Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Additions

I think there needs to be more information.

• There is nothing about her being head of the Armed Forces, not just in Britain, but throughout the commonwealth. Lord High Admiral, Colonel-in-Chief (various regiments) and Air C-in-C etc.
• [1] Gives a more complete picture of her - shouldit be added to external links?
• Formal address: Your Majesty on introduction (you never introduce yourself), thereafter Ma'am (rhymes with Spam).

--Martin TB 18:52, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ma'am does not rhyme with Spam!

Actually, it does; there are two pronunciations - one, "mam", the other, "marm"; Martin was referring to the former, and you are presumably doing so to the latter. The point is that the former is meant to be used, not the latter, which is an Americanism (or something, I dunno).

James F. (talk) 01:44, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article title

Shouldn't this be at Queen Elizabeth II, or Queen Elizabeth, or worst case, Queen Elizabeth II (UK), per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), since that is how she is most commonly referred to? (and that's how most of the articles link here) Niteowlneils 20:40, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That page states "Convention: Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. The principal exception is in the case of naming royalty and people with titles. For details of the naming conventions in those cases, see the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) page", and that page states "Pre-emptively Disambiguate the names of monarchs of modern countries in the format "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}". Examples: Edward I of England; Alfonso XII of Spain; Henry I of France; Cleopatra VII of Egypt". Proteus (Talk) 22:37, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Introduction

Why isn't it written plain and bold who her parents are?

[moved down here, for want of a better place James F. (talk) 01:44, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)]

Her surname

Can someone post a piece on what her actual surname is... "Windsor" is the most common answer, but there is good cause to debate this as she married a man not called "Windsor".

Is this the basis for you adding an NPOV-tag to this page? If so, that is truly laughable; if not, please explain what you find non-NPOV about the article, as instructed to do so. You have added this tag on rather a number of pages without explaining your reasoning, and this may be viewed by some as tantamount to vandalism.

James F. (talk) 20:43, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No it's not. There's several reasons, I'll elaborate on these later. BTW what is her surname? Mountbatten?

No, you will not "elaborate on them later". If you have specific problems, state them; otherwise, as far as we are concerned, you have no actionable complaints, and will very likely be ignored.

As for her surname, and this is a highly hypothetical point given that she, of course, doesn't legally have one, being Queen, I believe (and I'm probably not the best person to ask) that it is not regulated by Common Law (by which it would be Mountbatten, yes), but instead by her actions, notably including her declaration to the PC "that [she] be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor" - that is, her surname is "Windsor". This declaration was in April 1952, so I suppose that you could argue that for the two months after accession she was still of the surname "Mountbatten", which (I think) was her surname such as it was for a Peeress from her marriage until then.

HTH.

James F. (talk) 00:34, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually I will elaborate on them later, since you can't order me. Yes she does have a surname. This is why you have Royal dynasties, why do you think you have the Tudors and Stewarts etc?

Obviously your view of history is somewhat confused as I see in another article you edited that believe England existed over a thousand years before it actually did. Pre-tsarist Soviet Union anyone?

I have several objections to this article which I will list when I have time.

*yawn*

A person's personal surname and their House are quite different things. This is not a POV statement, not a contentious point, not a comment. It is a statement of fact. The Houses of Tudor and Stewart were each populated by people who did not have the name of the House as their personal surname. My point was that those with titles don't legally have a personal surname per se, but that it somehow floats about in the ether until it is needed (for children to take, for example).

My comment was not an order, but a helpful informative point as to how discussions and deliberations on Wikipedia work — specifically, we hold no especial love for those who come along, shout loudly that there is a problem that they, and oft only blessèd they, can see with an article, but refuse to comment as to exactly what said problems are, merely insisting that a garish sign to signal that they believe that they have a complaint remains to be held aloft for all readers to observe and marvel at.

James F. (talk) 18:31, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Her surname is Mountbatten-Windsor. Her House, however, is the House of Windsor, jguk 09:08, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The name of the royal House and Family is Windsor. Whether the Queen, personally, has a surname is debatable, and if she does, it's an open question whether it's Windsor, Mountbatten, or Mountbatten-Windsor. By a decree of 1960, her descendants in the male line who are not royals (at this writing, no one of that description has been born) will bear the surname Mountbatten-Windsor. That seems to imply that her children's surname, if they have one, is Windsor, but when Princess Anne was married to Capt. Phillips her surname was listed on the marriage certificate as "Mountbatten-Windsor". (That seems to indicate that the royal family are a little unclear about this issue themselves.) Under normal circumstances, royal persons don't use surnames; one would not refer to the Queen as "Elizabeth Windsor" or "Mrs. Mountbatten." -WRBarrett, 20 Feb 2005

The Queen has no surname, as she is the Queen. I know many will not accept this, but it is technically true. And as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we write the truth and nothing but the truth! So while she has officially no surname, the name of the current Royal House in the UK, and Her Majesty's other Realms, is simply Windsor. The surname Mountbatten-Windsor is however used by some of her descendants. See the article relating to it! David, England :)

The Queens surname should be Saxe-Coburg-Gotha Mountbatten but her grandfather King George V changed it to Windsor due to the first world war, he didn't want morale to fall because of his german second name so he changed it. Legally the Queen is Called Elizabeth Mountbatten-Windsor taking Price Philips Surname aswell as Windsor.TJ

Why not neutral? (Apologies for length)

There are a number of things in this article which I believe undermine its neutrality, or objectivity. I am only going to list a few of these.

• 1) The article uses non-neutral, eulogic language throughout e.g. “eminently suitable… no embarrassing foreign connections” (correction: Prince Phillip’s brother in law, Prince Christolphe of Hesse was chief of the Nazis' Forschungsamt), “a genuine love match” (some say there's been no love between the couple for decades), “addressed public grief” (did it?), “republicans… speak highly of her”, “takes this responsibility seriously” etc could almost be out of her PR dept. Not to mention “[her] friendships… with many foreign leaders…have proved highly beneficial for Britain”.

• 2) One of the first sections, “Constitutional Status”, contradicts the article title “Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom”, since it lists numerous other realms in addition to the UK. Besides which the UK never had EIR (one of many anomalies).

• 3) Her lack of formal education is not highlighted, or the fact that she may be the last British monarch never to go to school – or university. It could be argued her sheltered, shielded early life has not been an asset to her.

• 4) Using yet more biased language it is claimed her experience allows her to be “thus able to offer advice to Tony Blair”, and yet it appears she has few political views of her own… even her speeches to parliament are written for her (no mention of this anomaly either).

• 5) There is no mention of the strong republican movement in Australia. I see from history that this was cut out by some monarchist or other. I think this is very significant. She managed to get through the referendum (partly because the system offered was unpopular even amongst republicans), but not by a massive margin. I think this is significant both for republicans and monarchists, inside and outside Australia, for different reasons.

• 6) The reasons for her uncle’s abdication (marrying a divorcee, sex outside marriage & wild parties etc but, most notoriously, associating with Nazis) are not given.

• 7) It is notable that the ancestry section plays down her German forebears. I have no big problem with her having German roots, but she is not “more distantly related to the former royal house [sic] of Germany”, she has several German houses in her immediate ancestry, notably the Hanovers, and the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas, and her children are of the Mountbatten/Battenburg line through Phillip.

• 8) Coat of arms: the three leopards are actually a Norman, not an English symbol, and arrived when William the Conqueror, Duke of Normandy invaded.

• 9) Regarding “God save the Queen”, by the Sex Pistols, there is no mention that her supporters censored this song from the radio, as it would undermine her carefully groomed public image. Instead, taxpayers’ money was used to bribe schoolchildren with presents on her Silver Jubilee, and give them flags to wave.

• 10) The UK does not have unitary law, it has two legal systems. While it is unlikely Elizabeth will ever commit a major crime, the monarchy has a different status in Scotland in regards to this.

There are other things, but I believe this list is long as it is, and something to begin with.

In response to number 2: I'm not an expert on the subject but even though the UK never had a E1R (I assume this means Elizabeth I Regina), the article mentions that each monarch ascending to the throne of the United Kingdom is numbered by according to either that of his or her English or Scottish predecessors, whichever number is higher. England had an Elizabeth I; Scotland has never had a monarch named "Elizabeth." Therefore, the current Queen took the title, "Elizabeth II."

I agree, though, that the fact that the Queen is the monarch of other countries besides the United Kingdom is a problem when one reflects the title of this article.

In response to item 4: I don't think it's safe to assume that the Queen doesn't have political views of her own. The Queen is supposed to be above politics, thus she does not make her views on issues known to the public. However, she meets with her Prime Minister at least once a week, during which time the two discuss whatever issues are happening in the government. The Prime Minister doesn't reveal the content of any of these audiences (whether this is by law or by tradition, I'm not sure). However, the Queen is free to give advice to her Prime Minister (and vice versa). As the Queen has worked with many prime ministers prior to Tony Blair, she is arguably a more experienced senior government official.

That the Queen's views are supposed to be kept "unknown" is mentioned earlier in the article, I believe, under "Life as Queen."

In response to number 5: In my opinion, the republican movement in Australia has very little to do with the Queen herself: it has a lot more to do with the institution of monarchy in Australia as a whole. Thus, I believe this issue would be better mentioned on the Australian politics page or perhaps the Queen of Australia article.

In response to item 6: This page is about Elizabeth II, not about Edward VIII. Information about Edward VIII's abdication belongs on his page, not this one.

I appologize if I misinterpretted what you were aiming to say. Thank you. Aoi 16 October 2004

A more useful breakdown of your complaint would note that part 1 is a minor NPOV complaint, unworthy of a tag, parts 2, 7, 8, and 10 are factual errors for which NPOV complaints are not appropriate, 5 and 6 are beyond the scope of this article, 4 suggests a lack of understanding of what the Queen's weekly meetings are for on your part, and 3 and 9 are not only beyond the scope of this article, but would be vastly inappropriate to cover from the angle you suggest under the banner of NPOV.

I propose removing the tag and, in a more useful expenditure of time, addressing (at least some of) these complaints.

James F. (talk) 15:43, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

1 is hardly minor... it may be useful for supporters of the Queen, Popes, Lenin etc to write about their idol in glowing terms, but it is a major bias, obvious to those who are neutral, or don't constantly enthuse over her. QEII is not a perfect superhuman.

2 is appropriate since she is not just the Queen of the UK.

7 is major because it is again an airbrush/convenient oversight -- she is not distantly related to German royal lines, in fact they form a bigger part of her ancestry than Scottish, Welsh, and possibly English do (I'm not saying she's German however).

5 is very much within the scope of the article, at least in brief, since it was the biggest realm she nearly lost, but is perhaps worth a link into a different article (I note someone censored its mention before).

4 is not a lack of understanding. It is a fact that she does not write her parliamentary speeches, and should be mentioned.

3 & 9 are examples of how she has been groomed, and how her supporters try to groom her subjects.

My biggest objection however must be to the eulogy. I note the articles on her in various other languages are much more objective and neutral (although too short in some cases).

p.s. A short response to AOI... I agree that "the republican movement in Australia has very little to do with the Queen herself", but that it is something directly affecting her, and influenced by her. I suggest that her usual public non-commital on various issues, may be what has saved her.

Not God, then? Mr. Jones 09:23, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To item 4, you mentioned that the Queen does not write her speeches to parliament. However, in the article, it's mentioned under "Political Role" that "The Queen also gives a speech at the annual State Opening of Parliament, outlining the legislative agenda for the year, but the speech is written for her by ministers."

Does the Queen give more than one speech to Parliament? I'm not too familiar with the Queen's role in Parliament, although I do watch the State Opening of Parliament on television and listen to the Queen's speech outlining her government's legislative agenda.

On another topic, I agree that the issue directly affects her and is influenced by her. I think this is a valid argument. However, I still don't think it should be mentioned in this article. The reason I believe this is because this particular article doesn't mention the *other* realms that the Queen has "lost" since ascending the throne. -- Aoi, 23:53 UTC December 17, 2004

I've added a section to outline examples of where the Queen has said something which has been interpreted as expressing her own political views, which ought to help remove the NPOV. I'm bound to say I think the list of objections is actually, in effect, a demand for the article to adopt a republican POV. Dbiv 20:31, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with David - the "list" is an attempt to distort the article into a republican view of EII - and i am an Australian republican! PMA 07:00, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Given seeming consensus, I will remove the NPOV tag, probably tomorrow, unless someone other than the original complainant objects...

James F. (talk) 18:22, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To the person complaining about the name of the article, please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles), specifically item number 4 under Monarchical titles. Aoi 01:40, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's still POV

On any other article... perhaps even the Pope or the Dalai lama's, such a one sided screed would be considered POV. All it really does is praise the woman, and make her look like some kind of demi-goddess.

To quote Oliver Cromwell, let's have a portrait of her warts and all, not something that could almost be written by one of her palace employees.

"I agree with David - the "list" is an attempt to distort the article into a republican view of EII"

Better an article which reflects BOTH republican and monarchist points of view, than one which is merely a hagiography.

(Actually looking at the list, I see little which specifically reflects a republican POV other than the comment about the Australian referendum).

This is a discussion on the Queen - not on republicanism or monarchism. Such a discussion belongs in another article. Her Majesty adopts a neutral position on whether the UK or any other realm should retain her as Head of State (as is required by constitutional practice), so such a debtate is clearly inappropriate here. This page is about the Queen as a person, and should remain as such. By all means add a link to articles on related (but different) subjects at the end, but don't let them infect this biography, jguk 00:52, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Like it or not, the Queen is the focus of republicanism and monarchism, and exists due to the latter. I strongly doubt she is "neutral position on whether the UK or any other realm should retain her as Head of State", but wisely keeps her opinion quiet. Such things are very much part of her life.

Plenty of space in other articles to talk about republicanism. If there are warts in the article they should be her warts, not the system's warts. DJ Clayworth 14:26, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Pope and the Dalai Lama are politicians, but the Queen is a constitutional figurehead. Philip 18:53, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

"She was the first British monarch to be out of the country at the moment of succession."

That doesn't sound likely to me, given the cases where the successor to the throne was under threat of death from the current incumbent. Is anyone sure this is the case, or have a counterexample? DJ Clayworth 18:57, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think it depends on what you mean by "British". If it is the personal union of the English and Scottish Crowns, then George I is a counterexample. If it's from the Act of Union in 1801, then I think it's right, jguk 19:20, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Prior to George I, England has the examples of Charles II (if you consider him to have succeeded in 1649), James I (who was in Scotland), Edward I (who was on Crusade), Richard I (who was in France), at least. Scotland has James I (who was a prisoner in England). john k 20:26, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth not exclusively Queen of the UK

It's misleading to title the page dedicated to Queen Elizabeth II as "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom".

This causes readers to believe that the British Queen reigns over the other Commonwealth Realms, when in reality Elizabeth II is queen of one Crown over 16 seperate, but equal, Realms-- the United Kingdom included. Therefore she can also be titled as Elizabeth II of Canada, Elizabeth II of New Zealand, Elizabeth II of Jamaica, and so on.

The information on the page itself makes clear that the Queen is not simply Queen of the UK (as do other pages such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_in_Canada), therefore the tile of the page should reflect this. gbambino

See no. 4 of Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles)#Monarchical_titles. The page is currently name according to wikipedia policy --Jiang 10:27, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is in accordance with no. 4, but I see Gbambino's point that no.4 does not work well for Commonwealth/British Empire monarchs since Victoria's time, say, because they were/are queens/kings of many other realms too. It seems only right that we respect that The Queen is the Queen of many nations, not just the United Kingdom. I wonder whether renaming this article "Elizabeth II" or "Queen Elizabeth II" (and similarly for all monarchs since Victoria) may not be more sensible. However, this should be proposed as a change in policy on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) - if it is so proposed, I'll support it, jguk 10:55, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Are there any other Elizabeth IIs? (Yes, I know, policy is to pre-emptively disambiguate, but still...) -- ALoan (Talk) 11:05, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think I know what will happen if we change the article to "Queen Elizabeth II". In a few months someone will add to this talk page saying "Why do you give the British Queen special treatment? Are you assuming she is the only queen in the world?". DJ Clayworth 14:26, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There are no other Elizabeth II's that I am aware of. However, I believe this is a bad idea, and one which is unnecessary. While Elizabeth II is certainly queen of many nations, to say they are equal is silly. Not only does the Queen reside in the UK, but she is referred to as the Queen of the UK when she is everywhere except in one of her fifteen other realms. That is to say, she is the Queen of Canada in Canada, but even in Canada she is the Queen of the UK when she visits the United States. As such, privileging the UK title seems proper. john k 16:30, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

By the way, doing it for all monarchs since Victoria is simply a terrible idea. George V, for instance, shares his name with other rulers - notably his first cousin twice removed, who was King of Hanover from 1851-1866. And just "Victoria" is also awful. From 1877 to 1922, the only titles used were "King/Queen of the UK" and "Emperor/Empress of India". The India title was explicitly used only in India. So UK is appropriate here. In 1922, the style changed, and you have King of Great Britain, Ireland, and the Overseas Dominions" or some such. This remains to the current queen's coronation. The monarchs who ruled only in this period - Edward VIII and George VI - have some argument that they should be "Edward VIII of Great Britain and Ireland" - but I think even this is silly. The basic fact is that the UK is the principal realm of Elizabeth II and her predecessors, and it is simply not POV for the article title to indicate this. john k 16:35, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I understand the policies of Wikipedia in regard to the titles of monarchs (Margrethe II of Denmark, Harald V of Norway, etc.), but the fact remains that to call Queen Elizabeth II only the Queen of the United Kingdom is patently wrong, unless one is speaking only of her in that role.

The way it works for Queen Elizabeth II is that the 1931 Statute of Westminster ended the British Empire, elevated all ex-dominions to equal status with the UK, and thus created the Commonwealth. The Statute makes reference, throughout, not to the British Crown, but only to The Crown, as the British Crown could no longer take precedence over other countries now equal to Britain. So, we now have one Crown acting distinctly within the jurisdiction of each Realm (the Crown in Right of Australia, the Crown in Right of Canada, the Crown in Right of Manitoba, the Crown in Right of the United Kingdom, etc.), and thus one Sovereign acting distinctly within each Realm. So, contrary to John K’s words, all the nations, or Realms, are most certainly equal.

So, it is true that wherever the Queen goes, she is always, at all times, simultaneously Queen of Canada, Queen of Jamaica, Queen of Tuvalu, Queen of the United Kingdom, etc., but, never does Queen of the U.K trump all others. There are two circumstances that dictate how to title her at a given moment. First, if she is in one of her 16 Realms, then she is titled as Queen of (insert Realm here). If she were in Australia, then it would be as ridiculous to refer to her as Queen of the U.K. as it would be to call her Queen of the Bahamas. Second, if she is outside any of her realms then she is titled as the Queen of whichever Realm government requested she act on their behalf. This is why she acted as Queen of Canada when she presided over the D-Day 60th anniversary ceremony in France, as Queen of Canada on a visit to Washington D.C. 1957 (where she hosted a dinner at the Canadian Embassy for President Eisenhower), and met President Eisenhower again as Queen of Canada at the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway in 1959.

She is most commonly called Queen of the United Kingdom when traveling abroad because she most often travels at the request of her U.K. government. But, this still does not change the fact that if her Canadian government asked her to travel to Tibet on a state visit, she would do so as Queen of Canada.

This circumstance would not apply to all monarchs since Queen Victoria, as they were all monarchs over the British Empire, and all people living in the Empire dominions were subjects of the British Crown. It is only post the passing of the Statute of Westminster in 1931 that sovereigns over the Realms ceased to be only British. Therefore, it would apply only to George V (1931-36), Edward VIII (1936), George VI (1936-52) and Elizabeth II (1952- ).

The most simple and accurate title for Queen Elizabeth II would be: Queen Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth Realms.

BTW-- The King of Thailand, Bhumibol Adulyadej, does not have "of Thailand" after his name: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhumibol_Adulyadej gbambino

Thanks for the clarification on use of commonwealth titles. Nevertheless, the Queen lives in the UK, and this crown is quite clearly the preeminent one, de facto if not de jure. The UK, for instance, has in effect the power to abolish the monarchy for all the other commonwealth realms if it wants to abolish the monarchy, but the commonwealth realms have no corresponding ability. At any rate, it is standard practice to use the first of several technically equal realms, only, in article titles. For example, the Stuarts who ruled over both England and Scotland are at Charles I of England, not Charles I of England, Scotland, and Ireland. The early Hanoverians are at George I of Great Britain, not George I of Great Britain and Ireland. In spite of the numerous titles of the Habsburg Kings of Spain, none of which was "King of Spain", they are all at Philip II of Spain, not Philip II of Castile, Aragon, Valencia, Navarre, Portugal, Naples, Sicily, and Sardinia. We have Henry IV of France, not Henry IV of France and Navarre. We have Christian IV of Denmark, not Christian IV of Denmark and Norway, and Oscar I of Sweden not Oscar I of Sweden and Norway. Perhaps it should be clarified that in cases where someone is a monarch of several countries at once, only the first is to be listed in article titles, if this is not already done. At any rate, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is perfectly in line with our practices on all these other monarchs. As to Bhumibol Adulyadej, his name is obviously unique in a way that those of European monarchs are not - my understanding was that these naming conventions only apply to western monarchs. john k 18:42, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The position of the monarch in the Commonwealth is unique, plus, Queen Elizabeth II is the only monarch in the English-speaking world, so I see no difficulty in having an exception to the normal naming styles here. I think Gbambino has a fair point here, and I see no harm in having the articles on the monarchs from George V onwards at "George V", "Edward VIII", "George VI" and "Elizabeth II". All these currently redirect to "George V of the United Kingdom", etc. anyway, jguk 19:28, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

John k-- I'm afraid you didn't read my last post correctly, or I did not make my points clear enough.

Just because the Queen lives in the U.K. does not mean the Crown in Right of the United Kingdom has any elevated status over the Crown in Right of Canada. This is because they are the same crown, which acts as an umbrella equally over all the Realms, including the U.K.

You are correct in stating that any Realm other than the U.K. has no ability to remove the monarchy in Britain. But you are so completely in error when claiming that the U.K. has the ability to abolish the monarchy in all the other Realms. Each Realm (and remember, the U.K. is just another Realm) keeps the Crown as the holder of executive power by their own constitutions. The Statute of Westminster stipulated that the U.K. no longer has any say in the government business of other Realms, and since then all realms have patriated their constitutions from Britain. Therefore, whether a Realm wishes to remove the monarchy or not is up to the government of said Realm.

