This article was nominated for deletion on 28 October 2018. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Love the new article, G2. PS- is this sorta a response to Gazz's concerns at List of Australian monarchs article? GoodDay ( talk) 23:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Would it work better if arranged horizontally, rather than vertically? JPD ( talk) 13:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I find this page rather confusing. Enlighten me.... Why do the darker green dates start at the time of independence for many relams? It gives the impression the Monarchy didn't have any role prior to that... For example:
Following independence that is when the first Queen's representative known as a "Governor General" was appointed but before that Barbados, Jamaica etc. etc. pretty much all had "Governors" that also represented the Monarch.... Just like how a head of Governent prior to independence are a "Premier" and after independence they become a "Prime Minister".... In other words.
The current territories of the UK:
All have a representative of the Queen known as a "Governor", + a Head of Government known as a "Premier".
The former territories of the UK:
All have a representative of the Queen known as a "Governor General", + a Head of Government known as a "Prime Minister".
CaribDigita ( talk) 21:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Before each state achieved independence, the Queen reigned as Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, on independence, the Queen reigned of whichever state in question, eg. Queen of Barbados in Barbados rather than Queen of the UK in Barbados. That's why not all states are shown as being headed by the Queen since 1952 many weren't states then but still part of the British state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.135.120.35 ( talk) 13:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
True, but this makes no difference. If a territory is not independent the fact remains that Queen Elizabeth would be their Head of State(even as a territory). Even if a country becomes independent (like Canada) as long as they don't become a republic she's still going to be head of State. So anything on this map showing Queen Elizabeth as head of state **still--** would have had her as their Head of State since 1952 independent or not. Think of Puerto Rico. Their Head of State is the U.S. president and if they become independent and do not choose a president technically the US president would still be their Head of State. This map is perpetrating mis information. I see it already on the Antigua article where it states QEH has only been their Queen since they become independent. If that were the case, then who was their Monarch before independence??? CaribDigita ( talk) 23:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
-prior to independence, those territories were either crown colonies or overseas territories of the UK, they were british territory and not independent states, which is something that cannot be said for the commonwealth realms, which are totally separate monarchies that just happen to have Elizabeth II as their queen in a personal union. So, she was not queen of say, Jamaica prior to 1962; it was british territory. You might as well have a section describing her as 'Queen of Kent' or 'Queen of London' obviously CaribDigita, with the greatest of respect, has some confusion about the nature of monarchical titles. And as for the question 'who was their monarch before independence...nobody, they were part of the UK. JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 22:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
This article describes the states headed by Elizabeth II. Why is the UK missing? Is this not headed by Queen Elizabeth II? Demophon ( talk) 08:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Why are the bars for the countries where the Queen reigns today coloured in light green (eg. Antigua and Barbuda, Australia), whilst the ones where she has reigned over in the past are coloured in dark green (eg. Ceylon, Fiji)? Surely these colours should be switched as it would be expected that a dark colour symbolises continuity, whilst a light one symbolises something which has 'faded' away.
The colours were originally this way around but appear to have been switched when the table was rotated. This should be fixed. — Crere ( talk) 14:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you: there is actually no reason for different colours. There was no difference with the Queen's position of head of state between countries which at the time were under her reign but are no longer today, and those which at the time were under her reign and are still today (eg. Elizabeth II was just as much the Queen of Ceylon in 1960 as she was the Queen of Canada then).
I propose that the bars are all standardised to one colour, and to distinguish between current states headed by the Queen and ones which were formerly headed by her, the current realms should be in bold. — Crere ( talk) 12:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I think this bizarre and unexplained statement, which I removed, is based on the idea that Elizabeth II remains Paramount Chief of Fiji.Paramount Chief is not the same as Queen. It is not a constitutional role; it is a traditional role. It is certainly a high honour, perhaps, as far as Fijians are concerned, the highest, but it is not linked to the headship of state, which is by Constitution in the person of the President. -- Gazzster ( talk) 05:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
-'Tui Viti' is now just a ceremonial title; regardless of its original meaning. It has no connection to the constitution. The President of Fiji is in every way, constitutionally and de facto, the head of state of Fiji, regardless of the respect accorded to the Queen by Fijians and the possibility of a monarchical restoration in Fiji; if it was not or if it had not become a republic, it would not have left the commonwealth after the 1987 coup (a nation that declared itself a republic under old commonwealth rules automatically ceased to be a member and had to re-apply, which Fiji did not do in 1987. Hence also the formal reason why South Africa left in 1961.) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
89.240.130.48 (
talk) 19:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
What about India, between 1947 and 1950? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.125.232.66 ( talk) 15:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
OK Just realised this article on starts from 1952, when Elizabeth became Queen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.125.232.66 ( talk) 15:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Since Commonwealth Realms started from 1931 - there probably should be a similar article that covers the period 1931-1952, which would include India and Ireland, but it would cover multiple reigns - George V & VI and Edward VIII
This page doesn't get much traffic but I'd like to tidy up the language of both paragraphs to the following text
start proposed text ----------
Queen Elizabeth II has been Head of State of as many thirty-two independent countries during her 72 year reign (1952-present). In her Diamond Jubilee year in 2012 The Queen is head of state of the 16 Commonwealth realms that are shown below in light green with countries that became republics shown in dark green.
