![]() | 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. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
Something caught my eye & hit me in a kind of funny way when I read the info box:
Born 21 April 1926 (age 82) Mayfair, London
At first glance, *age 82* between parentheses makes it appear as if Elizabeth was 82 years old when she was born.
Then one realises that *age 82* must have been the age when info box was filled; however, when one looks at the photograph that says *Elizabeth in 2007*, result of the calculation is *81* !!! Very confusing!
Now since someone who reads a wiki article is supposed to be able to read, write & count, (oh! why should wiki readers be treated as if they were first graders???!!!) why is it necessary to put an age beside a date? Queen Elisabeth being born in 1926, she will be 83 on her 2009 birthday, as she was 80 at same in 2006. Anyone should be able to calculate her age & there is no reason to burden the info box with unnecessary details that become obsolete as years change.
An info box should be 'slim', i.e. show exact details in a concise manner, no unnecessary details that either one can calculate or are developed in article. An info box should be read at a glance with no question needed to be asked.
Not an 'habituée' of English history article, I am not going to change anything in info box - only wanted to give my point of view.
Frania W. ( talk) 23:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
As of today, she has been queen for 57 years, so this needs updating. Is there any way that the length of her reign can be calculated automatically? 62.60.103.9 ( talk) 15:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Excellent & informative comment GoodDay! Misortie ( talk) 15:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
"Cough" Misortie ( talk) 17:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Assuming this bit refers to current monarchs, then surely she is the only one to do so? 81.158.1.233 ( talk) 02:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I've reverted the insertion of a "surname" for The Queen. Please read Her Majesty's declaration more carefully: (my bold)
My Lords Whereas on the 9th day of April 1952, I did declare in Council My Will and Pleasure that I and My children shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that My descendants, other than female descendants who marry and their descendants, shall bear the name of Windsor: And whereas I have given further consideration to the position of those of My descendants who will enjoy neither the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness, nor the titluar dignity of Prince and for whom therefore a surname will be necessary: And whereas I have concluded that the Declaration made by Me on the 9th day of April 1952, should be varied in its application to such persons: Now therefore I declare My Will and Pleasure that, while I and My Children shall continue to be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, My descendants other than descendants enjoying the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess and female descendants who marry and their descendants shall bear the name of Mountbatten-Windsor.
I took the liberty of reverting as such a change would potentially affect all the articles of titled royals of Elizabeth's close family. -- Cameron * 15:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
If you do a web search for "Prince William's Birth Certificate" you can see that there are no surnames on it at all, except in the section for mother's maiden name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.212.36.188 ( talk) 22:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
The Queen's religion is described, in the box, as being Anglican, is this technically true?
I do not know anything about her personal faith, but whilst she is Sup. Gov of the CofE, she is also, when in Scotland, Presbyterian.
I am just suggested an edit to "Anglican, Church of Scotland". RAMscram ( talk) 21:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I would question that the Queen and her Consort attend St George's Chapel, Windsor regularly; I have spoken to one of her personal Chaplains [who used to live locally to me] on the subject and I gather that the Chapel is far too "high Church" for them and "The Royal Chapel of All Saints, Windsor Great Park, is regularly used by The Queen.", to quote from an unnamed website source. They much prefer a simple Book of Common Prayer style of service with Mattins rather than Holy Communion every week - the latter to be preferred for high Holy Days like Chrismas and Easter. [DSB 9/05/09] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.100.104 ( talk) 03:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Most English people who are C of E and regular churchgoers, when visiting Scotland would seek out a Church of Scotland church to attend, ahead of a Cathcolic or other church. To me that in itself isn't a sign of a genuine personal Church of Scotland affiliation. There may be other evidence though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.212.36.188 ( talk) 21:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Treknet1 ( talk) 21:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
The Thatcher quote (footnote 108) is incorrectly cited. The webpage to which the citation points does not have the actual quote in the body of its text.
However, the quote is correct. It comes from the following source.
