Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 5

Top thread

Is Elizabeth II also not the Queen of Scotland? I did not see that title listed anywhere and would like to know for sure. I think she is and would also be Elizabeth I of Scotland since Soctland was not under Tudor rule at the time of Elizabeth I, it came under English rule after Elizabeth I (Tudor) died and England and Scotland were united by Queen Mary of Scots's son James.

  • Why isn't the queen's husband, "King Phillip", as logic dictates?
  • I heard that the original surname of the queen is Sax-Gotheburg... something like that, and Windsor is a pseudomym to cover up it German origins. Is this correct?

Nichalp 20:10, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

1) Because wives don't transfer their titles to their husbands.
2) George V changed his surname from "Wettin" to "Windsor" and the Royal House name from "Saxe-Coburg and Gotha" to "Windsor", and, yes, it was to cover up the German origins of the name (it was 1917, and so the UK was fighting Germany in the First World War), but that was before The Queen was born, and so Her Majesty has always been called "Windsor". Anyway, she's married and so if her surname wasn't "Windsor" it would be "Mountbatten". Proteus (Talk) 20:26, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
Why can't wives transfer their titles? Nichalp 20:21, May 27, 2004 (UTC)
That's just the way the system works. Proteus (Talk) 22:50, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

This is a more accurate way of answering the question: Monarchy is a patriarchal system. When a King marries, his wife acquires the courtesy title "Queen" and is known as a Queen Consort. Thus George VI's wife was known as Queen Elizabeth. But she was not a Queen in the sense of being a female Monarch. This is called a Queen Regnant. The current Queen is a Queen Regnant, Queen Elizabeth II. A Queen Regnant's husband is given the courtesy title Prince, and is known as a Prince Consort. The Queen's husband is thus Prince Phillip (he has the additional title Duke of Edinburgh), not King Phillip. This is to avoid any suggestion that a man, by marrying a Queen Regnant, can become King. The convention arose to avoid any repetition of the situation when Queen Mary Tudor, the first Queen Regnant of England, married King Phillip II of Spain, and sought to have him treated as if he were King of England. Adam 03:01, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

When Queen Mary I married Philip of Spain his father was still alive so he was still a prince, not yet a King. Mary would have done anything for Philip, including giving him her crown. I think that Philip was hopping Mary would give him an heir and then die so he could then rule England through their child along with Spain (where Mary's mother was from).

Consorts aren't automatically Princes. The Duke of Edinburgh is only a Prince because he was made one with Letters Patent (in 1957, so for several years after Her Majesty's accession he was not one). It would have been perfectly possible for him not to have been given any Royal styles or peerages, in which case he'd be "Admiral of the Fleet Sir Philip Mountbatten", even though he was married to The Queen. Proteus (Talk) 06:46, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
I didn't say that consorts were automatically Princes. I said "A Queen Regnant's husband is given the courtesy title Prince." All three husbands of Queens Regnant (George of Denmark, Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and Phillip Mountbatten) have been given the title, so it can now be said to be the standard practice. Adam 07:22, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

However Prince Albert and his great-great-gretat grandson Prince Philip (yes, the Queen is also decended from Prince Albert thus meaning Elizabeth II and Philip are cousins, and they are both decended from Queen Victoria Albert's wife) were princes in their own right before they married. Example Philip was a prince of Denmark and Greece in his own right.

But you called it a courtesy title, which is by definition a title that you have automatically by virtue of being related or married to someone with a substantive title, so I assumed you were saying it was such a title. Proteus (Talk) 07:31, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
George of Denmark was born as Prince George of Denmark, and Albert was a Prince of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. They weren't given the courtesy title of "Prince" they had it to begin with. And Queen Anne of England (Great Britain) was known as Princess George of Denmark before her accession.Prsgoddess187 15:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

A courtesy title is a title that one is given as a courtesy. If it is acquired automatically there is no courtesy. Adam 14:35, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

If you don't know the difference between a courtesy title and a substantive title, I see very little point in continuing this discussion. Proteus (Talk) 20:56, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

The "contemporary" image is a special promotional Golden Jubliee photograph of the Queen, allowed to be used for public, non-commerial useage user:J.J.

