerning Elizabeth II & that should suffice. GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
I totally understand that concern (also a republican here, and 'morbid' was one of the first words that popped into my head when talking about this), which is one reason I wanted to discuss this on the talk page. Even though I favour inclusion due to the number of reliable sources discussing the plans, I am still somewhat on the fence on the issue. —AFreshStart (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm honestly not sure. It is a BLP, so including plans on the subject's death does seem a bit strange, and would almost certainly have to be reorganised into a section separate from her biography when she does pass away.--Bettydaisies (talk) 19:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Exclude - I think Bettydaisies is understating things here. It's not a "bit strange". It's downright awkward.
This is a bit of an odd one as typically we look to WP:V as being the main criteria for inclusion. Granted "London Bridge" probably passes WP:V and WP:DUE would probably allow a brief mention of "London Bridge". That said, I don't think I've ever read a bio that included info on plans for someone's death. Super morbid. Super unusual. Just exclude it. NickCT (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Being “morbid” seems to me a strange reason to exclude a topic from an encyclopedia article. Yes, highly unlikely that there is another bio with the funeral plans in it. But Operation London Bridge is probably the only article on a BLP’s funeral plans in Wikipedia. When it happens it will be a huge national and international event: hence its preparations, overseen by the Queen, are notable and recognised as notable by the RS which is why they discuss it. At this point, it seems to me entirely WP:DUE to include a short piece of text on it. Not including it is a clear omission of a notable topic about this BLP that’s widely covered by the RS. DeCausa (talk) 20:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
The status quo is "Queen of...", however an editor or two wants it changed to either "the Queen" or "the queen". Recommend they bring their arguments here, rather then attempt to push their edits into the article. Also, see bio intros of her predecessors for comparison. GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Usage of "the" is generally required when it's in a title (i.e. The President). It's simply not right to omit it when it's needed. SummerKrut (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
In the intros of offices, "the" is used when it's preceded by a numeral. There's no numeral being used in this intro. GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
[5] - "The Prime Minister is the leader of Her Majesty’s Government and is ultimately responsible for all policy and decisions." It's not a must for it to be followed by a numeral. SummerKrut (talk) 16:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I suggest that we change the name of HM The Queen's mother in the infobox from: Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon to Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother or a shorter version-
Elizabeth, The Queen Mother as this was what she was known as internationally, and also the name given in title for her Wikipedia article. Beatrix TBS (talk) 22:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
I think you're trying to argue that Philip should appear as 'Philip Mountbatten' not 'Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh' because that was his name before marriage? But, Philip was a prince and duke of Edinburgh before marriage, so it's still correct to say 'Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh' either way. It's also correct to say 'Prince Philip of Greece' -- they're all variations on the same theme. What we don't say in these circumstances is use terms like 'Prince Father' or 'Prince Consort' or 'Queen's Husband' or whatever because that defeats the purpose of the parameter, which is to define the parents' identities and that is partially defeated if one of the identities is defined in relation to the other. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:32, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
I suppose, we could use "Philip, Duke of Edinburgh". Indeed he was a Danish/Greek prince, but he renounced his succession rights to the Greek throne (his first cousin Paul, was King of Greece at the time) in 1947 before marrying Elizabeth & was already barred from the Danish throne (his grandfather, King George I of Greece having renounced his Danish succession rights for himself & his descendants, conditionally upon ascending the Greek throne) & wasn't created a British prince, until 1957. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
He was created Duke of Edinburgh in the moring just because he was marrying Elizabeth. The Wedding certificate lists him as "Philip Mountbatten". Peter Ormond 💬18:25, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Wedding Certificate
Protocol says that Wedding Certificates should not use titles as names. If you look at the Wedding certificate of Prince George to Princess Marina, Marina has no surname. The Dukedom for Philip was in his own right. When he died that passed to Charles. It was his title regardless of his marriage. This suggests he should be styled as 'Philip Mountbatten, 1st Duke of Edinburgh' as we would Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington
Infobox image
I'm content with current image, but it is six years old. I wouldn't object to replacing it with a 2021 image, providing it's good quality. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
I think it's fine honestly. It's a nice picture and still pretty representative of what she looks like. LJ (talk) 05:41, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Liz Windsor supporting Andrew Windsor over Epstein links.
Can somebody add in a new section over the Epstein sex case.
