Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 49

Archive 45

←

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

"Category: Dethroned monarchs", really?

Queen Elizabeth II died of natural causes while reigning. How can she be a "dethroned monarch"? I would have thought that such a category applied only to monarchs who lost their thrones because they were ousted, not by natural death. — Tonymec (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I assume it means the other Commonwealth realms which splintered off or become republics during her reign which she had been head of state of. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

The latest example would be 2021, in Barbados. GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this is a useful categorization - it is not defining for her. Johnbod (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

It really depends on what the definition of the category is. Does it cover all monarchs that have lost one or two realms or is it for monarchs that were completely stripped of power? If it's the latter it definitely does not apply to her and it would be misleading. Keivan.f^Talk 01:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

To my mind "dethroned monarchs" have either been killed by mobs of their countrymen, or managed to escape and live out shabby-genteel lives in Paris or Monaco. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't add the category-in-question, fwiw. GoodDay (talk) 02:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

She was deposed by the prime ministers of Rhodesia and Fiji, off the top of my head. Barbados also. There may have been others. So therefore I think the inclusion of Elizabeth II in the category listing dethroned monarchs is proper. Векочел (talk) 02:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that the category is also used in George VI's article. Probably in reference to him being the last emperor of India. Keivan.f^Talk 03:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Queen of the United Kingdom and THE other Commonwealth realms

In both the lead and the infobox, Elizabeth II is described as “Queen of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms”; it should be “Queen of the United Kingdom and THE other Commonwealth realms”.

The article is grammatically important. “Queen of the United Kingdom and other countries” would mean she’s queen of SOME other countries besides the UK. “Queen of the United Kingdom and THE other countries” would mean she’s queen of EVERY country, including the UK. She wasn’t queen of SOME Commonwealth realms. She was queen of ALL of them. Brainiac242 (talk) 01:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@Neveselbert (mobile): You reverted it and suggested I started the discussion. Do you have anything to add? Brainiac242 (talk) 05:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

No, the absence of "the" before "other Commonwealth realms" isn't indicative of a grammatical oversight or an implication that she was queen of only some Commonwealth realms. Instead, this phrasing can be understood as a conventional stylistic choice. It succinctly implies that her queenship extended beyond the UK to encompass all Commonwealth realms, without the need for the definite article "the" to clarify this point. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 15:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@Neveselbert: The Cambridge Dictionary disagrees with you. [1] It clearly states that “The other with a plural noun means the remaining people or things in a group or set”, while “We can use other with singular uncountable nouns and with plural nouns” to mean “‘additional or extra’, or ‘alternative’, or ‘different types of’”. Therefore, by including the article, we are saying “Queen of the United Kingdom and the remaining (after having already mentioned the UK) Commonwealth realms”; by not including the article, we are saying “Queen of the United Kingdom and additional (unspecified) Commonwealth realms”. We need to include the article. Brainiac242 (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

The phrase "other Commonwealth realms" in this context is commonly understood to refer to those countries that, alongside the UK, recognised Elizabeth II as their monarch. It is a specific, well-defined category, not a vague or unspecified collection of realms. Moreover, the interpretation of "the other Commonwealth realms" as "the remaining realms after the United Kingdom" could imply a hierarchy or a sequence that does not accurately reflect the nature of the Commonwealth realms' relationship with the monarch. Each realm's relationship with the monarch is independent and equal; none is secondary or residual to the UK in this context. The phrase "Queen of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms" aligns with these considerations and appropriately reflects the nature of Elizabeth II's reign across her multiple, distinct sovereignties. Therefore, the inclusion of "the" is not necessary for clarity or correctness in this context. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Omitting the "the" would imply that there are some Commonwealth realms of which she was not Queen. That is not the case (at any point in time at which the countries in question had the status of Commonwealth realm). Rosbif73 (talk) 13:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The phrase "other Commonwealth realms" is widely understood to mean "all other Commonwealth realms" in this specific context. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll note that this was pored over in detail in 2015 for this article, and in 2023 for her son's article, leading to the current lead sentences for both. Before her death there was a note in the lead: "NOTE: Please do not change the lead sentence without consulting the discussion page first. This lead has been discussed and there is general consensus that this is the best one for now. Thanks." To the best of my knowledge, no other discussion has superseded it. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty: You are right, before her death the article did include a note urging editors not to change the lead sentence without consulting the discussion page. That lead sentence however included the exact number of countries she was queen of, together with a note specifying which countries it was referring to. Her title in the infobox, which did not specify the exact number of countries, was “Queen of the United Kingdom and THE other Commonwealth realms”. I understand why we don’t include the number of countries now, it changed throughout her reign. Which is why I’m trying to bring back the title used in the infobox at the time, and use it for both the infobox and the lead. Brainiac242 (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not convinced by your arguments to use "the" in the infobox & lead. GoodDay (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Can you elaborate? You don’t see a difference in meaning between “other Commonwealth realms” and “the other Commonwealth realms”? You do see a difference in meaning, but think the former is the correct one here? You think the latter is grammatically correct, but less “visually pleasing”? Brainiac242 (talk) 13:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Such subtlety of grammar will be lost to almost all readers, the vast majority of whom will not pick up on the nuance implied by the definite article. DrKay (talk) 14:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@DrKay: You are right, most readers won’t notice the difference. Most readers wouldn’t notice a missing period at the end of a paragraph either; but if one does, why shouldn’t they add it? I noticed the missing article. Why shouldn’t I add it? Brainiac242 (talk) 15:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The usage of "the" isn't required, as the # of realms changed during her reign. At the beginning of her reign, she was "Queen of the United Kingdom and the 6 other Commonwealth realms". By the end of her reign, she was "Queen of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms". In order to use "the" now? You'd have to have "Queen of the United Kingdom and the 6 to 14 other Commonwealth realms". GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