Thatcher, M. (1993). The Downing Street Years (p. 18) New York: HarperCollins. ISBN 0-06-0170565
The article text should be updated to cite it accordingly. However, my account is not autoconfirmed so I don't have the ability to do it myself. Anyone who can assist would be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Treknet1 ( talk • contribs) 21:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
The article incorrectly states that Elizabeth II was the first monarch to circumnavigate the globe. The first one to do so was King Kalākaua of Hawaii in the late 1800's. The article should be changed to reflect that she was the first British monarch to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.34.145 ( talk) 19:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
The Queen of Tahiti also did, at the same time of history. Gallagher06 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.52.58.88 ( talk) 01:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Wonderful, but going all kinds of places on multiple trips (it was as a boy, not in while serving in the Royal Navy), does not mean circumnavigating the globe. Circumnavigating means going from point A back to point A in a path that circles the globe. I have put in a reference to a site saying EII was the first of them to circle the world. It is of course possible that it is wrong, but it is on you to prove that, not merely to raise the possibility that it is. So, once again, if you have any evidence, have at it. - Rrius ( talk) 23:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
William N. Armstrong's Around the World with a King is just one of many sources for Kalakaua's journey. The source provided for Elizabeth's claim does not say "first Commonwealth monarch"; it says "first monarch", which is wrong. I think the phrase should be removed. I've never had much time for the "reliability, not truth" dictat. We should aim for truth; just because someone in authority makes a mistake, does not mean that we have to slavishly follow their errors. DrKiernan ( talk) 08:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
IMHO, British should be re-inserted as Elizabeth II is known internationally as Queen of the United Kingdom. GoodDay ( talk) 15:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Is it normal to refer the the children of the UK royal family as Issue. Perhaps this can be changed to Children instead. scope_creep ( talk) 13:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
In the introduction it says She is the fourth longest-reigning British monarch, after Victoria (who reigned over the United Kingdom for 63 years), George III (who reigned over Great Britain for 59 years), and James VI (who reigned over Scotland for over 57 years).
Yet in the subsection "Health and reduced duties" it says: after which she became the third longest reigning British or English monarch.
I am guessing there are differing interpretations of whether Scotland is to be included in "British" here, but as an American reader, it appears to be contradictory. So, perhaps it should be re-worded. Tvoz/ talk 21:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
1. She's the third longest reigning British monarch, and the 4th longest reigning monarch on the British Isles. James VI reigned first in Scotland, and later as King of Great Britain, England and Scotland after the Act of Union. Thankfully, after October she'll be the third longest reigning monarch of Britain and in the British Isles, and so we won't need to make the distinction. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 19:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Ds1994 ( talk) 10:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ds1994 (
talk •
contribs) 10:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm. I just heard a commentator on CNN says that there was "no protocol when meeting the Queen." So I decided to check here if Wikipedia had anything on protocol. What does everyone think? is it worth it to start compiling?
I also thought it was funny they gave HM an IPod but she has already done quite a few Podcasts. CaribDigita ( talk) 21:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm very surprised Obama bowed. There was a minor kerfuffle when Ronald Reagan declined to bow and some palace official got his knickers in a twist about it; Reagan explained that the U.S. President is head of state of a sovereign country and does not bow to other heads of state. The rules about who should bow/curtsey surely do not extend to people who are not subjects of the Queen, and certainly not to heads of state. -- JackofOz ( talk) 22:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Who says Obama bowed to the Queen? I've only heard about his bowing to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. - Rrius ( talk) 08:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Please can someone assist? What's the name of the breed of her Majesties dogs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.186.189.87 ( talk) 10:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Why does the title read... Elizabeth of the UK? Isn't she monarch of sixteen independent realms? Surely it should be: "Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth"?
See Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Archive 14#Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth Realms for a list of links to previous discussions. — JAO • T • C 19:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
James VI declared himself "King of Great Britain" by proclamation in October 1604, but the English Parliament refused to allow him use of the term in English legal documents. DrKiernan ( talk) 07:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
There is an error re. her being the longest running head of state - it says she will overtake Richard Cromwell in 2012...
can someone correct it please! Thanks. S —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.169.153.190 ( talk) 22:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I suggest that the whole paragraph containing the Richard Cromwell remark is a paragraph of hypothetical statistical matter of little interest which is well below the general standard of the Elizabeth II article. It reads
"To become the longest-lived British head of state, Elizabeth would have to live to 29 January 2012 when she would overtake Richard Cromwell. If Elizabeth lives until 19 September 2013, and her son Charles, the Prince of Wales succeeds her, he would become the oldest ever to succeed to the throne, surpassing William IV, who was 64. To overtake Queen Victoria and become the longest reigning monarch in British history, Elizabeth would have to live to 10 September 2015, when she would be 89. To surpass the reign of King Louis XIV of France, and become the longest reigning monarch in European history, Elizabeth would have to live until 26 May 2024, when she would be 98."
Let's delete this, please.
Ambrose H. Field ( talk) 19:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
when will the queen breack the record of longest ruling monarch in europe? or even all time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.237.54.62 ( talk) 06:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
In right side info bar. Prince Charles is not linked. Someone forgot to put the brackets around his name, therefore rendering it not hyperlinked to a subsequent page. I'd do it myself, but it won't allow me to edit even though I'm logged in. Thanks. Dferg47 ( talk) 05:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I have just read the article for the first time today and think it's very good indeed. Why it's not a featured article is a puzzle, but thanks to everyone who has contributed to it anyway. Taam ( talk) 16:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
When King James VI of Scotland unified the crowns of England and Scotland in 1603 he became James I of Britain. Therefore really the present Queen should only be Queen Elizabeth I of Britain as the previous Elizabeth was only Queen of England not Britain. Neil MacCormick a Scottish solicitor famously argued this in court in the 1950's and in Scotland she should be styled Queen Elizabeth I. Stevephillip ( talk) 14:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
![]() | 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. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
Something caught my eye & hit me in a kind of funny way when I read the info box:
Born 21 April 1926 (age 82) Mayfair, London
At first glance, *age 82* between parentheses makes it appear as if Elizabeth was 82 years old when she was born.
Then one realises that *age 82* must have been the age when info box was filled; however, when one looks at the photograph that says *Elizabeth in 2007*, result of the calculation is *81* !!! Very confusing!
Now since someone who reads a wiki article is supposed to be able to read, write & count, (oh! why should wiki readers be treated as if they were first graders???!!!) why is it necessary to put an age beside a date? Queen Elisabeth being born in 1926, she will be 83 on her 2009 birthday, as she was 80 at same in 2006. Anyone should be able to calculate her age & there is no reason to burden the info box with unnecessary details that become obsolete as years change.
An info box should be 'slim', i.e. show exact details in a concise manner, no unnecessary details that either one can calculate or are developed in article. An info box should be read at a glance with no question needed to be asked.
Not an 'habituée' of English history article, I am not going to change anything in info box - only wanted to give my point of view.
Frania W. ( talk) 23:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
As of today, she has been queen for 57 years, so this needs updating. Is there any way that the length of her reign can be calculated automatically? 62.60.103.9 ( talk) 15:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Excellent & informative comment GoodDay! Misortie ( talk) 15:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
"Cough" Misortie ( talk) 17:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Assuming this bit refers to current monarchs, then surely she is the only one to do so? 81.158.1.233 ( talk) 02:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I've reverted the insertion of a "surname" for The Queen. Please read Her Majesty's declaration more carefully: (my bold)
My Lords Whereas on the 9th day of April 1952, I did declare in Council My Will and Pleasure that I and My children shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that My descendants, other than female descendants who marry and their descendants, shall bear the name of Windsor: And whereas I have given further consideration to the position of those of My descendants who will enjoy neither the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness, nor the titluar dignity of Prince and for whom therefore a surname will be necessary: And whereas I have concluded that the Declaration made by Me on the 9th day of April 1952, should be varied in its application to such persons: Now therefore I declare My Will and Pleasure that, while I and My Children shall continue to be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, My descendants other than descendants enjoying the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess and female descendants who marry and their descendants shall bear the name of Mountbatten-Windsor.