Take Canada, for example: if the U.K. abolished the monarchy, Canadian constitutional law, patriated from the U.K. in 1982, would still stipulate that Queen Elizabeth II (and her heirs and successors after her) is the holder of executive power. She would cease to be Queen of the U.K., but would remain, in every way, by Canadian law, the Queen of Canada. To say that if Britain removed the monarchy then Canada would lose the foundation of its federation, constitution, government, judicial system, military, police, etc. is nothing more than ridiculous. Even the methods of removal are different -- in Britain it would take simply an act of parliament, as they do not have a written constitution. For Canada it would take the unanimous approval of all 10 provinces, the House of Commons, and the Senate!

The situations you give as examples where one sovereign reigns over two countries may or may not be correct, but that is not at issue here. What is at issue is how, in the case of Queen Elizabeth II, there can not be what you define the 'first' country. As I said, the Statute of Westminster made all ex-dominions equal in status under the Crown. Equal means no superiority, no dominance. Therefore, the Crown in Right of Britain cannot be singled out as 'more important' or 'dominant' over the Crown in other Realms.

'Queen Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth Realms' complies to Wikipedia rules, and is vastly more accurate than simply Queen 'Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom'.

To keep the title as it is will only serve to promote ignorance about the Queen being only British, and Commonwealth Realms besides the U.K. being subservient to the United Kingdom. Using 'de facto' vs. 'de jure' is no excuse.

As far as I knew, Wikipedia is not about promoting ignorance. gbambino

Gbambino, you are correct that, de jure if Britain were to become a republic, each of the other commonwealth realms would be able to retain the monarchy if it so chose. However, de facto, this would mean the end of the monarchy everywhere - the monarchy could not plausibly continue in Canada if the Queen were no longer Queen of the UK. I also was not saying that constitutionally the commonwealth realms were inferior to the British crown. I was saying, and am still saying, that the British crown is the most prominent of her several titles, and that the fact that she lives in Britain is completely immaterial. You have not at all addressed my point about previous personal unions, and use of only one state. Oscar I of Sweden, Christian IV of Denmark, James I of England, George I of Great Britain, Henry IV of France, all conform to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom - none of these deny that these people were not equally Kings of Norway, Norway, Scotland and Ireland, Ireland, and Navarre, respectively. But they are commonly referred to by the "first" country they are king of, and there's nothing wrong with titling our articles in this way. john k 23:16, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I do not see any reason why Canada could not remain its own monarchy, we've been doing it for quite some time now and have yet to encounter any problems. gbambino is correct (in everything he says), this article is obviously misnamed. --Maxwell C. 00:32, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So there's communist revolution in England, the Queen and her whole family are executed by the Bolshevik rebels...does Canada then take in the exiled Lord Frederick Windsor and give him a palace to live him and let him be king? Of course they wouldn't. They'd just abolish the monarchy, give the powers of the monarch/governor-general to an indirectly elected president, and be done with it. The only reason the commonwealth monarchies can exist is because Britain foots the bill for the monarchy, and hosts the monarch. If the monarch got kicked out of the UK, the situation of the commonwealth realms would be deeply awkward. Also, think about if the British amended the Act of Settlement - they won't do it, I think, but if they did, and it appeared to make a difference, all the Commonwealth realms would have to change their succession laws, because they don't want to end up with a monarch who is not the British monarch. There is the fiction of equality, and de jure equality, but de facto Britain has a degree of control over the situation that the commonwealth realms do not have.

I would also ask all of you supporting the move to explain why you don't care about Henry IV of France, Oscar I of Sweden, Christian IV of Denmark, James I of England, George I of Great Britain, and so forth? Doesn't Frederick I of Prussia give to much emphasis to his title of King in Prussia, and suggest that he was not equally Imperial Elector, Margrave of Brandenburg, Duke of Magdeburg, Duke of Kleve, &c &c &c? Doesn't referring to Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor unfairly denigrate the Castilians whose king he was? Or the people of Brussels, whom he ruled in his capacity as Duke of Brabant? Would not the Saxon people object to Augustus II of Poland's article not bearing any reference to him as their beloved Prince-Elector Frederick Augustus I? Shall we bow to the desire of Hungarians that Karl of Austria should indicate his status as King Karoly IV of Hungary? You continue to pretend that the commonwealth monarchies are a unique situation in history. But they are not. Hundreds of European monarchs have ruled over constitutionally distinct entities that had no connection besides the person of their ruler. In nearly all of these cases, we have chosen to put the article at Name Number of Principalstateruled. Henry IV of France and Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom are simply identical situations. Given that Henry IV is actually called "Henry of Navarre", there is probably a considerably stronger case for putting Navarre in his article title. But we don't do that, because this opens a floodgate to more and more irritating article titles. john k 06:35, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If the Royal Family were to be executed by "Bolshevik rebels", the last remaining person in the line of succession, whether that be Lord Frederick Windsor or not, would still automatically take the throne of all the Commonwealth Realms, no matter where he was living and/or hiding (from the Bolsheviks, of course). The constitutions of all the Realms say that when the sovereign dies, the next in line immediately takes the throne. The situation would certainly be awkward ( as if the massacre of the Royal Family wasn't bad enough), but a communist rebellion in Britain would in no way affect Canadian, or Australian, or Belizian constitutional law.

In the months, or years, following the ascention of King Frederick, what happens is anyone's guess. But for Canada it would not simply be a matter of abolishing the monarchy, giving the powers of the monarch/governor-general to an indirectly elected president, and being done with it. There would have to be endless constitutional talks, a national referendum, and then the unanymous agreement of all the provinces, the House of Commons, and the Senate on the new constitution. The powers of the Crown can't be tampered with so easily.

As for the Act of Settlement, the preamble to the Statute of Westminster makes clear that any alteration to the line of succession to the shared Crown must be agreed upon by the governments of all the Realms that share the Crown. So, the U.K. can't unilaterally alter the line of succession in Britain, or else, yes, Canada could end up with a different monarch than the U.K. Likewise, Canada can't alone change the Act of Settlement contained in the Canadian constitution.

This is why the monarchy is less purely British than most people think. gbambino

"I would also ask all of you supporting the move to explain why you don't care about Henry IV of France, Oscar I of Sweden, Christian IV of Denmark, James I of England, George I of Great Britain, and so forth?"

In part because it's garnered the attentions of Canadian monarchists.

http://members.boardhost.com/monarchist/msg/14450.html http://members.boardhost.com/monarchist/msg/14417.html

This post sums up their intent nicely:

"Maybe, as monarchists, we could use this to our advantage. Promote the monarchy through this self-editing on-line encyclopedia."

My contribution is perhaps not relevant to the article in question but already there are some pro-monarchy posts here from common contributors to the board referenced above. And yes, I'm a republican, but I don't want to see the neutral pov hijacked.

Well, that explains some of this, huh? I will note for the record that Wikipedia does not exist as a means for certain groups to spread their POV. john k 19:24, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This debate is ridiculously pedantic. It would be completely impractical for us to have an article titled [[Elizabeth II of Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, The Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland]], as for the suggestion of Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth Realms that would be fine if she was actually known as that. It is not our role to coin new names or titles and as she is simply not known as "Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth Realms" it would be absurd for us to start calling her that here. That fact is she is best known as Queen of the UK and so the current article title is the most appropriate. The introduction of the article explains she is also Queen of x, y and z countries which fulfills the requirements of accuracy.AndyL 19:30, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In regards to the post on the Monarchist League Message board-- be aware that that was in response to an earlier post which discussed incorrect, and somewhat republican biased, information which had been added to Wikipedia. I don't think anyone took his proposal to use Wikipedia as a place to "promote the monarchy" seriously. In fact, another poster on that board praised Wikipedia's unbiased and accurate way of describing Elizabeth II's constitutional and ceremonial roles in Canada, on the page dedicated to such information.

As for the monarchs who are, or were, simultaneously sovereigns of multiple countries, I understand that this problem goes beyond Elizabeth II. However, I think this issue has shown that the problem is a fundamental one with the overall procedure to title pages on monarchs.

It was stated earlier "it is standard practice to use the first of several technically equal realms, only, in article titles" and "just list the first title in the article title". If this is the case, how can one realm be placed in advance of "equal" realms? That is a contradiction in terms. And, that point aside, what, or who, decides what the "first" title is? Is that the first obtained? Then the page on James VI and I is wrong. Is it the fist 'associated'? Well, that's a matter of opinion, as English may say James I is more important, whereas Scots will say James VI. (John k admitted as much when saying "no Scottish person would ever, EVER have referred to James VI as "James I of England.")

That leads into the point that using the argument "she is best known as..." or "the fact that she is primarily associated with the UK" doesn't fly either-- that's just a biased point of view. As Scots and English will differ over James VI and I, so will Canadians, Australians, Britons, etc. differ over Elizabeth II.

All that needs to be put aside, and what needs to be realised is that it is as accurate and unbiased to say James VI of Scotland was equally James I of England, as it is to say Elizabeth II of the U.K. is equally Elizabeth II of Canada. And the Wikipedia pages should reflect the fact that the realms are equal, not opinion about which realm is more important.

With that in mind, I wonder if it is possible to be methodical about monarchs, and simply title the entire page with their name and most superior title, for example, Queen Elizabeth II, and perhaps the dates of birth and death. Then, immediately below have a 1st list outlining the most superior titles, organized first by country in alphabetical order, and secondarily by the dates on which they were obtained.

Then, in another paragraph, a 2nd list of any subsidiary titles such as Duke of.., again, in order of supremacy first, then by country alphabetically, and then by dates obtained.

This could continue on for previous titles, etc., for as much information as can be collected by Wikipedia.

I've set up an example here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_II_%281926-_present%29_%28trial%29 It can be deleted by the moderators when finished with, as I only did it as a demonstration.

This may not be perfect, yet, but I think it’s a more unbiased and factually correct way to give information about monarchs. If 2 monarchs have the same name (ie. 2 King George Vs), it will be clear in the dates of birth and death, dates of ascension, and listed countries of which they were king, which George V a researcher is looking for. gbambino

What gbambino overlooks is that even the Queen's Canadian title gives primacy to her role as British Queen for she is, in Canada, "Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, and her other realms...". If being Queen of Canada is an afterthought in her Canadian title I don't think gbambino really has much of an argument in citing the so-called "Canadian" example. AndyL 22:34, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What about Australia then? Ibagli 00:04, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wait five years. The next Australian PM, whether Liberal or Labor, will likely be a republican and the question of what to call the "Queen of Australia" will be moot. AndyL 00:54, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why are you people unable to see that gbambino makes sense? The name IS obviously biased, and is shown from only ONE POV. This CLEARLY clashes with the wikipedia NPOV policy. As a sidenote, I really do not care about the other monarchs, as they are not currently reigning over my country. --Maxwell C. 02:27, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am beginning to suspect, Maxwell, that POV on this site is nothing more than a sham. It seems to me there is a strong republican contingent here; some have boldly admitted it, some predict republican victory in Australia; and others don't wish to show Queen Elizabeth's true pan-national nature.

As for the Queen's title in Canada, it is true that the United Kingdom is included. However, Canada is the only Realm outside of Grenada and the U.K., to continue this practice. Personally, I believe Canada should follow the example of the rest of the Realms. The Royal Titles and Styles Act is merely an act of Canadian parliament, and can be altered. But, that is neither here nor there. Whatever title she holds in Canada has nothing to do with the equal status of all the Realms under the Crown.

What I have argued all along is that Wikipedia should acknowledge this truth, along with all the other monarchs who were simultaneously sovereigns of more than one country, and alter their policies to suit. gbambino

gbambino, you've complained a lot but you've yet to suggest an alternative title for the article. AndyL 03:31, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

Incidentally, this "fork" of the article is not an appropriate way to make changes. Propose them here or simply edit the article itself because page histories are difficult to merge. — Dan | Talk 13:16, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

AndyL: I most certainly did propose an alternative. See my posting above.