Hmm...apparently this is a Canadian portrait, might it be better to have a British one( as this is Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom) -Joe



Fonzy added:


Should be Succeded by: Charles (III)


...which is a bit POV if you ask me (some might say, "should be succeeded by a president"), but also fails to take account of the fact that Charles (if he gets there) may well choose to be George VII. I've put "Heir Apparent: Charles, Prince of Wales" for the moment, but maybe it should go back to blank. --rbrwr


I didn't mean it as, he "should" be (horrah lets drink a toast), i meant it as he should come next in line. -fonzy




Look, from all reports the Queen does her rather strange job well. However, doesn't the article lay it the superlatives on just a tad thick ... how can we know that she's so expert in world affairs if she's never publicly expressed any views on such? Anybody want to defend the article in its present form? --Robert Merkel 05:14 Jan 10, 2003 (UTC)


We know it from the biographies/autobiographies of James Callaghan, Margaret Thatcher, James Prior, Anthony Eden, Richard Crossman, Sir John Peck, etc etc.




Is there a more recent non-copyright photo available? Whilst she may have looked like that at the time of her inauguration coronation, she doesn't any more. --Robert Merkel 05:16 Jan 10, 2003 (UTC)



I note that for most figures in the royal family, wikipedia is currently listing as last names either "Windsor" or "Mountbatten-Windsor". I'm not sure if this is strictly correct. The 1917 letters patent said that "Windsor" would be the surname for anybody who needs a surname. It's my understanding, though, that anyone with an HRH does not, in fact, need a surname. Same deal with "Mountbatten-Windsor" as the surname for the Queen's descendants. Although this would be their surname if they somehow lost all their titles, these surnames are never, in fact, actually used. Who they are used by is non-royal descendants. For instance, Lady Davina Windsor is the daughter of HRH The Duke of Gloucester. Perhaps something clarifying this should be included in these articles? john 02:16 May 3, 2003 (UTC)


When we had the farce of articles about [[Charles Windsor]] pages, I checked with Buckingham Palace re the issue of surnames. Yes the do have surnames and yes the are used, when for example the banns are issued on the occasion of a Royal Wedding. According to BP, the wedding banns of Princess Anne for both her marriages called her Mountbatten-Windsor. Though the person could not remember, they thought Prince Charles was called Charles Mountbatten Windsor (plus his other christian names) when he was married. Periodically, the issue of royal surnames has been raised. Queen Victoria, for example asked her advisors to work out what her surname was. She was not amused to discover it was Wettin. Wettin remained the surname of her descendants until 1917 when both the surname and the Royal House name were changed to Windsor. They were again separated by an Order-in-Council in 1960 to give all of Queen Elizabeth II's descendants the surname Mountbatten Windsor without changing the Royal House name, which remained Windsor.


In actually having worked out their surname, the British Royals are rather unique. Most reigning royal houses haven't, but the do have them. They simply don't know what they are because they ordinarily don't use them. ÉÍREman 02:29 May 3, 2003 (UTC)


As far as Wettin goes, that's not exactly a surname. It's just the name of the place which the Wettins were counts of ages go in the early Middle Ages, which it was later decided was their surname. One might note, also, that the former German ruling houses' surnames are, in fact, what their titles used to be. Thus the members of the House of Prussia bear the surname Prinz(essin) von Preussen, not Hohenzollern. The members of the House of Bavaria are Prinz(essin) von Bayern, not Wittelsbach. And so forth. These are their legal surnames.


Getting back to the issue of the British Royal family's surname, here's something from a discussion on the newsgroup alt.talk.royalty, which purports to be a quote from the official Royal website:


"The Royal family name of Windsor was confirmed by The Queen after her accession in 1952. However, in 1960, The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh decided that they would like their own direct descendants to be distinguished from the rest of the Royal family (without changing the name of the Royal House), as Windsor is the surname used by all the male and unmarried female descendants of George V.