Will be covered by the Crown in 2-3 years, so worth adding some context.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose we add Her Majesty's official titles as Head of State of the Crown Dependencies of: Isle of Mann, Bailiwick of Guernsey and Bailiwick of Jersey, as these states are not part of the commonwealth and are separate titles, specific to these places. Beatrix TBS (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. She has about three dozen different titles and styles, so this is undue and disproportionate. The lead should not contain material not found in the article body, nor should the lead be turned into a list. Her official title in all three places is 'Queen', which is already given in the first sentence anyway. DrKay (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose - We don't want to overload the intro to this article. "Queen of the United Kingdom and 14 other Commonwealth realms", will suffice. GoodDay (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. Agreeing with the above comments, and also, per this site, note: "As a British Crown dependency, the Isle of Man cannot become an individual member of the Commonwealth. However, the UK’s membership of the Commonwealth includes the Isle of Man [my emphasis], and this allows the Island to become involved in a range of Commonwealth activities and organizations....". I imagine that similar provisions apply to Jersey and Guernsey. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. These are titles held by the British monarch ex officio. If we add the three titles listed above, we will need to add Defender of the Faith, Governor of the Church of England, and her other titles. Her main title is Queen. Векочел (talk)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Image of HM in the infobox
The image in the Infobox is six years old, I propose we change it to an image of HM from the last year. Image I give as an example:
HM The Queen at opening of Welsh Parilament 2021, high resolution and accurate representation of what HM looks like (Permitted use under copyright):
No, you can visibly see that she is older in this one and it is a high resolution photo of her. It is a better representation of what she really looks like. Beatrix TBS (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Is there a way to fade the people in the background, like its' done in the current image being used? The guy standing next to her, is a distraction. GoodDay (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
No, it's a representation of her frailty in old age. It isn't a better representation overall at all and surely cannot be used to substitute the 2015 image. She has not aged dramatically since 2015. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 05:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Disagree, she has more wrinkles and is thinner now, plus in the current image there is a skin filter making her complexion darker. Beatrix TBS (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I am quite certain there is, the current image has been blurred, I will need to look it up. Beatrix TBS (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
After some time I believe I have altered the image into a more acceptable version to use as the infobox image: Beatrix TBS (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Awful image, that has caught her whilst hunched over. Also, she's using a walking stick in it, which was a temporary measure whilst she was recovering from a back problem. More recently she's been pictured without it. Keep the current one, there's nothing wrong with it. --Jkaharper (talk) 00:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
She has had a SLIGHT hunch for many years, it is a high resolution image that hasn't edited her appearance whereas the current one has changed her complexion and is 6 years old. Furthermore, if a high quality image that is years more recent it should be used, it is a fine photo and HM is noticeably thinner. Also, The Queen is 95 years old, using an image of her using a walking stick isn't a shameful thing or something she'd be embarrassed about and there should be no problem created because of it. The image should be a high quality, high resolution and recent as possible image, not a filtered 'insta-worthy' picture. Beatrix TBS (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Re: in the current image there is a skin filter making her complexion darker and it is a high resolution image that hasn't edited her appearance whereas the current one has changed her complexion
You're mistaken, Beatrix. As was explained in detail many talk page discussions ago, the original photograph was highly oversaturated and somewhat underexposed (a common technique when creating a digital negative in order to maximize data). The current infobox image has been properly developed from that original in order to normalize the saturation, increase the exposure and reduce noise. It took a while but I think that most editors eventually understood that she really is wearing a lot of foundation on her face, with very little if any on her neck. It is not the result of digitally tampering with her complexion. As for choosing a new image, I'm open to suggestions but the image above isn't very suitable IMO. nagualdesign22:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2022
This edit request to Elizabeth II has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please provide reference(s) for this statement:
"However, support for the monarchy in the United Kingdom has been and remains consistently high, as does her personal popularity." 213.205.241.59 (talk) 08:32, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Add the length of reign to The Queen and previous monarchs
Should we add a template of the length of The Queen next to her Infobox:Reign (age in years and days) and the previous monarchs? I have seen the other languages of The Queen did this.
For example:
Reign: 6 February 1052- present (70 years x days)
I have been trying to add the following sentence to the article
The future queen was frequently exposed to her royal status even as a young child; issuing commands to parading soldiers, being honoured by passers by and inviting over friends using paper decorated with royal crowns.