Fiji is a unique case due to a military coup in 1987 and a subsequent republic while the Great Council of Chiefs continue to recognise Elizabeth II as Paramount Chief. This is a ceremonial title with no role in government. [1]
Her reign over the United Kingdom includes the fourteen British overseas territories and the Crown Dependencies.
end proposed text ----------
What is your opinion, is two weeks to the end of January 2012 enough time to solicit comments?
Karl Stephens ( talk) 11:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
References
Since the Council of Chiefs, the only governmental body that applied any recognition to Elizabeth, has now been disbanded, surely the band representing her "ceremonial title" should end in early 2012 on the chart? -- Jfruh ( talk) 01:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
As opposed to what? Her role in the other governments is not mentioned at all, so it makes that sentence confusing. Some explanation of what her role is in the other nations would be helpful to the article. Wickedjacob ( talk) 23:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Shouldn't it include the 3 Crown Dependencies and 14 Overseas Territories? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1504:4068:E5B5:69F6:4C92:887 ( talk) 12:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Australia is actually a commonwealth of states. Shouldn't they be listed individually? 114.121.153.159 ( talk) 10:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
HRM is not head of state of Australia Australia Act 1986 Yikmo21 ( talk) 17:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Diamond Jubilee of Queen Elizabeth II which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 13:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Why not simply Realms of Elizabeth II? Glancing above, there seems to be a good deal of confusion. The information is excellent and well presented, but I wonder how many readers seeking it are going to get here to find it. -- Pete ( talk) 04:08, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
HRM, or any part Westminister, is NOT a Head of State (HoS) for most of the countries listed. HRM is HoS of UK and BOTs only. All others are done through QE2 being the current Head of The Commonwealth of Nations, which is still not HoS. Yikmo21 ( talk) 17:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Not entirely sure on accurratcy of this but one could argue if she has no real power then she is not technically HoS. I'm just concerned that some articles on this subject may contradict this. Yikmo21 ( talk) 22:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC) What power does the Queen have as head of state? [1]
Each Commonwealth country functions independently of the Queen, with its own elected governors and laws.
As head of state the Queen has no real power, although she is recognised as the ceremonial ruler, like in the UK.
Where she is a head of state, a governor-general acts as the Queen's representative.
They carry out the ceremonial day-to-day duties the Queen would usually be expected to do such as appointing ministers, ambassadors, and giving royal assent to legislation.
Governors-general are elected or chosen by the country's parliament, cabinet or prime minister and all formally appointed by the Queen.
The Queen is head of state of 16 countries that are a part of the Commonwealth realm, including the UK. These include Australia, Canada and New Zealand, as well as several island nations in the Caribbean and Indian Ocean. These are Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, The Bahamas, Belize, Grenada, Jamaica, Papua New Guinea, Saint Lucia, Solomon Islands, St Kitts and Nevis, and St Vincent and the Grenadines.The article here is aligned to that - with Tuvalu the only difference. Other quotes from that source:
As head of state the Queen has no real power, although she is recognised as the ceremonial ruler, like in the UK.
Where she is a head of state, a governor-general acts as the Queen's representative.That doesn't even consider that it's uncertain, far less contradictory of what we have in our article. Yes, Governors-General carry out day-to-day functions, but the Queen is the head of state. - Ryk72 talk 22:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
References
Barbados is still colored as a current realm on the map. Apologies, I'm no good with editing graphics files, but thought I'd raise the flag here in case someone else is. -- Jfruh ( talk) 22:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
I reverted a move of this article to List of sovereign states headed by the British monarch, as this article has always been limited in scope to those states headed by Elizabeth. It doesn't include several states headed by Elizabeth's predecessors, and many that are included here would not be included in an article about Charles. I think that a separate list is more appropriate for those rulers who have a complicated timeline with sovereignty and others should just be included in their bios, but at any rate changing the scope of this list should be discussed first. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 18:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Is there a reason that this "table" uses these colors? It seems very garish to have this gray / black background when this table could simply be cleaner. Natg 19 ( talk) 00:16, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=note>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}}
template (see the
help page).