Rdsmith: I did not create a 'fork' to the article, I created an entirely new page. I had to do this because I was told, quite clearly, that no major changes could me made to the Elizabeth II page without discussion and approval. If the proposal was accepted, the Elizabeth II article (and other pages pertaining to sovereigns) would be edited, and the example page deleted.

I am trying to play by the rules here... gbambino

moved to user subpage --Jiang 03:38, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have also noted the unnaturally large contingent of republicans who hang out on the wikipedia, gbambino. --Maxwell C. 01:45, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ah, Maxwell C, another visitor from the Monarchist League of Canada maessage board, I presume. Anyeay, gambino, I must have missed it so please reiterate your proposal, how do you suggest the article be renamed?AndyL 04:41, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Surname?

Her Brittanic Majesty (the correct title for outside the UK), officially has no surname.

Her maiden name is Sachsen Coburg und Gotha. This was changed during the First World War to Windsor, as German names were not the most popular at the time.

Prince Philip also changed his name when marrying the them Princess Elizabeth, to Mountbatten, the maiden name of his mother (The Mountbattens also changed their name in the First World War, from Battenburg). His birth name was Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Gluecksburg.

Without name changes, Her surname (if she were not Queen), would be Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Gluecksburg. Because of them, however, Her decendants (who do not inherit the throne) are called Mountbatten-Windsor.

QEII was born in 1926, so if her parents changed their name during WWI then her name was never Sachsen Coburg und Gotha. DJ Clayworth 14:26, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Philip's mother was never named Mountbatten. She was Princess Alice of Battenberg at the time of her marriage fo Prince Andrew of Greece and Denmark. There is no particular reason to say that either "Sachsen Coburg und Gotha" or "Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg" is a surname. They are house names. Philip's cousin King Constantine, I believe, does not list a surname on his passport. The Glücksburg name is silly, in any case - it was superseded, at the very least, when the other Schleswig-Holstein line died out early in the last century, leaving the Glücksburg line as the only Schleswig-Holstein line in existence. Furthermore, one might say that it is inappropriate to use it for Christian IX's descendants, since they bear the higher title of Prince/ss of Denmark. The semi-fraudulent dynastic names of "Wettin" and "Oldenburg" are not really surnames either - they are just names derived from the places ruled by those dynasties before they ruled their more famous places. The "House of Saxony" and "House of Denmark" make just as much sense. (And for Philip "House of Greece" would also be appropriate). For people bearing the title of Prince/Princess, "Windsor" and "Mountbatten-Windsor" are not surnames either - once again, they are house names. Only non-royal members of the house, like Lord Nicholas Windsor, can be considered to have surnames. john k 16:26, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You may be interested to know that on the Queen Mother's death certificate, her surname, and the surname of the late King is given as "Windsor" [2], jguk 18:37, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I just get an error on the graphic so can't see it.

I think a lot of the confusion over Royal "surnames" stems in part from modern usage and pro forma requirements making it hard to get round them. There is a difference between a family name and the legal bit that goes in a box marked surname. For most people these are one and the same but for Royals things are different. If I recall correctly "Mountbatten-Windsor" was added to Princess Anne's marriage banns because somebody saw a gap. I'd presume that the death certificate similarly requires a surname somewhere along the line - certainly most computers are likely to just give an error message if someone tries to make an entry without one. I recall that Prince William is "William Wales" on his university application forms and his coursework (again something that does not easily adapt to people without surnames).

Also I think the proclamation that originally established the surname and House name of Windsor specifically states that George V's descendents in the male line (including George VI but not Elizabeth onwards) have that as their name so it would be accurate for the death certificate to say that anyway. Timrollpickering 06:12, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Insert non-formatted text hereMy understanding is that the 1917 proclamation says that the house name is Windsor, and that male line descendants of George V who do not have a royal title will have the surname of Windsor. The others don't really have a surname, whatever pro forma requirements have to be gotten around. john k 06:37, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not a member of any of the entrenched camps here, so I fear to make the change myself, but one way or another, the name "Windsor" needs to be visible in the article. It's the one item of information I wanted -- something "everybody knows", but if you're not a fan, it's easy to slip from your mind. As it is, the word never appears on the page anywhere. This is what links are for, yes? — Xiong熊talk

Does she have a passport?

I've always wondered, does the queen have a passport? Seabhcán 15:07, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No. HM The Queen issues passports (or rather, they are granted in her name). She travels as a foreign head of state under international law, AIUI.

James F. (talk) 15:45, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fork

I'm not getting involved, but I'd just like to point out that User:Gbambino/Queen Elizabeth II (1926- present) seems to have been created as some sort of fork. sjorford:// 10:21, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

moved into user subpage--Jiang 03:38, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Suggested page titles

I think we have 4 suggestions of where this page should go. Maybe we should see who likes what. I'm deliberately being positive and only having "supports" - and also suggesting users might wish to support more than one of the options below: jguk 17:18, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom

Supported by:

1. sigh... — Dan | Talk 17:34, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
2. Yawn... Timrollpickering 20:13, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
3. Proteus (Talk) 20:26, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
4. Of course john k 02:07, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
5. agree w/ Timrollpickering below--Jiang 03:39, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
6. this cannot be changed for just this article in isolation. Morwen - Talk 19:54, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
7. Duh. MarkSweep 20:01, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
8. Natch. —Neuropedia 20:06, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)
9. AndyL 22:14, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
10. Astrotrain 19:40, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
11. RickK 08:09, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
12. Aoi 01:56, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC) (see also Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor)
13. Neutrality^talk 16:35, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Elizabeth II

Supported by:

1. jguk 17:18, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth II

Supported by:

1. jguk 17:18, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth Realms

Supported by:

1. --Ibagli 19:36, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Why oh why can't we just stick to the conventions for royal titles and apply a consistent standard, rather than trying to impose individual practices. It is ridiculous to make this change for Elizabeth only - what about her father, uncle and grandfather for a start? Then there's the numerous personal unions cited above, to say nothing of those monarchs who's title included lands they didn't rule and so on. If there's a clear case and support for changing the convention then fair enough to change all the monarchs affected, but let's stop trying to make individual exceptions that have no clear reason to be unique. Timrollpickering 20:11, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

meta:Polls are evil.

