This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.
If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.
If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.British RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject British RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject British RoyaltyBritish royalty articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Commonwealth, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Commonwealth of Nations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CommonwealthWikipedia:WikiProject CommonwealthTemplate:WikiProject CommonwealthCommonwealth articles
Elizabeth II is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Elizabeth II is within the scope of WikiProject Zimbabwe, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Zimbabwe and Zimbabwe-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.ZimbabweWikipedia:WikiProject ZimbabweTemplate:WikiProject ZimbabweZimbabwe articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Elizabeth II is part of the Scouting WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Scouting and Guiding on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to boy and girl organizations, WAGGGS and WOSM organizations as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to Scouting. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ScoutingWikipedia:WikiProject ScoutingTemplate:WikiProject ScoutingScouting articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
Although the article states that there were celebrations throughout her realms, it paints a slightly distorted picture since, in Scotland there were only about 100 street parties, compared to nearly 10,000 in England. The feeling in Scotland and England was totally different, and I cannot comment on other countries, but would be interested to know.86.14.187.220 (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Lance Tyrell[reply]
Regardless of the outcome on the RFC below - whether she is determined to be referred to as Queen of the Commonwealth realmsorQueen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms the reality is that the only celebrations in Australia were government & mass media driven. I live in Melbourne (Australia's) inner city & know people all over Australia. Having noticed your question, I've asked a few whether they were any parties surrounding the event they were aware of (other than that depicted in the mass media). The response has been an unqualified & resounding, "No." In lay terms, one answer that came back was, "Does anyone give a toss?" Naturally, in the context of this article, this is a political issue which doesn't merit being brought up. In broader terms, being how HRH is perceived in the Commonwealth countries, it does reflect that neither she, nor the British monarchy, whip up any sense of patriotism(?) as they may have done many years ago. In fact, the sacking of the Whitlam Government in 1975 toppled the last of any palpable sense of allegiance to, as well as a reassessment of the true role of the British monarchy in Australia (most of us being unaware of the 'actual' powers of the Governor General and various arcane laws attached to what were perceived to be predominantly anachronistic titles).
That being said, the vote against becoming a Republic via a referendum in 1999 was presented to the world at large as a desire to remain subjects of HRH. The reality, again, was something altogether different. The referendum foisted an absolute structure for how a Republican government would be put it place before the issue had even been discussed. Ultimately, the result (not to break with the monarchy) was presented as being a majority desire to remain subjects. The reality was that it was a vote against a contentious form of Republican government. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox
User:DrKiernan on 18 November 2012 changed the words "Queen of the Commonwealth realms" in the infobox to "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms", and has today reverted it to that--his preferred version. "Queen of the Commonwealthr realms" had, before 18 November 2012, been in place for nine months, after it was restored on 15 February 2012, having by then stood for two years, between April 2010 and February 2012, since consensus for "Queen of the Commonwealth realms" won consensus after lengthy discussion at talk (subsequent history outlined here).
The reasoning for the 18 November 2012 change was that it was per a discussion at talk that took place in November 2012. But, there was no actual consensus established there to make the change DrKiernan made at that time; he merely suggested adding "constitutional monarch of the United Kingdom and 15 more sovereign states (together known as the Commonwealth realms) and their territories and dependencies" to the infobox and then changed the infobox to read "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms" (thereby making his 4th revert to this article on that day). I contested the edit, but could not revert it, given that doing so would put me over 3RR as well.