For me it is an issue of length. The infobox is already long. It should be short and succinct. The additional word, in addition to the forced line breaks in that parameter, extends the infobox by an extra line. If 'the' is included, then I would like the forced line break to be removed so that the infobox does not extend further than it does already. DrKay (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

2015 image

I think it would be beneficial to put the well-known previous photo of Elizabeth II from March 2015 (File:Queen Elizabeth II in March 2015.jpg) somewhere in the article, perhaps under the Diamond Jubilee and milestones section or another section. Currently this photo only appears in moderately obscure articles such as 2016 in New Zealand or Lists of state leaders by age, and it's well-known enough that it should be put somewhere with more prominence.

Opinions? Zowayix001 (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Multiple discussions on this topic have been held, with the same result - replace the 2015 image, with the 1959 image. GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah but that was the image in the lede. Zowayix was asking about placing it somewhere in the article perhaps in the diamond jubilee section. Ric36 (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Right, I specifically mean putting it somewhere in the article other than the lead (or perhaps in another prominent article such as Personality and image of Elizabeth II). Zowayix001 (talk) 01:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The replacement of the image was by majority vote, 16-12 as I recall, not by consensus, and is now over a year old. There is no particular reason that I can see that discussions of replacing the infobox image should be shut down. The current image has been there long enough for opinions to form and change about it. I am not proposing a change, but I am suggesting that discussions should be allowed to proceed if someone does again propose it.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2024

Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; 21 April 1926 – 8 September 2022) was Queen of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms from 6 February 1952 until her death in 2022. She was queen regnant of 32 sovereign states over the course of her lifetime and remained the monarch of 15 realms by the time of her death. Her reign of over 70 years is the longest of any British monarch, the longest of any female monarch, and the second longest verified reign of any monarch of a sovereign state in history. She is the world's oldest serving Sovereign State Leader. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Lists_of_state_leaders_by_age — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deaf Jet2x (talk • contribs) 18:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

That contradicts Records of heads of state#Oldest. We need a citation to a reliabe source. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Religion

Specifically Church of England. Any other Protestsnt would not be allowed. 2001:8003:2605:E500:5C68:C162:D520:11FA (talk) 06:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

There is also Church of Scotland in the UK. Keivan.f^Talk 22:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Surname

A death certificate from a reputable source is sufficient evidence for a surname. Even the official website says that surnames have been in use since 1917. It's not clear what @DeCausa's reason for reverting is. Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 22:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

This was already discussed before & the consensus was to exclude any surname, in the intro. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Titus Gold, it should be clear to you because you raised the exact same point here on 8 December 2022. A lengthy thread ensued. Have you forgotten? DeCausa (talk) 06:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Consensus can change. It's not uncommon to revisit a discussion from over 12 months ago. Particularly one where 'I don't like it' triumphed over 'multiple sources say this'. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Previous consensus was not the point raised or referred to. DeCausa (talk) 13:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

"This was already discussed before & the consensus was to exclude any surname" = previous consensus raised and referred to. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Celia Homeford: apologies, I thought you were replying to me. DeCausa (talk) 18:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok fair enough; thanks for the link. I didn't recall that there had been an RFC since it was a while ago. Just saw some royals' full names come up recently in the news. No problem. Titus Gold (talk) 13:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

VE Day celebrations?

This article https://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/reports/a46126585/real-story-queen-ve-night-out/ contains an account by the Queen’s cousin, Margaret Rhodes, which implies that Princess Elizabeth was among a party that dance the conga at the Ritz Hotel on VE Day. "For some reason, we decided to go in the front door of the Ritz and do the conga," Rhodes recalled. "The Ritz has always been so stuffy and formal – we rather electrified the stuffy individuals inside. I don't think people realised who was among the party – I think they thought it was just a group of drunk young people. I remember old ladies looking faintly shocked. As one congaed through, eyebrows were raised." Is this a credible? Corsac Fox Kazakhstan (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Also found https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_-Gs0CIDf0 Corsac Fox Kazakhstan (talk) 08:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

It's not clear what changes you want to make to the article. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I was suggesting adding a sentence that describes Princess Elizabeth's celebratory conga at the Ritz on VE day. Though I was a bit wary as it is quite thin evidence. This would give a non-fictitious account, contrary to the vulgar fiction of dancing the jitterbug with GIs in The Crown on Netflix (see my comment https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:The_Crown_season_6 ) CorsacFoxWiki (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Broken link "The requested page could not be found"

The link

https://www.royal.gov.uk/HistoryoftheMonarchy/The%20House%20of%20Windsor%20from%201952/HRHPrincessMargaret/Marriageandfamily.aspx

has rotted.