James F. (talk) 21:30, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why isn't The Queen an option? That's what she is most commonly called in the UK. :p (being facetious here) Morwen - Talk 19:58, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Why isn't The Queen an option?" Because wikipedia is international. Don't you think the Danes and the Dutch would be a bit preturbed at wikipedia decalring Elizabeth II "the" one and only Queen? Besides, the practice in Britain is to refer to her as "the Queen" domestically and "Her Britannic Majesty" abroad. AndyL 22:14, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Uhm, Morwen already pointed out the tongue-in-cheek nature of her comment. --MarkSweep 09:00, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why isn't "Betsy Windsor" an option? --MarkSweep 21:23, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Would anyone support listing this page on Wikipedia:Requests for comment? It might help reach a consensus over the naming of this article. Aoi 10:46, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

King of the Isle of Man

While the Isle's name is certainly "Man", the name given to its monarch is "Lord of Mann". This is corroborated by the Isle's official website, which is probably a more reliable resource on the subject than an American dictionary. — Dan | Talk 23:20, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is my understanding, as well. john k 23:56, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And, if you look over the article's history, that of several other contributors, including myself. ;-)

James F. (talk) 15:50, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I wrote that in response to several users who changed it to "Man" the other day. Now there's a comment there so well-intentioned people will not continue "correct" the apparent misspelling. — Dan | Talk 18:09, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated claims

To start with

One British Prime Minister said he took them more seriously than Prime Minister's Questions in the House of Commons, because she would be better briefed and more constructive than anything he would face at the dispatch box.

Which Prime Minister is this? I intend to remove this claim unless I can find substantation of this. Morwen - Talk 17:29, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Other claims this article makes that ought to be verifiable, and ought to have more specifics (assuming they aren't just hearsay)...

For example, John Major as prime minister once had difficulty working with a particular Commonwealth leader. The Queen informed Major that he and the leader shared a mutual sporting interest. Major then used that information to establish a personal relationship, which ultimately benefited both countries.

I presume the "mutual sporting interest" is cricket. Which leader? Where does this come from? I have Major's autobiography and don't remember this, but will check.

During a row within the Commonwealth over sanctions on South Africa, the Queen made a pointed reference to her role as Head of the Commonwealth which was interpreted at the time as a disagreement with Mrs Thatcher's policy of opposing sanctions.

Where does this come from? Who did she make the pointed reference to? In a public statement? Was this a press release, or what?

Even ministers known to have republican views speak highly of her and value these meetings.

Who?

A genuine love match, it has survived many trials, including rumoured infidelities.

What rumoured infidelities? Who rumours them? How did Elizabeth and Philip meet, anyway?

"however, there has been mounting evidence in recent months that her relationship with Blair has hardened."

Is this referring to the debacle over the Queen Mothers' funeral? (I can barely remember what that row was about...)

Other things

• Why does this article not mention the Queen's Christmas Message. Ok, so there is a little section at the bottom, which should probably be removed and merged into something else. But its a bit odd to mention one particular Christmas Message but not the entire concept.
• Why is there no mention of the former commonwealth realms that are now republics? All it says is that there has been a rise in republicanism in the commonwealth, and not that several former kingdoms are now republics!

Morwen - Talk 12:02, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Horrible fawning article

Could have been taken from "Hello" magazine. Refdoc 22:38, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The article is fine, and well written as it is. Leave it be. Kiwifruitboi 12:41, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Most widely travelled head of state

This article has said for a while that QE2 is the most widely travelled head of state. Just now an anon has added "behind Pope John Paul II" - does anyone know which of these is true? I've not reverted for now but I'll make a note on the RC patrol pages. Thryduulf 20:23, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pope John Paul II is not, at the moment, a head of state. Are we talking about "most widely travelled of all time" or "most widely travelled current head of state"? john k 21:01, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

reading this particular bit a little late, but a pope *is* head of state; they are the head of the Vatican State. --Vamp:Willow 15:10, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Order of Military Merit (or awards she wears)

I noticed (in a photo in the Canada article) that the the Queen wears the Order of Military Merit award (likely only when she's in Canada). No slight intended, but I'm curious: did the Queen earn this or does she wear it because of the position she holds? It is apparently "an award issued by Canada to members of the Canadian Forces whom have demonstrated dedication and devotion beyond the call of duty." I know she's the Sovereign of this Order, but then I would assume she's the Sovereign of essentially every order in the Canadian Forces, so maybe a more interesting question is what awards or insignias does she wear and why? --Ds13 20:17, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

Her Majesty wears these honours not because she earned them but because she is the Fount of honour and she issues the honours, But in saying this Her Majesty did serve in the British army during Wrold war 2 so she may have earned it.

Her Majesty is indeed sovereign of the Order of Military Merit, as she is Sovereign of the Order of Canada --Ibagli 23:02, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Article Changes

Oh how "bitty" and "messy" this artcle is beging to look; recent changes make it look awlful and so un-planed. Also i am not happy with the length being changed.

Her Majesty's beauty

Well, one thing that I believe should be emphasized: Her Majesty is a very beautiful woman, indeed.

I'm not joking, I'm serious.

And she's very motherly.

(I'm not English, I'm Italian.)

God bless and save her. This is my serious prayer.