Given that the wording "Queen of the Commonwealth realms" has, as demonstrated above, always had more support and has, over four years, been in the article longer than "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms", it should be restored again to the infobox. Further, "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realm" both gives a biased specialness to the UK and duplicates the words "United Kingdom" found at the head of the drop-down list of countries immediately below. --ĦMIESIANIACAL16:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to point out that there was no breach of the three-revert rule by either party on 18 November last year. In "fourth revert", Miesianiacal is counting consecutive edits, and the words "as well" are a mistake on his part. DrKiernan (talk) 17:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Material should be covered with due weight. The United Kingdom is the realm in which Elizabeth II was born, has spent most time, and with which she is most intimately involved. The other realms have governor generals who act as head of state on a day-to-day basis, whereas her functions as head of state of the United Kingdom are exercised directly. It is clear to any neutral observer that it is the country of first importance when discussing the 50 or so realms and territories she has reigned over. In an article that already excludes "United Kingdom" from the article title and the first paragraph it is reasonable to include it in the infobox. The claim that mention of the United Kingdom is bias stretches NPOV to an extreme that was not intended by its designers. DrKiernan (talk) 17:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At the time the infobox read "Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the other Commonwealth realms", which I said looked racist. It was inappropriate then. It is inappropriate now. DrKiernan (talk) 06:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support This seemed obvious based on the sources & the history, but I have to admit that once we've dug down, it looks like there is a rapidly growing consensus that the British Queen might NOT be the "Queen of England & everything else, too." Reading this [1] & this[2] and the Oppose arguments has me on the fence. EBY (talk) 21:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC) Strong Support - Basing my !vote on 2 criteria: 1) A matter of consistency: on Wikipedia, her father is "King of the United Kingdom and the Dominions of the British Commonwealth" and "King of the United Kingdom and the British Dominions, Emperor of India" in the infobox, her grandmother is "monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" and "Queen of the United Kingdom" in the infobox. And the dominion itself is called "the monarchy of the United Kingdom (commonly referred to as the British monarchy)" 2) A matter of reliable sources: the New York Times refers to her as "Elizabeth II, Queen of Great Britain", the official .gov.uk website refers to her as "The Queen is Head of State of the UK and 15 other Commonwealth realms," "The UK's current monarch is Queen Elizabeth II," and the "British Monarchy." Forbes describes her as "Monarch, United Kingdom." EBY (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Most people (and most sources) associate her primarily with her British realm, and her own website does so as well when it comes to her title. It is not Wikipedia's role to attempt to change how she is viewed globally, but to reflect how she is viewed globally: When reliable sources refer to her more often as "Queen of the Commonwealth Realms" than as Queen of the UK or of Great Britain, we should do so. Doing so prior to then is undue weight and yielding to soapboxing. FactStraight (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point out which of her websites "associates her primarily with her British realm...when it comes to her title"?
It isn't biased. If anything, removing further information about Britain (after already removing it from the article title and the first paragraph) is biasing the article towards a viewpoint that is not reflected either in reality or in the majority of sources. The article should not be pushed too far either way, neither too far towards being UK-centric nor too far to being UK-phobic. Trying to remove all visible mention of Britain from the article title, the first paragraph and the infobox is pushing the article too far one way. DrKiernan (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The common habit of referring to EIIR as Queen of the UK (often in total contradiction to the role she's actually fulfilling at the time) is biased; it gives primacy to the UK and either completely forgets the other realms or, at best, relegates them to a second class status as former British colonies still with the British monarch as their head of state. That may be what the majority of sources put forward, but, the question is: The majority of what kind of sources? And is accuracy determined by the number of times something's repeated?