Suggest

https://www.royal.uk/encyclopedia/princess-margaret CorsacFoxWiki (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

The rotted link is archived on the Wayback Machine here. This could also be added.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

That seems excellent. CorsacFoxWiki (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

sorry for the misunderstanding. 2A02:6B6F:F8D1:C600:F599:76B5:D2B2:7728 (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Edit Request: Pertaining to The Commonwealth Realms exclusion and inclusion

In both the short description and certain other spots I have attempted to simply add the line "and the other Commonwealth Realms" or equivalent as this is important information. However, each time I have attempted this it has been removed. So, I have come down to the talk section in order to discuss this.

I firmly believe that it would better reflect the fact that the Commonwealth Realms are of equal status to that of the United Kingdom.

Each crown that Her Majesty had is equal in status to that of the UK and thus should be treated as such in the short description and whenever appropriate to do so, as opposed to being excluded from relevant spots. Since this article isn't just about Her Majesty as the Queen of the UK, rather being about Her Majesty as a whole, including all her Queenly titles, I truly think that it would be better if the Commonwealth Realms were given equal prevalence to the UK. I see no reason why this isn't an entirely reasonable request as, like I said, all of these crowns are entirely equal to each other.

Aggressively Monarchist Australian (talk) 04:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

The intro, infobox, etc, are as they are via consensus to abide by WP:WEIGHT. GoodDay (talk) 04:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Decolonisation of Asia

I watched the back-and-forth going on about the exact wording of the lead. Wouldn't it be better to discuss it here? Repeatedly reverting creates bad feeling, deters other editors from getting involved, and can be cause for a block. Please don't. John (talk) 17:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

The changes made, were problematic & needed to be reverted. GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that "decolonisation of Asia" is not an appropriate phrase as British control of the foreign affairs of Afghanistan and Bhutan, and overt control of Iraq, Israel, Palestine, Jordan, India, Pakistan, Ceylon, Bangladesh, and Burma, had come to an end by 1952. However, "handover of Hong Kong" might be a useful addition to the list of notable events in the third paragraph of the introduction. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

During her reign the following Asian territories (British colonies and protectorates) became independent: Aden Colony (1963), Bahrain (1971), Brunei (1984), Hong Kong (handover to China 1997), Kuwait (1961), Federation of Malaya (1957), Crown Colony of North Borneo (1963), Crown Colony of Sarawak (1963), Qatar (1971), Singapore (1965), Trucial States/UAE (1971), Maldives (1965). Consequently, I don't really see a problem with this addition. DeCausa (talk) 17:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Then you will be able to point to the sourced material in the body of the article that supports this summary clause. DrKay (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Or per WP:LEADCITE we could take a less combative approach and just add a source to the attempted addition which is so obviously not WP:OR. You should know by now that not being in the body of the article doesn't mean it can't be in the lead. Or are you seriously saying you dispute the factual nature of the list I gave? Based on this incorrect edit summary that list is clearly news to you so maybe you are. DeCausa (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, the lead should not contain material not found in the article body. The edit summary merely refers to the 4 largest and comparing them to any 4 of the smallest. I was obviously aware of the list since it was given in a preceding edit summary. Besides, note the list of countries provided by Celia--major, well-known large countries that everyone has heard of. What's on your list? Aden Colony? Brunei? Sarawak? Trucial States? Most people haven't heard of them. Note also the heads of state of many of these countries--Bahrain, Brunei, Kuwait, Malaya, Maldives, Qatar, and the Trucial States--were the same before and after the dates you've given. Elizabeth was not the head of state and was not involved politically in their transition, unlike the African states. The decolonisation of Asia happened predominantly before 1952, not after. It is misleading to suggest otherwise. DrKay (talk) 19:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

"Most people haven't haven't heard of..." Singapore, Kuwait, Qatar, Malaysia, Bahrain...sheesh. Obviously the FA needed edit warring against that disruption. DeCausa (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't refer to any of those five in that comment. DrKay (talk) 19:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

So what? DeCausa (talk) 19:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

On reviewing the body of the article I find that the reference to decolonisation of Africa in the lead is no more sourced than the attempted addition of decolonisation of Asia. The only reference to it in the body is in this passage:

The 1960s and 1970s saw an acceleration in the decolonisation of Africa and the Caribbean. More than 20 countries gained independence from Britain as part of a planned transition to self-government. In 1965, however, the Rhodesian prime minister, Ian Smith, in opposition to moves towards majority rule, unilaterally declared independence while expressing "loyalty and devotion" to Elizabeth, declaring her "Queen of Rhodesia".

But that is cited to this Guardian article. It fails verification for the first two sentences. The source only discusses Rhodesia not decolonisation in Africa in general. So we have an unsourced reference to African decolonisation in the lead. DeCausa (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)