This article was nominated for deletion on 28 October 2018. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Love the new article, G2. PS- is this sorta a response to Gazz's concerns at List of Australian monarchs article? GoodDay ( talk) 23:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Would it work better if arranged horizontally, rather than vertically? JPD ( talk) 13:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I find this page rather confusing. Enlighten me.... Why do the darker green dates start at the time of independence for many relams? It gives the impression the Monarchy didn't have any role prior to that... For example:
Following independence that is when the first Queen's representative known as a "Governor General" was appointed but before that Barbados, Jamaica etc. etc. pretty much all had "Governors" that also represented the Monarch.... Just like how a head of Governent prior to independence are a "Premier" and after independence they become a "Prime Minister".... In other words.
The current territories of the UK:
All have a representative of the Queen known as a "Governor", + a Head of Government known as a "Premier".
The former territories of the UK:
All have a representative of the Queen known as a "Governor General", + a Head of Government known as a "Prime Minister".
CaribDigita ( talk) 21:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Before each state achieved independence, the Queen reigned as Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, on independence, the Queen reigned of whichever state in question, eg. Queen of Barbados in Barbados rather than Queen of the UK in Barbados. That's why not all states are shown as being headed by the Queen since 1952 many weren't states then but still part of the British state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.135.120.35 ( talk) 13:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
True, but this makes no difference. If a territory is not independent the fact remains that Queen Elizabeth would be their Head of State(even as a territory). Even if a country becomes independent (like Canada) as long as they don't become a republic she's still going to be head of State. So anything on this map showing Queen Elizabeth as head of state **still--** would have had her as their Head of State since 1952 independent or not. Think of Puerto Rico. Their Head of State is the U.S. president and if they become independent and do not choose a president technically the US president would still be their Head of State. This map is perpetrating mis information. I see it already on the Antigua article where it states QEH has only been their Queen since they become independent. If that were the case, then who was their Monarch before independence??? CaribDigita ( talk) 23:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
-prior to independence, those territories were either crown colonies or overseas territories of the UK, they were british territory and not independent states, which is something that cannot be said for the commonwealth realms, which are totally separate monarchies that just happen to have Elizabeth II as their queen in a personal union. So, she was not queen of say, Jamaica prior to 1962; it was british territory. You might as well have a section describing her as 'Queen of Kent' or 'Queen of London' obviously CaribDigita, with the greatest of respect, has some confusion about the nature of monarchical titles. And as for the question 'who was their monarch before independence...nobody, they were part of the UK. JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 22:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
This article describes the states headed by Elizabeth II. Why is the UK missing? Is this not headed by Queen Elizabeth II? Demophon ( talk) 08:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Why are the bars for the countries where the Queen reigns today coloured in light green (eg. Antigua and Barbuda, Australia), whilst the ones where she has reigned over in the past are coloured in dark green (eg. Ceylon, Fiji)? Surely these colours should be switched as it would be expected that a dark colour symbolises continuity, whilst a light one symbolises something which has 'faded' away.
The colours were originally this way around but appear to have been switched when the table was rotated. This should be fixed. — Crere ( talk) 14:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you: there is actually no reason for different colours. There was no difference with the Queen's position of head of state between countries which at the time were under her reign but are no longer today, and those which at the time were under her reign and are still today (eg. Elizabeth II was just as much the Queen of Ceylon in 1960 as she was the Queen of Canada then).
I propose that the bars are all standardised to one colour, and to distinguish between current states headed by the Queen and ones which were formerly headed by her, the current realms should be in bold. — Crere ( talk) 12:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I think this bizarre and unexplained statement, which I removed, is based on the idea that Elizabeth II remains Paramount Chief of Fiji.Paramount Chief is not the same as Queen. It is not a constitutional role; it is a traditional role. It is certainly a high honour, perhaps, as far as Fijians are concerned, the highest, but it is not linked to the headship of state, which is by Constitution in the person of the President. -- Gazzster ( talk) 05:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
-'Tui Viti' is now just a ceremonial title; regardless of its original meaning. It has no connection to the constitution. The President of Fiji is in every way, constitutionally and de facto, the head of state of Fiji, regardless of the respect accorded to the Queen by Fijians and the possibility of a monarchical restoration in Fiji; if it was not or if it had not become a republic, it would not have left the commonwealth after the 1987 coup (a nation that declared itself a republic under old commonwealth rules automatically ceased to be a member and had to re-apply, which Fiji did not do in 1987. Hence also the formal reason why South Africa left in 1961.) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
89.240.130.48 (
talk) 19:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
What about India, between 1947 and 1950? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.125.232.66 ( talk) 15:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
OK Just realised this article on starts from 1952, when Elizabeth became Queen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.125.232.66 ( talk) 15:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Since Commonwealth Realms started from 1931 - there probably should be a similar article that covers the period 1931-1952, which would include India and Ireland, but it would cover multiple reigns - George V & VI and Edward VIII
This page doesn't get much traffic but I'd like to tidy up the language of both paragraphs to the following text
start proposed text ----------
Queen Elizabeth II has been Head of State of as many thirty-two independent countries during her 72 year reign (1952-present). In her Diamond Jubilee year in 2012 The Queen is head of state of the 16 Commonwealth realms that are shown below in light green with countries that became republics shown in dark green.