You can snidely denigrate the other viewpoint as unreal if you wish, but there are a slew of sources used in a number of articles in Wikipedia that prove you wrong (see my post under the "No" header for just a few), that attest to the equality of the realms (thereby giving no supremacy to the UK). These werent' written by crackpots or "UK-phobic" people; many of the authors are themselves British. (Go look through the references used in the article Commonwealth realm.) These are reliable sources. Where are the same for the theory that the UK is the Queen's "real" realm and the others are just, well, the others? --ĦMIESIANIACAL17:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am neither snide nor wrong. I never called anyone a crackpot. If you recall, I was instrumental in getting the name of this article changed; in fact, I don't think it either immodest or unreasonable to suppose that the name would never have been changed without my input. You are losing, not gaining, support by pushing too hard. DrKiernan (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can judge however you wish the act of saying a well sourced viewpoint that contradicts your own is "not reflected in reality". I think it was rather snide; an obvious attempt to delegitimise the fact. I've always throughout this recalled your contributions to prior discussions on matters similar to this one (I'm not sure they were as influential as you say they were, but I did just re-read some of them going back through prior debates while engaged in this one), which is why I'm surprised by your opposing stance now. Regardless, here we are on opposite sides this time. --ĦMIESIANIACAL17:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Her title in the UK is "Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, 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." Perhaps a good summary would be "Queen of of the United Kingdom and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth." I see no reason to include the realms but not the territories and her role as Head of the Commonwealth. Note also that she carries out her role directly in the UK, while elsewhere it is carried out by viceroys. TFD (talk) 21:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Queen of the Commonwealth realms" suggests to the uninitiated that she is not Queen of the United Kingdom. There is no reason to assume that the casual reader knows the UK is one of the Commonwealth realms. The lead doesn't even state plainly that she is Queen of the United Kingdom, only that in 1952 she "became...queen regnant of seven independent Commonwealth countries", of which the UK was then one. Why can't we call a spade a spade? Scolaire (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It suggests she is not Queen of the United Kingdom no more than it suggests she is not Queen of Australia. There is no reason to assume that the causual reader knows Australia is one of the Commonwealth realms. But, there's a link to Commonwealth realm right in that field in the infobox and, more pertinently, there's a drop down list right below that lets anyone know which countries are presently Commonwealth realms, under HM's reign, with the UK right at the top. Highlighting the UK any further than that suggests that it is somehow special among, above the other Commonwealth realms, entirely contrary to the Balfour Declaration and the Statute of Westminster. --ĦMIESIANIACAL14:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So is she better known as Queen of the United Kingdom or Queen of Australia? This is an encyclopaedia, not a law textbook. Scolaire (talk) 08:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is an encyclopaedia, not the Associated Press. She is both Queen of Australia and Queen of the United Kingdom, equally. We follow the facts (whether or not they be found in law textbooks), not popular culture. --ĦMIESIANIACAL15:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I prefer to list all of the nations, with the UK first on the list. As a second choice, I'm fine with saying she is Queen of both the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth realms. I'm opposed to saying she's only Queen of the United Kingdom (not true). I would list all of the countries she is Queen of, beginning with the United Kingdom and then listing each and every nation of which she is Queen in order by either population or chronology (date of the British Monarchy becoming Sovereign over that land). I realize that that makes the infobox large but I'm all for a very large infobox if necessary to convey accurate information. If it is determined that the infobox just can't be expanded enough to cover all of the countries over which she is Queen, then I favor "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth Realms" as my second choice.GreekParadise (talk) 23:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Employing "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms" is to use a longer version (in an infobox, where space is limited, no less) of "Queen of the Commonwealth realms" just to be UK-centric, a violation of WP:NPOV. We know that a) Elizabeth is queen of all her realms equally[n 1] and b) Elizabeth resides in and thus is more often personally engaged with the UK (a fact commonly used to argue in favour of the aforementioned UK-centrism). "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms" communicates the opposite of the former and doesn't communicate the latter at all. That Elizabeth II is in one country more than the others does not make it more important than the other countries over which she reigns; the physical location of the monarch has no bearing on the 80+ year old equality of the Commonwealth realms to one another, including the United Kingdom, nor to the consideration by at least one country other than the UK that the Queen is not a foreigner. The UK both appears top in the drop-down list in the infobox (making the "United Kingdom" in "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms" a needless repetition) and, in the second paragraph of the introduction, first in the list of countries of which Elizabeth II became queen. Articles on Elizabeth's predecessors are of no consequence here: the equality of the realms was well established by the time she came to the throne and the royal styles and titles changed accordingly at the beginning of her reign. "Queen of the Commonwealth realms" is succinct, works better with the drop-down below it, and shows no bias towards Australia, Jamaica, Canada, the UK, or any other.
"equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown."p.3
"Britain had to reconcile itself to the fact that it no longer had elevated status within the Commonwealth and that their queen was now equally, officially, and explicitly queen of separate, autonomous realms."p. 28
"The royal titles adopted in each of the fifteen realms, of which she was equally Queen, would require the assent of the Parliaments of each."[1]
"The Acts passed by each of the then members of the Commonwealth after the 1952 conference had to reflect the fact that the other members of the Commonwealth were full and equal members with the United Kingdom, so that the Queen was equally Queen of each of her various realms, acting on the advice of her Ministers in each realm."p.18
"Elizabeth II embodies in her own person many monarchies: she is Queen of Great Britain, but she is equally Queen of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Pakistan, South Africa, and Ceylon... it is now possible for Elizabeth II to be, in practice as well as theory, equally Queen in all her realms."p.52, 369
Question, for clarification, is your argument in part about the size of the infobox? Because it seems like it accommodated the prior monarchs' current titles? EBY (talk) 21:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The articles on EIIR's predecessors (at least back to Edward VII, where I stopped checking) don't use titles in the infoboxes. They use descriptives, the same as is done in this article infobox. Infoboxes aren't large fields, urging us to be as brief as possible. Since there was no uniform name for all the territories over which EIIR's predecessors reigned (the UK was apart from the Dominions (though they were equal in status by 1931) and all were different to the Empire of India), the shortest possible way to describe what they were kings of is to say (to take George VI for example) "King of the United Kingdom and the British Dominions". During EIIR's reign, however, all the countries of which she's queen, the UK included, have been called "realms" (as seen in her British accession proclamation as well as her titles created in 1953), the unofficial term "Commonwealth realm" later coming into use to distinguish them from other realms. Hence, the briefest way to describe what EIIR is queen of is "Queen of the Commonwealth realms". --ĦMIESIANIACAL22:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The old version was succinct and neutral. This one gives the impression that the United Kingdom has a special status, which - as demonstrated above - it doesn't. Naturally previous monarchs are treated differently because the constitutional position and titles were different then: George VI, for instance, was styled King "of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the British Dominions Beyond the Seas", so it is entirely appropriated to refer to him in the infobox as King of the United Kingdom and the British Dominions. The separate titles of "Queen of Australia", "Queen of New Zealand", "Queen of Jamaica" etc were only adopted in the Queen's reign. Neljack (talk) 04:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you cite this? To me this is the key issue - that the most notable RS recognize her as "Queen of the Commonwealth realms" and that Wikipedia is not leading the referent but mirroring it. EBY (talk) 15:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Until the reign of Elizabeth II, Canada, along with Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon had simply been included in the Royal title and style as 'British Dominions beyond the seas'."p. 47; "It was then decided she would have separate titles in each of her realms but they would be inserted into a common formula... The Parliaments of the different realms then got busy providing the legal embodiment for the change. The Canadian Parliament did so on the eve of the Coronation."p.75 --ĦMIESIANIACAL16:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per above, also Queen of the Commonwealth Realms is distinct and separate from Head of the Commonwealth (of Nations) -- the two are not automatically linked -- which should also be indicated.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vecrumba (talk • contribs) 23:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It does not matter what 'most people associate' with, which is conjecture, nor what is most often utilised in the media, as they are not subject matter experts. Besides, the UK clearly has the largest population among the Commonwealth, I assume the largest media, and the "British Monarchy" website is obviously an official British source, so its natural focus from a British point of view should be self evident. In this case, it is what the reliable official, statutory, and academic sources have to say. The fact that all of the Queen's realms are equal in status is a simple fact. This article is not about Elizabeth II of the UK, nor is it about the Queen of the UK. It is about a person who is equally the sovereign of 16 separate and equal countries, and should be described as such as nuturally as possible. trackratte (talk) 13:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not about the realms either. Her duties and position are different in the United Kingdom compared to the other realms and territories, in which her powers are delegated to someone else. The UK does not have the largest population in the Commonwealth. India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nigeria are all much larger. (And before someone says "but, they're not realms"--yes, they were and she was nominal head of state of two of them. This is the problem -- putting her time as Queen of Nigeria as equivalent to her time as Queen of the United Kingdom, when for all practical purposes they are not equivalent.) DrKiernan (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake for not being clear, I meant Commonwealth as 'present Commonwealth realms', as it is these 16 present realms which drive common usage. It would make sense to me that the largest ones would disproportionally drive current usage. trackratte (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are countless ways her current and former realms are different to one another. Best way to avoid the issue of choosing which difference justifies one country's elevated status is to make none of them elevated, which was pretty much the goal of the Balfour Declaration at the outset. --ĦMIESIANIACAL17:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your vote is misplaced. It should be in the section above this one as a support. This section is for those that oppose mention of both. DrKiernan (talk) 07:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies: I read the RfC as originally written to suggest she was ONLY the Queen of the United Kingdom. As reframed, I'm on the other side.GreekParadise (talk) 23:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