"It was therefore declared in the Privy Council that The Queen's descendants, other than those with the style of Royal Highness and the title of Prince/Princess, or female descendants who marry, would carry the name of Mountbatten-Windsor. (In 1947, when Prince Philip of Greece took the Oath of Allegiance, he became naturalised, and assumed the name of Philip Mountbatten as a Lieutenant in the Royal Navy.) The surname Mountbatten-Windsor first appeared on an official document on 14 November 1973, in the Marriage Register at Westminster Abbey for the marriage of Princess Anne and Captain Mark Phillips.


"A proclamation on the Royal family name by the reigning monarch is not statutory; unlike an Act of Parliament, it does not pass into the law of the land. Such a proclamation is not binding on succeeding reigning sovereigns, nor does it set a precedent which must be followed by reigning sovereigns who come after. Unless The Prince of Wales chooses to alter the present decisions when he becomes king, he will continue to be of the House of Windsor and his grandchildren will use the surname Mountbatten-Windsor."


This would seem to suggest that it doesn't apply to princes and princesses. On the other hand, Princess Anne is a princess, and used the name Mountbatten-Windsor at her marriage, which is confusing.


A further discussion of the royal family's surname on the alt.talk.royalty faq says the following:


'On 17 July 1917, King George V issued a Proclamation which stated that the male line descendants of the royal family would bear the surname Windsor:

from the date of this Our Royal Proclamation Our House and Family shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that all the descendants in the male line of Our said Grandmother Queen Victoria who are subjects of these Realms, other than female descendants who may marry or may have married, shall bear the said Name of Windsor


'A few months later, King George V issued Letters Patent on 30 October 1917 which limited the title 'Prince' and the style 'Royal Highness' to the children of a sovereign, the children of sons of a sovereign and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. HH Prince Alastair of Connaught (1914-1943), grandson of HRH Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught (Queen Victoria's fourth son), became the first member of the royal family to use the surname Windsor in lieu of his princely title. It has been suggested that it was a misinterpretation of these latest Letters Patent which led to HH Prince Alastair (for such he was based on practise going back to the time of King George I's accession in 1714 and which practise was confirmed in Queen Victoria's Letters Patent of 30 January 1864; source: "The Princes of Great Britain" article in Burke's Peerage 1963 edition, pp xxvii-xxxii) being denied his princely title. However, as he was the son and heir of a peeress (Princess Alexandra, Duchess of Fife), he was allowed the courtesy use of his mother's subsidiary title and became Alastair Windsor, styled Earl of Macduff.


'On 11 December 1917, it was further decided by Letters Patent that:

the grandchildren of the sons of any such Sovereign in the direct male line (save only the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) shall have the style and title enjoyed by the children of Dukes.


'In 1952, Queen Elizabeth II confirmed her grandfather's decision that the royal family's surname would continue to be Windsor. Her Majesty declared on 9 April 1952 that it was:

her Will and Pleasure that She and Her Children shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that Her descendants other than female descendants who marry and their descendants shall bear the name of Windsor.


'A few years later, HM The Queen modified this statement by issuing Letters Patent in February 1960 which stated in part:

while I and my children will continue to be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, my descendants, other than descendants enjoying the style, title or attributes of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess, and female descendants who marry and their descendants, shall bear the name Mountbatten-Windsor.


'Did this mean that the name of some members of the royal family changed from "Windsor" to "Mountbatten-Windsor"? Some people contend that the goal of this declaration was meant to not only change the surname of the children of HM The Queen but those of her male-line descendants as well. At Princess Anne's wedding in November 1974, Anne signed the marriage register 'Anne', without a surname. It was the registrar who filled in her names as 'Anne Elizabeth Alice Louise Mountbatten-Windsor'. According to a Buckingham Palace statement issued in October 1975, the specific addition of the surname 'Mountbatten-Windsor' was "the Queen's decision that this should be done". Further, HM The Queen consulted with the acting Prime Minister to confirm whether all her children would have the surname Mountbatten-Windsor. She received the following reply:

"The effect of Your Majesty's Declaration is that all the children of Your Majesty who may at any time need a surname have the surnames of Mountbatten-Windsor." (Prince Philip: A Biography, by Denis Judd, London: Michael John, 1980, page 196)