Based on this source (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60201088), DrKay has repeatedly tried to remove it. They have claimed that the article is satirical. They don't seem to have any evidence for this claim and it seems fairly unlikely that the BBC would up a piece mocking the queen on its front page on the day of her platinum jubilee. That it's a poor source and that its trivial. From my point of view, a single sentence on the unique nature of her upbringing based on a BBC feature by a historian seems like a perfectly well sourced and proportionate thing to include in the early childhood section of her article.
To quote Lacey, "At Windsor Castle in the late 1920s, the young Princess Elizabeth (born 21 April 1926) was observed by the Royal Librarian Owen Morshead being wheeled out in her pram to watch the Changing of the Guard, when the officer commanding would march up to salute her smartly.
"Permission to march off, please, Ma'am?"
Sitting up in her pram, the princess would incline her bonneted head, according to Morshead, then wave her hand to give permission. At this tender age the little girl who already grasped the weightiness of her grandfather's national role as "Grandpa England", was clearly developing some inkling of her own as well...
What effect does it have on a three-year-old mind to discover that you only have to wave your hand and nod your head for the band to strike up and the entire platoon to march off at your behest - especially as further signals of your grandeur multiply?"
DrKay The statement I tried to add was "issuing commands to parading soldiers" not fighting men (which I said in my argument with you because I was irritated in the same way you have been irritable in this discussion). I'm perfectly willing to change "issuing commands" to "being addressed by" if that's what bothers you. The point is that its perfectly sensible to include one sentence on her unique childhood experiences in the section of the article on her early years. Llewee (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
A baby waving in a pram is not issuing commands. The sentence adds nothing of value. Being present at a parade, being waved at by spectators and sending out invitations to a party are everyday occurrences of an entirely trivial nature. DrKay (talk) 15:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
DrKay, being saluted at parades and recognised whenever you go to park is clearly not a trivial part of most people's childhoods. I honestly don't see why you have such a problem with including one sentence on her unique childhood experiences in a section of the article entirely dedicated her experiences before she was ten. Llewee (talk) 15:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
It adds nothing. She's a princess. She grew up in a palace with a governess. Her grandfathers were an emperor and earl. She was baptized by the Archbishop of Canterbury. No reader needs to be told that she had an extraordinary childhood. It is self-evident. If, on the other hand, we could be told that she grew up ignorant and racist because she was cocooned in a strange world that was very posh, very rich, very inbred and exclusively white, then I would be interested. DrKay (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Should "Windsor" be added as the Queen's last name?
In the opening sentence, the Queen's name is listed as "Elizabeth Alexandra Mary". Shouldn't the full name be Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor, as that is listed as her full name further down in the article, and she is of the House of Windsor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leavit2stever (talk • contribs) 18:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
We already had an RFC on that matter & the result was to exclude, PS - I've removed the name from the opening sentence-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2022
This edit request to Elizabeth II has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The longstanding versions for the subsections-in-question, have been "Silver Jubilee" & "Golden Jubilee". I see no reason for making additions to either of them, other then possibly a push (on one of them) for a Canadian monarchist slant. As for the other, pointing out a new millennium isn't necessary. Honestly, must we go through (particularly the Canadian bit) these very old arguments, again? GoodDay (talk) 06:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Has there been a discussion or consensus about shortening or collapsing the infobox? It makes the article look cluttered. I think “Queen of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms” would look more aesthetically pleasing, especially with the addition of a “show more” or “more” option regarding what the Commonwealth realms are, or at least a link to the corresponding article. I don’t think it’s necessary to list every realm she reigns over, especially ones that she no longer does. Just my thoughts, though. LordVesuvius (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
I don’t know if it’s just because I’m using the mobile app then, but to me, the infobox is fully expanded and there is no “hide” option or anything. LordVesuvius (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Could we get opinions of changing the image of HM in the infobox, providing it is a recent image of high resolution and quality? Please state if you Oppose or Agree and your reasons why, so the question can be put to rest, whether that be keeping the current image or changing the image. Beatrix TBS (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
If you could come up with a good 2022-quality image, as this is her Platinum Jubilee year? That would be helpful. She has indeed (in appearance) aged quite a bit, since 2015. GoodDay (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
There will more than likely be an official portrait or images released for her Jubilee on the 6th of February, just like there was on her Sapphire Jubilee. Beatrix TBS (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