RFC needs clarification
The RFC question does not make it clear what the alternative is / what the question actually is. As a result, some are treating it as a question of whether or not to include "United Kingdom" and others are treating it as a question of whether or not to exclude "and the other Commonwealth realms" After the question is clarified, the existing responses need to be resorted. North8000 (talk) 11:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy for you to amend/clarify my comments. The only reason I have not done so myself is fear of being accused of foul play if I do so. DrKiernan (talk) 11:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. But first I have to be sure what the question is. Is it to, in the info box, replace "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms" with "Queen of the United Kingdom"? North8000 (talk) 13:58, 4 July 2013
It is to have either "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms" (with the list of realms, including the UK, again, in a drop-down below) or return it to "Queen of the Commonwealth realms" (with the list of realms in a drop-down below). --ĦMIESIANIACAL15:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. I would prefer this discussion to be solely about the succession parameter in the infobox. If you wish to discuss the drop-down list, or ways to format the infobox that would remove further mention of the UK, then I think you should start a separate discussion. DrKiernan (talk) 16:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm making no such suggestion; the drop-down list is pertinent to the question, but does not have to be part of it. Hence, my mentions of it were put in brackets. --ĦMIESIANIACAL16:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, bottom line: the question is, Should the infobox describe Elizabeth II as "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms"? Right? So are we agreed we're going to change the question to that? Scolaire (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On balance, this is piling one misunderstanding on top of another one. So, I think it better at this point to close the discussion and start afresh, preferably without personalising the debate. "This editor did that and they're edit-warring, bias and against consensus" is not the way to start a discussion about article content. DrKiernan (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it better not to keep changing the goalposts. The question is straightforward, it just wasn't phrased correctly in the first place. Now I have changed it to what it should have been in the first place. Closing and re-opening is not going to make accusations of edit-warring etc. magically go away. Let the RfC run and trust in the closer to close on policy-based arguments, not personal attacks. Scolaire (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This either has to start over, or else someone is going to have to see which of the already-posted views are clear on this now-specified question. Because the responses are under a question which was not asked at the time the responses were made. I suggest starting over with the 1 or 2 questions very very clearly and explicitly defined. North8000 (talk) 13:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have several questions. 1, what was the title used in the infobox before it presently reads "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms"? 2, when did the change occur (please provide a diff)? 3, was there a well intention disagreement about what the title should be, and if so who was involved, and what discussion(s) were had before an RfC was started?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps TFD's longer abridged version suggested in their supporting response is more appropriate. Or, we can always agree to disagree and indicate her full titles (plural): Queen part [COMMA] Head part. I don't see that a "reset" of the discussion would benefit the discussion. The way I see it:
Should the infobox indicate Elizabeth II's titles (plural) in some abridged format? YES/NO
if NO, done, indicate full titles
if YES
should the abridged version indicate the existence of two separate titles?
if YES, discuss this variant further until agreed or fall back to full titles
if NO, discuss this variant further until agreed or fall back to full titles