'It would seem that the surname of HM The Queen's children is whatever HM wishes. Legally and constitutionally, however, the Queen cannot do as she wishes. The surname of the Queen's children is Mountbatten-Windsor in practise and has appeared three times: at Princess Anne's first marriage in 1974, on Prince Andrew's marriage register in 1986, and when the banns were read prior to Princess Anne's second marriage to Commander Laurence in 1992. (When the Prince of Wales married in 1982, he signed the register as "Charles P" and the registrar filled in his name as "His Royal Highness Prince Charles Philip Arthur George The Prince of Wales".) Nonetheless, the family name remains legally Windsor because there hasn't been any modification or clarification to the Letters Patent of 1960.'


So this would suggest that the surname, is, in fact, Windsor for anyone who has the title of Prince, so that it is only Harry's children who will likely be Mountbatten-Windsors. Or else I'm confused. In any event, the whole thing is rather confusing, no? john 07:13 May 3, 2003 (UTC)


Even the Palace when I contacted it was confused and had to check. Their best understanding was that it is correct to presume that all descendants of the Queen and Prince Philip have the surname Mountbatten-Windsor. I specifically asked about the Prince of Wales and the reply was 'yes, him too'. On the advice of the Palace I included that reference. Personally I would prefer not to, but some people on wiki are preoccupied with the issue of surname (and every so often, someone appears and tries to rename all royals via their surname!) so I thought it best, given that the Palace insisted that was the correct format, to include the MW surname, apart from anything else to discourage the renaming brigade who would see a strange surname that was different to the one they thought, and so back off.


As far as I know, the reason for the 1960 change was because of Prince Philip's unhappiness with the absence of his name as the name of the Royal House. It was to appease him that the Queen decided to reintroduce the concept of a separate royal surname, so that he would not feel left out and would be duly honoured in some way. It also occured at a time when there were extensive rumours as to the royal marriage's stability and in particular rumours of Philip's alleged infidelity. Incorporating Philip's surname was a way of counteracting the rumours by saying that rumours of a split were greatly exaggurated, with Philip being so central to the Royal Family that his descendants would have his name. As to Wettin, when Victoria for some reason asked her Private Secretary "What is my surname?" the reply she got back, after some checking, was Wettin, the advice being that that had been Prince Albert's personal surname. But, to borrow a Victoria-esque cliché, she was not amused and no-one dared mention it again. Edward VII certainly believed that was his surname. He believed that all monarchies would soon be swept away, and joked that he had pity for his descendants who would be stuck with such a 'god-awful name' when the throne was abolished.


PS: - sometimes on wiki you get people talking about topics who don't know much about them. It is great to find another 'name anorak' here alongside myself and Deb. My instance (here and elsewhere) on getting things right has irked some people who don't think accuracy matters. The more people wiki has determined to get things right and up to top encyclopædic standards the better. ÉÍREman 21:33 May 3, 2003 (UTC)


Anorak? Moi? Deb 22:12 May 3, 2003 (UTC)


My dear, wear one's anorak with pride! *grin* ÉÍREman 22:49 May 3, 2003 (UTC)


Here's my concern. Whatever the Palace may say (and the fact that they too were confused says a lot), the Letter Patent of 1960 says:


"while I and my children will continue to be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, my descendants, other than descendants enjoying the style, title or attributes of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess, and female descendants who marry and their descendants, shall bear the name Mountbatten-Windsor"


Princes and Princesses are specifically excluded from bearing the surname "Mountbatten-Windsor". So they, presumably, still have the surname "Windsor", given to them in the previous Letter Patent (of 1953). Unless some additional Letter Patent has been issued, which it doesn't seem to be. Which would suggest that the Palace, in fact, is wrong. Of course, anyone in Britain has the right to change their name, I suppose, but if their last name is "Mountbatten-Windsor", it's because they have chosen to make it that, not because it is so determined by the LP of 1960. Either the LP itself was poorly worded, or they're not referring to themselves as they are supposed to. Which means that the royal family themselves seem to have made a hash of things. Ah well, it doesn't matter much. I'd prefer just to not list surnames for members of the royal family who don't actually use them, but given that dunces are going to be changing it unless there's something, I suppose what's currently there is fine. Prince Charles is HRH The Prince of Wales in any official document, and so has no particular need for a surname. Also, isn't it true that many peers use their peerage titles as last names? Lord Linley, for instance, calls himself "David Linley", for instance. john 23:41 May 3, 2003 (UTC)


Assuming I'm understanding correctly what this debate is all about, I think I'm in favour of leaving things as they are now, rather than trying to make the "conventions" more complex.


PS. Have you ever read Sue Townshend's book, "The Queen and I"? Deb 13:46 May 4, 2003 (UTC)


I haven't read that book (or any actual books on the monarchy - my knowledge of the present day monarchy mostly comes from newsgroup reading). As far as the conventions, I agree that they're fine as they are. My main argument was just that members of the British royal family should not be listed with any surname at all, but given that people are constantly running through and giving them surnames, I suppose it's alright.


In terms of conventions for article titles on members of the royal family, would I be correct in saying that they are as follows?


A Prince of Wales is "First Name, Prince of Wales"

A Princess Royal is "First Name, Princess Royal"

A Royal Duke (or Earl, in one case) is "Prince First Name, Duke of N"

A Prince or Princess who is son/daughter of the Monarch is "Prince(ss) N of the United Kingdom (or, if they died before 1801, of Great Britain)

A Prince or Princess who is the child of a Royal Duke or Prince of Wales is "Prince(ss) N of Peerage Title"


And in terms of normal peers, that the convention is 'First Name Last Name, numberth Peerage Level (of) Peerage Title" (as in George Smith, 1st Duke of Smithley)?


This seems perfectly sensible, in general. john 19:12 May 4, 2003 (UTC)


That basically is it, though a royal duke normally does not have the 'prince' attached, though it might make sense to do so. (I had not honestly thought of using that format!) It is what was worked out after oh so much work on the naming conventions pages. You should have seen the mess that we used to have. Though keep your eyes out for any new pages that don't follow the system, or for any person who abandons the system and comes up with their own version. Where they deviate, simply rename to the correct version, leaving a note on the talk page or the user page explaining the change. Most people are OK though occasionally a fanatic arrives determined to do it his or her way, in which case with due politeness you do have to be equally dogmatic on the issue. If someone is insistent, contact, Deb, Zoe, Mav or myself and we will enter the dispute to back you up. I am quite happy that in royal and imperial nomenclature at least, wiki follows clear, unambiguous encyclopædic standards. In too many areas, wiki has an 'anything goes' policy. This 'mess' in royal & imperial names was cleaned up (bar the dreaded Japanese emperors!) and we must ensure it stays that way. ÉÍREman 01:01 May 5, 2003 (UTC)


You know, I think John is right about the "Prince" bit for royal dukes. I noticed it somewhere the other day, and thought to myself, "We're doing that wrong".
Incidentally, the reason I mentioned the Sue Townsend book was not as advice for how to write articles, but for a laugh. It's a fantasy scenario (now way out of date), and there's a scene where Prince Charles is up in court and doesn't want anyone to know who he is, so he goes by the surname "Teck"! Deb 10:15 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

It would certainly make sense. I'm all in favour of it. :-) (Oh no! more renaming!!!) ÉÍREman 21:26 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

Well, fortunately, a large percentage of the royal dukes don't actually have articles on them. Prince Philip is already at "Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh". I'll try to go ahead and change some. john 21:51 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

I removed christened from the opening line.

  1. She did not get her name through being christened. Christening is a christian religious ceremony, at which one gets one's christian names. People actually get their official first names though the civil registration of their birth. They may be the same names, but they come through registration not christening.
  2. In any case, it was agreed that we would henceforth follow the format with royalty of starting of the article with their regal name if a monarch, followed immediately by (personal name). There is no need to say personal name, christened, baptised, registered, etc. Simply put their personal name in bold italics in brackets after their regal name.