There are usually crown copyrighted images or open UK government copyright images that are free to use for the public as long as it is not being used to earn money, such as selling products with images of HM on it. Beatrix TBS (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
You have completely misunderstood the policy. If an image cannot be used commercially (i.e. cannot be used "to earn money") then it cannot be uploaded to commons and can only be uploaded to wikipedia if fair use applies, which it would never do for the Queen as there are thousands of free use images of her. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Beatrix stated the image uploaded was published under a Open Government Licence. "The OGL permits anyone to copy, publish, distribute, transmit and adapt the licensed work, and to exploit it both commercially and non-commercially. In return, the re-user of the licensed work has to acknowledge the source of the work and (if possible) provide a link to the OGL". Indeed, nearly every article about a Member of Parliament uses the OGL published image of them. For example https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Boris_Johnson_official_portrait_(cropped).jpgTIGHazard (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Just because that image was not, does not change my point that a future OGL published image could replace the current one in the infobox TIGHazard (talk) 14:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Is there better phrase we could use, in place of "...for good"? I mean is this a permanent situation? Is the monarch's demise imminent? GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
@Celia Homeford: regarding this edit, I don’t think the sources disagree - some just have a more extensive quote than others. Regarding your reference to Shawcross, in fact in his biography of the Queen Mother he includes the “what else?” - p.655. DeCausa (talk) 12:56, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
I agree with this - it seems the full quote is often abbreviated, but doesn't seem to be in doubt. Shawcross cites it to Marion Crawford's 1952 "Queen Elizabeth II". Vashti (talk) 14:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
That it came from Crawford makes it dubious in my opinion. Crawford had been cut off by Elizabeth and the Royal Household by 1952, so how would she know? She had no access to the family or to the staff. Note also what it says at Marion Crawford: "Crawford's writing career came to a crashing halt when the column to which her name was attached was exposed as a fraud." Celia Homeford (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
I suspect the whole quote/story will be ultimately sourced to Crawford given the date of her book. As I said before, there’s no evidence that the sources are in disagreement. DeCausa (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Because it's a lovely story that most people have heard, which tells us something about the Queen and which is well-attested by some of the same biographers the article is based on? We have to assume the historiography of e.g. Shawcross and Bradford are good enough that they can be relied on - they often source to personal interviews and we can presume they know whether this is reliable or not.
The frustrating thing is that Charteris himself appears to be on record (in what sounds like a radio or TV interview), but I can't find the source: "She'd been at Treetops the night actually when he [the King] died and she'd come back to Sagana Lodge [a wedding present from the Kenyan people]. I made my number at Sagana Lodge and had a bit of a gossip, she told me about the rhinoceros and all that sort of thing, [she was] looking wonderful in blue jeans. Off I went and at lunch somebody told me that the King was dead. So I got into the car and went to Sagana Lodge as quickly as I could where I found her, very composed, master of her fate."Vashti (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
(this is from Bradford's "Her Life in Our Times", which doesn't continue to add the quote in question but does indicate that Charteris has commented extensively ... somewhere.) Vashti (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
As long as the TV series "The Crown" isn't being used as a source? then all is well. Those folks stated that Edward VIII's first name was David, like his brother George VI's first name was Albert. Need I post more. GoodDay (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
The queen's four-day visit, designed to help Britain reconcile with Russia following decades of cold war hostility, marks the first time a reigning British monarch has set foot on Russian soil. When Edward VII made the only previous state visit to what was then the Russian empire in 1908, he never stepped ashore, meeting Nicholas II instead on royal yachts off the Baltic port of what is now Tallinn.
Christian Science Monitor is listed as a reliable source, and the CSMonitor claim about the visit by Edward VII are supported by a contemporary press release by Buckingham Palace and in a history book.[1][2] That seems significant enough to mention in the article, no? Schazjmd(talk)14:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm aware of the history. The new insertion did not make clear either that a previous monarch had made a state visit to Russia or that previous monarchs had set foot on Russian soil before they became monarchs. Any new insertion needs to make these points clear and not mislead readers into thinking that Russia was somehow inaccessible for nine centuries. DrKay (talk) 14:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps a reference to “reigning” monarch with a footnote describing the limitation to Edward VII’s visit would fix it? DeCausa (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
References
^"Elizabeth II to visit Russia in October". Evansville Press. 15 July 1994. p. 2. first visit to Russia by a reigning British monarch...King Edward VII and Queen Alexandra dined with Tsar Nicholas II on the imperial yacht 'Standard' in June 1908 in Russian waters off Tallinn, the palace said.