The question is not one of Queen of "UK + Commonwealth" versus "Commonwealth", the former appearing to elevate the UK (per detractors) and the latter failing to acknowledge the historic UK "home base" regardless of territorial acquisition or divestiture (per detractors). My discomfort stems from the fact that the roles of Queen and Head of Commonwealth are independent and only happen to be combined in Elizabeth II's person--therefore Queen of Commonwealth realms winds up being a synthesis. VєсrumЬа ►TALK03:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since Elizabeth's roles as head of state of 16 countries and as Head of the Commonwealth are indeed separate, it doesn't follow that such makes "Queen of the Commonwealth realms" synthesis. She is the queen of each of the Commonwealth realms and Head of the Commonwealth. --ĦMIESIANIACAL15:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For non-synthesis in combining titles (Queen+Head) as suggested we must be able to state unequivocally that the peoples and territories which constitute the "Commonwealth realms" include absolutely all of what is meant by "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of Her other Realms and Territories". This would not appear to be the case if there is need to mention "Territories" separately. If there is such a need, then consolidating down to Queen of the Commonwealth realms omits Territories. I'm not presenting my opinion, just trying to work through the logic of what's what. VєсrumЬа ►TALK20:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Photo in infobox
Photo from 2012
The infobox currently uses File:Elizabeth II greets NASA GSFC employees, May 8, 2007 edit.jpg which is great, but the photo is from 2007 making it 6 years out-of-date. Yesterday I uploaded to Commons the photo to the right which is from 2012. I put the photo into the infobox, but it was reverted, so I am bringing it here to see what others think on changing the photo to the 2012 photo instead. Russavia (talk) 01:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite a good photograph. The quality is excellent. It may not be just as good as the 2007 photograph, but I believe it might be a welcome change. Surtsicna (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If there are no other objections, I'll replace the photo in the infobox in a couple of days; given that the original removal was based by the looks of it on a misunderstanding of the OGL by another editor. Russavia (talk) 08:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not very flattering, is it? Why would we want an image of someone who looks like an axe muderer in an article about a reigning monarch? She is still perfectly recognisable from the current image. I don't know of any rule that an image of a living person has to be bang up to date. Tony Blair's photo is also from 2007, Queen Beatrix's – which was in the article this year while she was still queen – is from 2008, King Carl Gustaf's and King Juan Carlos's are from 2009, and President Michael D. Higgins's is from 2006. There's certainly no such rule for dead people: the photo of Charles de Gaulle was taken more than 25 years before his death. Scolaire (talk) 08:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The other photo shows her much more as we expect to see her. I will "assume good faith" to all editors. However I am afraid that using an unusual picture might offend some (or a lot) of people who consider her their queen, and maybe contribute to WP's (mostly undeserved) reputation as a bunch of nut-cases and trouble-makers. We wouldn't want that, would we? Steve Dufour (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've always loved the photo that is in the info box right now. It's bright, it's sunny, she's smiling and appears exactly as she is, a fit, happy elderly woman. Also, it's best if she is pictured wearing a hat because she always wears a hat. I agree we do want to keep up-to-date, but I don't see any great difference in her age between the image in the article now and the one here. Also, I think what might be off-putting is the lack of a hat, and the darker dress. The sunny image of her is really rather striking. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the second paragraph, your editors have neglected to include the British Virgin Islands amongst the countries and territories for which Queen Elizabeth is Queen.
That paragraph should read:
At present, in addition to the first four aforementioned countries, Elizabeth is Queen of Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, Saint Kitts and Nevis and the British Virgin Islands.
While it is true that the Queen is Queen of the BVI, she is also Queen of each British Overseas Territory, and of the provinces, states, and dependent and associated states of Canada, Australia and NZ. But her function as Queen of BVI is part of her function of being Queen of the UK. TFD (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For future reference: This entire article and its talk page are about Elizabeth II, so giving a discussion the heading "Elizabeth II" tells us absolutely nothing about its specific subject matter. Anyone looking for this thread in 5 years, when it will have been archived, will have a hard time pinning it down. You might perhaps have headed it "Queen of the British Virgin Islands", for example. -- Jack of Oz[Talk]02:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Opening sentence
The RfC at the Infobox section seems to have expired rather than been closed. However, there was a clear 2:1 majority in favour of "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms", and the fact that nobody has tried to change it again since the RfC lapsed means it has a de facto consensus. The opening sentence ought to be changed in line with the infobox, and read, "Elizabeth II...is the constitutional monarch of the United Kingdom and of 15 other sovereign states, known as the Commonwealth realms, and their territories and dependencies, and head of the 54-member Commonwealth of Nations." Scolaire (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There's little sense in discussion & consensus unless it is fully actioned. Logic would dictate that the lede should follow suit as the issue raised was that of how best to phrase her role &, ostensibly, her notability. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The lead and the infobox co-existed side by side for some time without any issue. There is no justification for highlighting the UK out from the rest of the Commonwealth realms with whom it is entirely equal. Giving the UK a POV special status would not explain that Elizabeth II is more often directly involved in the governing of that country; words explaining she is (which used to exist in the lead) would.