So please, when people edit royal pages, could they take care to follow the carefully worked out and agreed naming conventions and not unilaterally doing it their way. So far today I have lost count on the number of royal pages I have had to change back to the agreed format because some people, with the best of intentions but without knowing what they are doing, have changed the structure of the page to a format other than the format we all have spent so much time agreeing and changing all the articles to conform to. That is not intended as a criticism of some people'c contributions, many of whom are excellent and informative. Just make sure that in making changes you do know the agreed ground rules as to how to structure a particular type of page. Otherwise you increase the wordload on others, especially as the easy option of reversion would lose at lot of interesting new material, meaning that people have to go in to an article and painstakingly rewrite it back to the agreed format often not merely once but constantly. FearÉIREANN 11:41 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)


The list of places, landmarks, buildings, bridges, etc. named after Queen Elizabeth II are endless. I think the list at the bottom of the article is getting ridiculous. Why don't we leave them all out? It is evident from the title of this article that it is about the person. --Jiang 07:42, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

We could put them on an Elizabeth II (disambiguation) page. john 22:31, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Removed text:


Queen Elizabeth is a central character in a series of murder mystery novels by the Canadian author Douglas Whiteway (writing under the penname C. C. Benison). In each one, a murder takes place at one of her estates, and Queen Elizabeth asks the Canadian housemaid Jane Bee to solve the crime, which of course she does.


The Cunard cruise liner RMS Queen Elizabeth 2 (note the Arabic numeral) is so named not for Queen Elizabeth II, but rather because it is Cunard's second ship of that name. (The first RMS Queen Elizabeth was named for the late Queen Mother, who was then Queen consort.)

The Queen Elizabeth Way, a highway near Toronto, is also named after the Queen Mother.



The QE2 bridge that takes southbound traffic over the Thames between Thurrock and Dartford just to the east of London is, however, named in her honour. Most motorists using the route however still refer to the Dartford Crossing a term that includes the two tunnels now used to allow northbound traffic to travel from Kent into Essex (one of which was originally built for southbound vehicles). Low-level aircraft pilots for whom the bridge represents a useful landmark do keep the official name in general usage.


Reading all that twaddle makes me an even more ardent (Australian) republican than I was before I started! (and I speak as a descendent of Edward III)Dr Adam Carr


Regarding the last revision by Andrew Yong, I believe that mailboxes in Scotland dont have the II numeral on them. --Jiang 09:46, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)



Alright, who thinks pigsonthewing's comments about republicanism a) are properly NPOV and deserve to be in the article; and if yes on a, b) ought to be part of the article's introduction? I'm inclind towards no on a. This would be more appropriately discussed in an article on the British monarchy in general, rather than a biographical article on the present queen, even if it is true, which pigsonthewing has not provided any real support for. It definitely shouldn't be in the introduction to the article. john 00:44, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

  • You keep referring to this fact as PoV, yet have offered no refutation. Which other monarch has had a bill proposing a republic read in parliament? Which other monarch has seen past and current MPs (and other commentators) openly advocating a republic, not only in the HoC, but in the press?Andy Mabbett 10:56, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Certainly it's been advocated in the press before the current reign. In any event, my main reason for thinking it shouldn't be in the introduction is that it's not appropriate for an article about the queen, rather than one about the british monarchy. john 21:46, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • I've never suggested that it's not been in the press; but by current and past MPs? It's here, not under monarchy, because it's about what the present monarch has had to deal with. Andy Mabbett 22:35, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Okay, again, I can see some mention of republicanism being worthwhile in the article. But an isolated mention at the very beginning of the article seems unnecesssary. Also, I believe there were various radical republicans to be found in the 19th century parliaments. john 22:38, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Furthermore, it gives the impression that a defining characteristic of her entire reign are calls for republicanism, or that the calls for republicanism are the result of her actions. This isn't exactly fair. - Montréalais