Fiji is a unique case due to a military coup in 1987 and a subsequent republic while the Great Council of Chiefs continue to recognise Elizabeth II as Paramount Chief. This is a ceremonial title with no role in government. [1]
Her reign over the United Kingdom includes the fourteen British overseas territories and the Crown Dependencies.
end proposed text ----------
What is your opinion, is two weeks to the end of January 2012 enough time to solicit comments?
Karl Stephens ( talk) 11:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
References
Since the Council of Chiefs, the only governmental body that applied any recognition to Elizabeth, has now been disbanded, surely the band representing her "ceremonial title" should end in early 2012 on the chart? -- Jfruh ( talk) 01:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
As opposed to what? Her role in the other governments is not mentioned at all, so it makes that sentence confusing. Some explanation of what her role is in the other nations would be helpful to the article. Wickedjacob ( talk) 23:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Shouldn't it include the 3 Crown Dependencies and 14 Overseas Territories? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1504:4068:E5B5:69F6:4C92:887 ( talk) 12:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Australia is actually a commonwealth of states. Shouldn't they be listed individually? 114.121.153.159 ( talk) 10:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
HRM is not head of state of Australia Australia Act 1986 Yikmo21 ( talk) 17:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Diamond Jubilee of Queen Elizabeth II which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 13:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Why not simply Realms of Elizabeth II? Glancing above, there seems to be a good deal of confusion. The information is excellent and well presented, but I wonder how many readers seeking it are going to get here to find it. -- Pete ( talk) 04:08, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
HRM, or any part Westminister, is NOT a Head of State (HoS) for most of the countries listed. HRM is HoS of UK and BOTs only. All others are done through QE2 being the current Head of The Commonwealth of Nations, which is still not HoS. Yikmo21 ( talk) 17:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Not entirely sure on accurratcy of this but one could argue if she has no real power then she is not technically HoS. I'm just concerned that some articles on this subject may contradict this. Yikmo21 ( talk) 22:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC) What power does the Queen have as head of state? [1]
Each Commonwealth country functions independently of the Queen, with its own elected governors and laws.
As head of state the Queen has no real power, although she is recognised as the ceremonial ruler, like in the UK.
Where she is a head of state, a governor-general acts as the Queen's representative.
They carry out the ceremonial day-to-day duties the Queen would usually be expected to do such as appointing ministers, ambassadors, and giving royal assent to legislation.
Governors-general are elected or chosen by the country's parliament, cabinet or prime minister and all formally appointed by the Queen.
The Queen is head of state of 16 countries that are a part of the Commonwealth realm, including the UK. These include Australia, Canada and New Zealand, as well as several island nations in the Caribbean and Indian Ocean. These are Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, The Bahamas, Belize, Grenada, Jamaica, Papua New Guinea, Saint Lucia, Solomon Islands, St Kitts and Nevis, and St Vincent and the Grenadines.The article here is aligned to that - with Tuvalu the only difference. Other quotes from that source:
As head of state the Queen has no real power, although she is recognised as the ceremonial ruler, like in the UK.
Where she is a head of state, a governor-general acts as the Queen's representative.That doesn't even consider that it's uncertain, far less contradictory of what we have in our article. Yes, Governors-General carry out day-to-day functions, but the Queen is the head of state. - Ryk72 talk 22:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
References
Barbados is still colored as a current realm on the map. Apologies, I'm no good with editing graphics files, but thought I'd raise the flag here in case someone else is. -- Jfruh ( talk) 22:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
I reverted a move of this article to List of sovereign states headed by the British monarch, as this article has always been limited in scope to those states headed by Elizabeth. It doesn't include several states headed by Elizabeth's predecessors, and many that are included here would not be included in an article about Charles. I think that a separate list is more appropriate for those rulers who have a complicated timeline with sovereignty and others should just be included in their bios, but at any rate changing the scope of this list should be discussed first. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 18:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Is there a reason that this "table" uses these colors? It seems very garish to have this gray / black background when this table could simply be cleaner. Natg 19 ( talk) 00:16, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=note>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}}
template (see the
help page).