That's easily fixed: just take out the word "of", and say she "...is the constitutional monarch of the United Kingdom and 15 other sovereign states, known as the Commonwealth realms". Scolaire (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That still reads as though the 15 other sovereign states are the Commonwealth realms, with the UK excluded. It also doesn't fix the POV ingnoring of the established equality among the realms under EIIR in favour of elevating the UK above the others. --ĦMIESIANIACAL21:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then maybe "...is the constitutional monarch of the United Kingdom and 15 other sovereign states, collectively known as the Commonwealth realms". Also, they "co-existed side by side" when they said the same thing. Your purpose in opening the Infobox discussion was to make them say the same thing again. That is my purpose in opening this discussion. You can't have your cake and eat it. Scolaire (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read Scolaire's 'proposed wording' again with care. The wording is absolutely clear on the fact of the UK as being one of the Commonwealth realms. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by your arguments on this talk page, I take that as being self evident. You obviously prefer not to have anyone tamper with the lede. Given, however, that it seems likely that there will be consensus on changing the lede, despite your misgivings, how would you propose it be phrased? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Queen of the United Kingdom" is the most common first title supplied to the sovereign in the Commonwealth Realms of the UK, Canada and Grenada, in the British Overseas Territories, and in every other country in the world except the 13 Commonwealth Realms that each substitute their own names for her first title. Of these, the constitutions of Papua New Guinea, Tuvalu, and the Solomon Islands explicitly state that the Queen of the United Kingdom is the sovereign of their countries. Furthermore, the title Queen of the United Kingdom dates to 1701 and was used in all the Commonwealth Realms until the current reign, and the head of state of all the Commonwealth Realms is only called "Queen" because that is her title in the U.K., not because these countries are "kingdoms". And she is called Elizabeth II, even though Elizabeth I was never Queen of any of the current Commonwealth Realms. Eliazabeth II is also Queen of each British Overseas Territory, Canadian province and Australian state and Australian and NZ dependencies, although that is not her official title in any of them. TFD (talk) 21:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tuvalu, Solomon Islands, and Papua New Guinea don't say the Queen of the UK is their queen; they say whomever is monarch of the UK will be monarch of Tuvalu, monarch of Solomon Islands, and monarch of Papua New Guinea; the countries are independent, not colonies. Further, the Queen doesn't hold a title in any countries but the 16 of which she is queen; 13 of those removed mention of the UK from the sovereign's title and style. That the monarch gained a distinct title for each of the realms during Elizabeth's reign (since essentially the beginning of it) is argument against giving the UK special status in the lead of this article. --ĦMIESIANIACAL21:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that "the Queen of the UK is their queen" and saying whoever "is monarch of the UK will be [their] monarch" is the same thing. Remember too that these ten Commonwealth realms represent a combined population of about 30 million people and she is known as Queen of the UK in countries representing the 7 billion other people living on the planet. TFD (talk) 22:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. The monarch of the United Kingdom reigns only in the United Kingdom. The monarch of Papua New Guinea reigns in Papua New Guinea, the monarch of Solomon Islands reigns in Solomon Islands, and the monarch of Tuvalu reigns in Tuvalu. The latter three are constitutionally always to be the same person as is the monarch of the UK, which is not the same thing as saying the monarch of the UK is head of state of any of those countries.
There are 16 Commonwealth realms. I don't know what you mean by "known as"; officially, casually, to whom, exactly? And what does it matter? The fact is she is queen of each Commonwealth realm equally. --ĦMIESIANIACAL22:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See "The Constitution of Tuvalu", section 48, para. 1 of the "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, by the grace of God Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and of Her Other Realms and Possessions, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, having at the request of the people of Tuvalu graciously consented, is the Sovereign of Tuvalu and, in accordance with this Constitution, the Head of State."[3] You are quite right of course that whenever the UK acquires a territory beyond the seas that the monarch becomes sovereign of that territory. But we are concerned with common usage. Show me that her title "Queen of Tuvala" is used as often as "Queen of the UK" throughout the world. TFD (talk) 23:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've read the constitutions of Tuvalu, Papua New Guinea, and Solomon Islands, and from them and other information read I know Tuvalu is not an overseas territory of the UK and the monarch of Tuvalu is an entirely different office to that of monarch of the UK, despite the occupant of the former being constitutionally always the occupant of the latter.