As a Brit, Monarchist and admirer of HM Queen Elizabeth II it is totally unnecessary to refer to her as 'Her Majesty' throughout the entire article. As a good example of the maximum amount of respect necessary, the official site of the monarchy refers to her as The Queen, and allows the use of 'she' after the first use in the sentence. (an example [1]) DJ Clayworth 15:17, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree. Referring to her as "her majesty" implies subordinance, which only applies to her subjects. "The Queen" is also ambigous, as it has different meanings elsewhere. In the Netherlands, "the Queen" refers to Beatrix, not Elizabeth. It is better to use "Queen Elizabeth II" or "She". --Jiang/talk 23:59, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I'm confused...are we just leaving this as "Her Majesty" because an anonymous user won an edit war? I would like to revert away the "Her Majesty"s unless someone can point me to a place where there is an honest debate about whether or not we should leave the article like this. Jwrosenzweig 08:02, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Go ahead. --Jiang

I don't think there's anything wrong with calling her "The Queen" on subsequent reference. I think it's pretty clear the reference is to the Queen whom the article is about, not the Queen of the country the reader is in. I would see nothing wrong with referring to Beatrix or Margrethe as "The Queen" in those articles. - Montréalais 05:33, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Titles of grandchildren of Sovereign

The Declaration of 1917 granted the title of Prince or Princess to the children of the sons of the Sovereign. Why, then, is the daughter of HRH Prince Edward called Lady Louise Windsor? As the child of the son of the Sovereign, she is entitled to the title of Princess.

Technically she is, read the article Lady Louise Windsor. According to the BBC, it's because she's the daughter of an 'Earl'. Our article says more. --Jiang 06:58, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"She is the first Queen Regnant in Scotland and postboxes there do not bear the numeral II."

Firstly, this is obviously wrong. There have been several Queens Regnant in Scotland, including Mary I (Mary, Queen of Scots), Mary II (William and Mary) and Anne.

Secondly, assuming it means to say that as there has been no Queen Elizabeth in Scotland the Queen is not Elizabeth II there, it is also wrong in this respect. She is Elizabeth II in all of her Realms, and the only reason the postboxes in Scotland don't have the II is that Scottish people kept vandalising the EIIR ones so they replaced them.

The policy of numbering is now that the monarch will take the higher number from the two numbers they would have if they were still monarch of both England and Scotland. Thus, the next King George will be VII, and the next King James will be VIII. Proteus 08:45 GMT, 16th January 2004

Wikipedia:Be bold! Feel free to correct it "Although rumoured..." --Jiang 08:58, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Being bold, I'm deleting:

"The Queen is considered to be a very fashionable woman, and has a large team of dress makers and clothiers. "

because

  • no-one I know (Londoners) considers her a remotely fashionable woman. Rather the opposite. I doubt she even considers herself one.
  • the next sentence says "Rather conservative in dress, the Queen is paticularly well-known for her solid-color overcoats and decorative hats".

To me the solid-colour overcoats and decorate hats jar with the fashionability. :)

Best wishes, -- AndyE

Ireland vs. Northern Ireland

The Queen bears quarterly, I and IV England, II Scotland, III Northern Ireland, which serves as the Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom. This coat of arms has been unchanged since Queen Victoria.

Is this correct by any reading? I've never seen the harp used for NI specifically-- only for Ireland in toto. Marnanel 01:51, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

If the Arms have been unchanged since Queen Victoria, as stated, then the harp must represent Ireland, not Nthn Ireland. Adam 03:28, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think that it's more of a politic thing; otherwise it looks like the Queen is still claiming control of the whole island... I.e., although the arms may not have changed, the interpretation could well have.
James F. (talk) 09:49, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Just as a further piece of evidence, the Royal web site's page on Coats of Arms doesn't mention Northern Ireland: "In the design the shield shows the various royal emblems of different parts of the United Kingdom: the three lions of England in the first and fourth quarters, the lion of Scotland in the second and the harp of Ireland in the third." Proteus 11:50, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Commonwealth of Nations vs. Commonwealth realms

Today, she has approximately 125 million subjects in the nations in which she is head of state. If you include the all of the Commonwealth realms (including those that are republics), this number swells to 1.71 billion (or 1.87 billion if one counts the suspended Pakistan).

The second statement seems to confuse Commonwealth realm with membership in the Commonwealth of nations. The first is those nations that acknowledge QEII as Head of State; the second just signifies ties with the British Empire. By definition, a Commonwealth realm can't be a republic. Furthermore, the statistic is itself irrelevant, but may be relevant as the total membership of the Commonwealth. I have removed the line in the article. Ambarish Talk 16:42, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Queen's political views

Does anyone have reliable documentation about the Queen's political views? In this edit, the sentence, "she is believed to hold centrist, even slightly left of centre views" was removed from one section and the sentence "Her private political views are probably 'moderate Tory'" was added to another. Is there any reliable evidence about which is correct?

Acegikmo1 20:27, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

My understanding was that the queen was probably kind of a "wet" Tory, of the sort that Thatcher purged from the party. She certainly didn't get on with Thatcher, by all accounts. But I don't know that there's necessarily any real evidence of this. I'd imagine that, given the queen's essentially unique position within the political structure, it would be rather difficult to pigeonhole her political views in any clear way. john k 20:59, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There is of course no absolutely verifiable source on HM's political views. Most accounts rely on the word of professional gossips like Woodrow Wyatt and Nigel Hamster. I believe my statement that her views are moderately Tory is correct, but I have no real objection to it being deleted. Adam 23:50, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Isn't there quite a lot of evidence in contemporary newspaper accounts and ministerial memoirs concerning her difference of position with Thatcher over policy towards apartheid South Africa? This doesn't tell us what her party preference or general ideology is but it at least gives us information on her views on one particular political issue at least. AndyL 05:33, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

length

This page is 37kB long. I say let's remove the list of PMs. They have little to do with her biography. It's irrelevant. Stuff on her ancestry could go to the royal family article. --Jiang 06:21, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I concur - I've deleted them. john k 06:25, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Subject vs citizen also constitution vs hereditary succession

"It is therefore not correct to refer to Canadians, Australians etc as "subjects" of Queen Elizabeth. Rather they are citizens of countries of which she is head of state."

I'm not sure this is correct. It is my understanding that we in Canada are citizens rather than subjects by virtue of the Citizenship Act of 1948 (or thereabouts) and not because of any constitutional arrangement vis-a-vis the Queen. Also, didn't the Bill of Rights and Act of Settlement establish that it is Parliament that ultimately has the right to determine who becomes King or Queen? In practice the hereditary principle is at play but that is only because it is written into the Act of Settlement. If Parliament changed the rules so that the Queen Elizabeth's successor was to be the winner of the next Big Brother then that would be that.

As well, since the Act of Settlement specifies that one must be neither Catholic nor married to a Catholic can we really say that in Britain the succession is purely a matter of heredity since someone who would be a rightful heir according to strict rules of heredity (say male primogeniture) could be disqualified for religious reasons by virtue of British constitutional law? AndyL 05:30, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It's hereditary in the sense of legal inheritance, which is not equivalent to biologicial heredity. The law treats male and female, first-born and last-born, Protestant and Catholic, and the legitimate and the bastard unequally in defining this particular inheritance. - Nunh-huh 05:42, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't see any contradiction between the statement Andy quotes and the statements he then makes in response to it. Adam 07:14, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Whoops, I should have included the sentence before that one as well:

When the Queen dies her heir will be accepted as head of state in the Commonwealth Realms by virtue of the constitutional law of each of them, rather than by hereditary right. It is therefore not correct to refer to Canadians, Australians etc as "subjects" of Queen Elizabeth. Rather they are citizens of countries of which she is head of state.

As I said, it is my understanding that in Canada we are citizens by virtue of the passage of Canada's first Citizenship Act in the late 1940s, not "by virtue of the constitutional law" and that prior to 1948 or so we too were "British subjects". AndyL 07:38, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Andy is confusing two different things: the legal basis for the Queen's tenure of the position of head of state in countries other than the UK, and the status of citizens of those countries in relation to the Crown. The Queen is head of state of Canada, Australia etc by virtue of the constitutions of those countries. Canadians and Australians are citizens rather than subjects by virtue of legislation in their own Parliaments. Adam 10:03, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)