I believe there should be a list of Prime ministers section within her title section of the infobox in consistency with other monarchs. Was there ever a discussion about this or concensus? AKTC3 (talk) 19:06, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
That would be one heck of a long list. We'd have British prime ministers, Canadian prime ministers, Australian prime ministers, New Zealand prime ministers, etc. Then the prime ministers of countries 'when' they had her as their monarch, but are now republics. GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
PS: Note - We don't list the prime ministers in the infoboxes of her predecessors (George I to George VI) either. GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
I believe it would be sufficient to add a section as shown in the old revision suggested by Peter Ormond. Perhaps for preceding monarchs as well? Many of them have shorter lists (except for George III and Queen Victoria) AKTC3 (talk) 03:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Seeing as Walpole is considered the first prime minister. Such an inclusion would begin with George I's infobox. GoodDay (talk) 04:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't agree. All these infoboxes are already very long and they should be short and simple. It's also not something that encyclopedias typically do. Celia Homeford (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Walpole wasn't prime minister of Hanover. He had no power there whatever. Even with the first example there are problems. They all have the same or similar problems. The parameter is not appropriate. DrKay (talk) 19:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
There could be a header that distinguishes Great Britain from Hanover, similar to distinguishing of Margrethe II of Denmark’s prime ministers in Denmark, Greenland and Faroe Islands. AKTC3 (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Expanding a problem from one article to another is not a solution. The solution is to solve the problem at the other article, by removal for example. DrKay (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
How would this be a problem? A lot of these infoboxes are short and British monarchs with many prime ministers like Elizabeth II may have a “See list” redirect link. It’s that way with other European monarchs. AKTC3 (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
I see no short infoboxes and I don't find 'let's make this article as crap as all the other ones' a convincing argument. DrKay (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
There are articles for the Prime Ministers under Queen Victoria, George V, George VI, Elizabeth II. A simple “See list” redirect would suffice, and I’m sure it wouldn’t make the article “crap.” AKTC3 (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Not sure I've ever heard/read about an Archive 0. But, oh well. Would be better to delete the FA review, entirely. GoodDay (talk) 00:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
It's a technique Mike Christie and I came up with when we were correcting old oddities in FAC archives. It allows a way to avoid a housekeeping delete, while also avoiding having the faulty FAR recorded as an official "Keep" in the articlehistory template (which would leave an inaccurate impression). There are some useful bits of information stored in archive0, should editors decide to work on improvements (I hope I've addressed all the MOS:SANDWICHing). Archive0 could also serve as a WP:FARGIVEN, should the issues there go unaddressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
In the article it is mentioned that Barbados became a republic in 2021. I don't see any reason to single out one country. Is there some reason I'm missing that we should mention Barbados but not Pakistan, Nigeria, or Mauritius? Векочел (talk) 15:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
I think it can be cut. I believe this is one of the things that is symptomatic of wider problems in the article and was raised in the FAR: material introduced since the featured article promotion is largely sourced to news sites rather than biographies and so there is a tendency to include each news story as it comes along each week and the final few sections of the article over-focus on the last few years instead of employing summary style like the rest of the article. Typically, each decade gets about 4-6 paragraphs, until you get to 2012, when the last 10 years take up 12 paragraphs, double the coverage of any other decade. (Mauritius is mentioned by the way, but succinctly as a clause in a sentence making a broader point, which is fine in my view.) DrKay (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Actually, 2012-2019 only takes up 4 paragraphs. It's really just the last 2 years that are disproportionate, particularly considering she's done less in the last two years than normal. The 'Covid-19 pandemic' section should really be shortened to about 2 paragraphs. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Featured article status
Hi everyone,
I recently nominated this article for FAR, but got speedily closed for not bringing it to the talk page. I would like to discuss issues with this article that need to be fixed in order to keep its status as a featured article. If there are issues and are not fixed, we can bring this to featured article review. I hope to get some input on what needs to be done since it has not been reviewed since 2012. Interstellarity (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RudolfRed (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