I took the liberty of reverting as such a change would potentially affect all the articles of titled royals of Elizabeth's close family. -- Cameron * 15:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
If you do a web search for "Prince William's Birth Certificate" you can see that there are no surnames on it at all, except in the section for mother's maiden name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.212.36.188 ( talk) 22:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
The Queen's religion is described, in the box, as being Anglican, is this technically true?
I do not know anything about her personal faith, but whilst she is Sup. Gov of the CofE, she is also, when in Scotland, Presbyterian.
I am just suggested an edit to "Anglican, Church of Scotland". RAMscram ( talk) 21:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I would question that the Queen and her Consort attend St George's Chapel, Windsor regularly; I have spoken to one of her personal Chaplains [who used to live locally to me] on the subject and I gather that the Chapel is far too "high Church" for them and "The Royal Chapel of All Saints, Windsor Great Park, is regularly used by The Queen.", to quote from an unnamed website source. They much prefer a simple Book of Common Prayer style of service with Mattins rather than Holy Communion every week - the latter to be preferred for high Holy Days like Chrismas and Easter. [DSB 9/05/09] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.100.104 ( talk) 03:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Most English people who are C of E and regular churchgoers, when visiting Scotland would seek out a Church of Scotland church to attend, ahead of a Cathcolic or other church. To me that in itself isn't a sign of a genuine personal Church of Scotland affiliation. There may be other evidence though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.212.36.188 ( talk) 21:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Treknet1 ( talk) 21:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
The Thatcher quote (footnote 108) is incorrectly cited. The webpage to which the citation points does not have the actual quote in the body of its text.
However, the quote is correct. It comes from the following source.
Thatcher, M. (1993). The Downing Street Years (p. 18) New York: HarperCollins. ISBN 0-06-0170565
The article text should be updated to cite it accordingly. However, my account is not autoconfirmed so I don't have the ability to do it myself. Anyone who can assist would be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Treknet1 ( talk • contribs) 21:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
The article incorrectly states that Elizabeth II was the first monarch to circumnavigate the globe. The first one to do so was King Kalākaua of Hawaii in the late 1800's. The article should be changed to reflect that she was the first British monarch to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.34.145 ( talk) 19:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
The Queen of Tahiti also did, at the same time of history. Gallagher06 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.52.58.88 ( talk) 01:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Wonderful, but going all kinds of places on multiple trips (it was as a boy, not in while serving in the Royal Navy), does not mean circumnavigating the globe. Circumnavigating means going from point A back to point A in a path that circles the globe. I have put in a reference to a site saying EII was the first of them to circle the world. It is of course possible that it is wrong, but it is on you to prove that, not merely to raise the possibility that it is. So, once again, if you have any evidence, have at it. - Rrius ( talk) 23:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
William N. Armstrong's Around the World with a King is just one of many sources for Kalakaua's journey. The source provided for Elizabeth's claim does not say "first Commonwealth monarch"; it says "first monarch", which is wrong. I think the phrase should be removed. I've never had much time for the "reliability, not truth" dictat. We should aim for truth; just because someone in authority makes a mistake, does not mean that we have to slavishly follow their errors. DrKiernan ( talk) 08:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
IMHO, British should be re-inserted as Elizabeth II is known internationally as Queen of the United Kingdom. GoodDay ( talk) 15:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Is it normal to refer the the children of the UK royal family as Issue. Perhaps this can be changed to Children instead. scope_creep ( talk) 13:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
In the introduction it says She is the fourth longest-reigning British monarch, after Victoria (who reigned over the United Kingdom for 63 years), George III (who reigned over Great Britain for 59 years), and James VI (who reigned over Scotland for over 57 years).