How often "Queen of the UK" is used is a red herring; "Queen of England" is likely what's most often used, but, what's most often used doesn't negate the fact that Elizabeth II is queen of each Commonwealth realm equally nor that the UK has no special status above the other Commonwealth realms. --ĦMIESIANIACAL23:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what that means. But, it seems to be a logical fallacy: That Elizabeth II is queen of each Commonwealth realm equally and the UK has no special status above the other Commonwealth realms is reason to use the phrase "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms." Doesn't compute. --ĦMIESIANIACAL15:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mesianiacial's objection to the proposed intro is the "ingnoring [sic] of the established equality among the realms under EIIR in favour of elevating the UK above the others." I decided to see whether the published sources stress that "established equality" or whether, on the other hand, they "elevate the UK" in some way. A Google Ngram provides no support for "established equality"; it says simply, "Ngrams not found: Queen of the Commonwealth Realms". The UK is the only game in town as far as that search is concerned. So I did a Google Books search. "queen of the united kingdom", for books published after 6 Feb 1952 only, gives plenty of results, among them:
The Chameleon Crown: "Did she act as Queen of the United Kingdom, Queen of Australia or Queen of Tasmania and Queensland?" Discusses the constitutional question but without ever using the words "Queen of the Commonwealth Realms".
The High Court and the Constitution: "To suggest that its [s 2 of the Constitution Act] object was to ensure that the Queen of Australia was the Queen of the United Kingdom would not have been understandable by anyone in 1900." Discusses the constitutional question but without ever using the words "Queen of the Commonwealth Realms".
Talking of the Royal Family: "The Queen of the United Kingdom is a case in point; she is queen of a whole series of Commonwealth nations." UK first, then a whole series of Commonwealth nations.
Majesty in Canada: Essays on the Role of Royalty: "The Queen reigns separately and divisibly as queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. The monarch is shared, but the institution of monarchy had evolved into separate constitutional entities." UK first, then three other states; no use of the words "Queen of the Commonwealth Realms".
International Law Reports 2007: "It was also clear that the licence had been refused to the claimant on the instruction of the Secretary of State, although there was an issue whether, in issuing the instruction, he had acted in right of Her Majesty as Queen of the United Kingdom or of the SGSSI [South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands]." Discusses the constitutional question but without ever using the words "Queen of the Commonwealth Realms".
Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe: "Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". No mention of "Queen of the Commonwealth Realms".
How Colonialism Preempted Modernity in Africa: "But then we have Canada and Australia as well as many Caribbean countries, including Jamaica, that regard themselves as 'former colonies' while at the same time continuing to look up to the queen of the United Kingdom as their head of state." No mention of "Queen of the Commonwealth Realms".
On the other hand a search for "queen of the commonwealth realms" over the same time period gives us three books that definitely use the phrase. One is a novel. One is entitled "The Tudors on Film and Television". The third one, Monarchies, says, "As queen of the Commonwealth realms and as head of the Commonwealth of Nations, she also spoke to the UN, praising calm." So that's one mention. But wait! On page 136 of the same book it says, "Queen Elizabeth II is seen as a unifier as well, reigning over not just the United Kingdom, which consists of the four countries of England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, but also over the 15 other Commonwealth realms." So it does seem to be "elevating the UK above the others". Since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, the official or legal status of an article's subject does not determine how she is described. Since WP:Verifiability says we must say only what can be verified by reference to reliable sources, and since we do not give undue weight to minority viewpoints, I can't see how there are any grounds for leaving the opening sentence as it now is. Scolaire (talk) 14:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In case mentioned in the International Law Report, the House of Lords said that the Queen was Queen of every territory subject to her, in this case the uninhabited British Overseas Territory of SSGI.[4] Following Miesianiacal's logic we would need to change the titles for all monarchs where England or the UK had overseas territories. But we should be guided by WP:COMMONNAME. Half the people where she is Queen live in the UK. Of the population of the other Commonwealth Realms, half live in Canada, where she is "Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada [etc.]". When she travels, she is known as "Queen of the United Kingdom [etc.]." TFD (talk) 16:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per WP:COMMONNAME. Throughout the world, Queen Elizabeth is known as Queen of the United Kingdom. Outside of Canada, Jamaica etc you'd never hear anybody refer to the Queen of Canada or the Queen of Jamaica etc. I suppose moving the page is a whole other can of worms though, right? --Cameron*16:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
