This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
current talk page.
Queen Elizabeth II died of natural causes while reigning. How can she be a "dethroned monarch"? I would have thought that such a category applied only to monarchs who lost their thrones because they were ousted, not by natural death. —
Tonymec (
talk)
20:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
I assume it means the other Commonwealth realms which splintered off or become republics during her reign which she had been head of state of.
Tim O'Doherty (
talk)
21:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
It really depends on what the definition of the category is. Does it cover all monarchs that have lost one or two realms or is it for monarchs that were completely stripped of power? If it's the latter it definitely does not apply to her and it would be misleading. Keivan.fTalk01:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
To my mind "dethroned monarchs" have either been killed by mobs of their countrymen, or managed to escape and live out shabby-genteel lives in Paris or Monaco.
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (
talk)
01:58, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
She was deposed by the prime ministers of Rhodesia and Fiji, off the top of my head. Barbados also. There may have been others. So therefore I think the inclusion of Elizabeth II in the category listing dethroned monarchs is proper.
Векочел (
talk)
02:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Queen of the United Kingdom and THE other Commonwealth realms
In both the lead and the infobox, Elizabeth II is described as “Queen of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms”; it should be “Queen of the United Kingdom and THE other Commonwealth realms”.
The article is grammatically important. “Queen of the United Kingdom and other countries” would mean she’s queen of SOME other countries besides the UK. “Queen of the United Kingdom and THE other countries” would mean she’s queen of EVERY country, including the UK. She wasn’t queen of SOME Commonwealth realms. She was queen of ALL of them.
Brainiac242 (
talk)
01:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
No, the absence of "the" before "other Commonwealth realms" isn't indicative of a grammatical oversight or an implication that she was queen of only some Commonwealth realms. Instead, this phrasing can be understood as a conventional stylistic choice. It succinctly implies that her queenship extended beyond the UK to encompass all Commonwealth realms, without the need for the definite article "the" to clarify this point. ‑‑
Neveselbert (
talk·contribs·email)
15:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
@
Neveselbert: The Cambridge Dictionary disagrees with you.
[1] It clearly states that “The other with a plural noun means the remaining people or things in a group or set”, while “We can use other with singular uncountable nouns and with plural nouns” to mean “‘additional or extra’, or ‘alternative’, or ‘different types of’”. Therefore, by including the article, we are saying “Queen of the United Kingdom and the remaining (after having already mentioned the UK) Commonwealth realms”; by not including the article, we are saying “Queen of the United Kingdom and additional (unspecified) Commonwealth realms”. We need to include the article.
Brainiac242 (
talk)
16:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The phrase "other Commonwealth realms" in this context is commonly understood to refer to those countries that, alongside the UK, recognised Elizabeth II as their monarch. It is a specific, well-defined category, not a vague or unspecified collection of realms. Moreover, the interpretation of "the other Commonwealth realms" as "the remaining realms after the United Kingdom" could imply a hierarchy or a sequence that does not accurately reflect the nature of the Commonwealth realms' relationship with the monarch. Each realm's relationship with the monarch is independent and equal; none is secondary or residual to the UK in this context. The phrase "Queen of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms" aligns with these considerations and appropriately reflects the nature of Elizabeth II's reign across her multiple, distinct sovereignties. Therefore, the inclusion of "the" is not necessary for clarity or correctness in this context. ‑‑
Neveselbert (
talk·contribs·email)
18:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Omitting the "the" would imply that there are some Commonwealth realms of which she was not Queen. That is not the case (at any point in time at which the countries in question had the status of Commonwealth realm).
Rosbif73 (
talk)
13:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
I'll note that this was pored over in detail in 2015 for this article, and in 2023 for her son's article, leading to the current lead sentences for both. Before her death there was a note in the lead: "NOTE: Please do not change the lead sentence without consulting the discussion page first. This lead has been discussed and there is general consensus that this is the best one for now. Thanks." To the best of my knowledge, no other discussion has superseded it.
Tim O'Doherty (
talk)
17:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
@
Tim O'Doherty: You are right, before her death the article did include a note urging editors not to change the lead sentence without consulting the discussion page. That lead sentence however included the exact number of countries she was queen of, together with a note specifying which countries it was referring to. Her title in the infobox, which did not specify the exact number of countries, was “Queen of the United Kingdom and THE other Commonwealth realms”. I understand why we don’t include the number of countries now, it changed throughout her reign. Which is why I’m trying to bring back the title used in the infobox at the time, and use it for both the infobox and the lead.
Brainiac242 (
talk)
17:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
@
GoodDay: Can you elaborate? You don’t see a difference in meaning between “other Commonwealth realms” and “the other Commonwealth realms”? You do see a difference in meaning, but think the former is the correct one here? You think the latter is grammatically correct, but less
“visually pleasing”?
Brainiac242 (
talk)
13:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Such subtlety of grammar will be lost to almost all readers, the vast majority of whom will not pick up on the nuance implied by the definite article.
DrKay (
talk)
14:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
@
DrKay: You are right, most readers won’t notice the difference. Most readers wouldn’t notice a missing period at the end of a paragraph either; but if one does, why shouldn’t they add it? I noticed the missing article. Why shouldn’t I add it?
Brainiac242 (
talk)
15:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
The usage of "the" isn't required, as the # of realms changed during her reign. At the beginning of her reign, she was "Queen of the United Kingdom and the 6 other Commonwealth realms". By the end of her reign, she was "Queen of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms". In order to use "the" now? You'd have to have "Queen of the United Kingdom and the 6 to 14 other Commonwealth realms".
GoodDay (
talk)
15:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
For me it is an issue of length. The infobox is already long. It should be short and succinct. The additional word, in addition to the forced line breaks in that parameter, extends the infobox by an extra line. If 'the' is included, then I would like the forced line break to be removed so that the infobox does not extend further than it does already.
DrKay (
talk)
15:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Multiple discussions on this topic have been held, with the same result - replace the 2015 image, with the 1959 image.
GoodDay (
talk)
22:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Yeah but that was the image in the lede. Zowayix was asking about placing it somewhere in the article perhaps in the diamond jubilee section.
Ric36 (
talk)
19:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
The replacement of the image was by majority vote, 16-12 as I recall, not by consensus, and is now over a year old. There is no particular reason that I can see that discussions of replacing the infobox image should be shut down. The current image has been there long enough for opinions to form and change about it. I am not proposing a change, but I am suggesting that discussions should be allowed to proceed if someone does again propose it.--
Wehwalt (
talk)
01:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
current talk page.
Queen Elizabeth II died of natural causes while reigning. How can she be a "dethroned monarch"? I would have thought that such a category applied only to monarchs who lost their thrones because they were ousted, not by natural death. —
Tonymec (
talk)
20:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
I assume it means the other Commonwealth realms which splintered off or become republics during her reign which she had been head of state of.
Tim O'Doherty (
talk)
21:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
It really depends on what the definition of the category is. Does it cover all monarchs that have lost one or two realms or is it for monarchs that were completely stripped of power? If it's the latter it definitely does not apply to her and it would be misleading. Keivan.fTalk01:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
To my mind "dethroned monarchs" have either been killed by mobs of their countrymen, or managed to escape and live out shabby-genteel lives in Paris or Monaco.
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (
talk)
01:58, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
She was deposed by the prime ministers of Rhodesia and Fiji, off the top of my head. Barbados also. There may have been others. So therefore I think the inclusion of Elizabeth II in the category listing dethroned monarchs is proper.
Векочел (
talk)
02:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Queen of the United Kingdom and THE other Commonwealth realms
In both the lead and the infobox, Elizabeth II is described as “Queen of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms”; it should be “Queen of the United Kingdom and THE other Commonwealth realms”.
The article is grammatically important. “Queen of the United Kingdom and other countries” would mean she’s queen of SOME other countries besides the UK. “Queen of the United Kingdom and THE other countries” would mean she’s queen of EVERY country, including the UK. She wasn’t queen of SOME Commonwealth realms. She was queen of ALL of them.
Brainiac242 (
talk)
01:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
No, the absence of "the" before "other Commonwealth realms" isn't indicative of a grammatical oversight or an implication that she was queen of only some Commonwealth realms. Instead, this phrasing can be understood as a conventional stylistic choice. It succinctly implies that her queenship extended beyond the UK to encompass all Commonwealth realms, without the need for the definite article "the" to clarify this point. ‑‑
Neveselbert (
talk·contribs·email)
15:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
@
Neveselbert: The Cambridge Dictionary disagrees with you.
[1] It clearly states that “The other with a plural noun means the remaining people or things in a group or set”, while “We can use other with singular uncountable nouns and with plural nouns” to mean “‘additional or extra’, or ‘alternative’, or ‘different types of’”. Therefore, by including the article, we are saying “Queen of the United Kingdom and the remaining (after having already mentioned the UK) Commonwealth realms”; by not including the article, we are saying “Queen of the United Kingdom and additional (unspecified) Commonwealth realms”. We need to include the article.
Brainiac242 (
talk)
16:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The phrase "other Commonwealth realms" in this context is commonly understood to refer to those countries that, alongside the UK, recognised Elizabeth II as their monarch. It is a specific, well-defined category, not a vague or unspecified collection of realms. Moreover, the interpretation of "the other Commonwealth realms" as "the remaining realms after the United Kingdom" could imply a hierarchy or a sequence that does not accurately reflect the nature of the Commonwealth realms' relationship with the monarch. Each realm's relationship with the monarch is independent and equal; none is secondary or residual to the UK in this context. The phrase "Queen of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms" aligns with these considerations and appropriately reflects the nature of Elizabeth II's reign across her multiple, distinct sovereignties. Therefore, the inclusion of "the" is not necessary for clarity or correctness in this context. ‑‑
Neveselbert (
talk·contribs·email)
18:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Omitting the "the" would imply that there are some Commonwealth realms of which she was not Queen. That is not the case (at any point in time at which the countries in question had the status of Commonwealth realm).
Rosbif73 (
talk)
13:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
I'll note that this was pored over in detail in 2015 for this article, and in 2023 for her son's article, leading to the current lead sentences for both. Before her death there was a note in the lead: "NOTE: Please do not change the lead sentence without consulting the discussion page first. This lead has been discussed and there is general consensus that this is the best one for now. Thanks." To the best of my knowledge, no other discussion has superseded it.
Tim O'Doherty (
talk)
17:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
@
Tim O'Doherty: You are right, before her death the article did include a note urging editors not to change the lead sentence without consulting the discussion page. That lead sentence however included the exact number of countries she was queen of, together with a note specifying which countries it was referring to. Her title in the infobox, which did not specify the exact number of countries, was “Queen of the United Kingdom and THE other Commonwealth realms”. I understand why we don’t include the number of countries now, it changed throughout her reign. Which is why I’m trying to bring back the title used in the infobox at the time, and use it for both the infobox and the lead.
Brainiac242 (
talk)
17:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
@
GoodDay: Can you elaborate? You don’t see a difference in meaning between “other Commonwealth realms” and “the other Commonwealth realms”? You do see a difference in meaning, but think the former is the correct one here? You think the latter is grammatically correct, but less
“visually pleasing”?
Brainiac242 (
talk)
13:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Such subtlety of grammar will be lost to almost all readers, the vast majority of whom will not pick up on the nuance implied by the definite article.
DrKay (
talk)
14:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
@
DrKay: You are right, most readers won’t notice the difference. Most readers wouldn’t notice a missing period at the end of a paragraph either; but if one does, why shouldn’t they add it? I noticed the missing article. Why shouldn’t I add it?
Brainiac242 (
talk)
15:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
The usage of "the" isn't required, as the # of realms changed during her reign. At the beginning of her reign, she was "Queen of the United Kingdom and the 6 other Commonwealth realms". By the end of her reign, she was "Queen of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms". In order to use "the" now? You'd have to have "Queen of the United Kingdom and the 6 to 14 other Commonwealth realms".
GoodDay (
talk)
15:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
For me it is an issue of length. The infobox is already long. It should be short and succinct. The additional word, in addition to the forced line breaks in that parameter, extends the infobox by an extra line. If 'the' is included, then I would like the forced line break to be removed so that the infobox does not extend further than it does already.
DrKay (
talk)
15:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Multiple discussions on this topic have been held, with the same result - replace the 2015 image, with the 1959 image.
GoodDay (
talk)
22:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Yeah but that was the image in the lede. Zowayix was asking about placing it somewhere in the article perhaps in the diamond jubilee section.
Ric36 (
talk)
19:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
The replacement of the image was by majority vote, 16-12 as I recall, not by consensus, and is now over a year old. There is no particular reason that I can see that discussions of replacing the infobox image should be shut down. The current image has been there long enough for opinions to form and change about it. I am not proposing a change, but I am suggesting that discussions should be allowed to proceed if someone does again propose it.--
Wehwalt (
talk)
01:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)