Yet in the subsection "Health and reduced duties" it says: after which she became the third longest reigning British or English monarch.
I am guessing there are differing interpretations of whether Scotland is to be included in "British" here, but as an American reader, it appears to be contradictory. So, perhaps it should be re-worded. Tvoz/ talk 21:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
1. She's the third longest reigning British monarch, and the 4th longest reigning monarch on the British Isles. James VI reigned first in Scotland, and later as King of Great Britain, England and Scotland after the Act of Union. Thankfully, after October she'll be the third longest reigning monarch of Britain and in the British Isles, and so we won't need to make the distinction. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 19:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Ds1994 ( talk) 10:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ds1994 (
talk •
contribs) 10:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm. I just heard a commentator on CNN says that there was "no protocol when meeting the Queen." So I decided to check here if Wikipedia had anything on protocol. What does everyone think? is it worth it to start compiling?
I also thought it was funny they gave HM an IPod but she has already done quite a few Podcasts. CaribDigita ( talk) 21:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm very surprised Obama bowed. There was a minor kerfuffle when Ronald Reagan declined to bow and some palace official got his knickers in a twist about it; Reagan explained that the U.S. President is head of state of a sovereign country and does not bow to other heads of state. The rules about who should bow/curtsey surely do not extend to people who are not subjects of the Queen, and certainly not to heads of state. -- JackofOz ( talk) 22:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Who says Obama bowed to the Queen? I've only heard about his bowing to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. - Rrius ( talk) 08:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Please can someone assist? What's the name of the breed of her Majesties dogs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.186.189.87 ( talk) 10:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Why does the title read... Elizabeth of the UK? Isn't she monarch of sixteen independent realms? Surely it should be: "Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth"?
See Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Archive 14#Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth Realms for a list of links to previous discussions. — JAO • T • C 19:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
James VI declared himself "King of Great Britain" by proclamation in October 1604, but the English Parliament refused to allow him use of the term in English legal documents. DrKiernan ( talk) 07:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
There is an error re. her being the longest running head of state - it says she will overtake Richard Cromwell in 2012...
can someone correct it please! Thanks. S —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.169.153.190 ( talk) 22:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I suggest that the whole paragraph containing the Richard Cromwell remark is a paragraph of hypothetical statistical matter of little interest which is well below the general standard of the Elizabeth II article. It reads
"To become the longest-lived British head of state, Elizabeth would have to live to 29 January 2012 when she would overtake Richard Cromwell. If Elizabeth lives until 19 September 2013, and her son Charles, the Prince of Wales succeeds her, he would become the oldest ever to succeed to the throne, surpassing William IV, who was 64. To overtake Queen Victoria and become the longest reigning monarch in British history, Elizabeth would have to live to 10 September 2015, when she would be 89. To surpass the reign of King Louis XIV of France, and become the longest reigning monarch in European history, Elizabeth would have to live until 26 May 2024, when she would be 98."
Let's delete this, please.
Ambrose H. Field ( talk) 19:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
when will the queen breack the record of longest ruling monarch in europe? or even all time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.237.54.62 ( talk) 06:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
In right side info bar. Prince Charles is not linked. Someone forgot to put the brackets around his name, therefore rendering it not hyperlinked to a subsequent page. I'd do it myself, but it won't allow me to edit even though I'm logged in. Thanks. Dferg47 ( talk) 05:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I have just read the article for the first time today and think it's very good indeed. Why it's not a featured article is a puzzle, but thanks to everyone who has contributed to it anyway. Taam ( talk) 16:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
When King James VI of Scotland unified the crowns of England and Scotland in 1603 he became James I of Britain. Therefore really the present Queen should only be Queen Elizabeth I of Britain as the previous Elizabeth was only Queen of England not Britain. Neil MacCormick a Scottish solicitor famously argued this in court in the 1950's and in Scotland she should be styled Queen Elizabeth I. Stevephillip ( talk) 14:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |