Talk:Elizabeth II

Powers?

The statement "In none of these offices does she hold any formal political power." is not quite correct. At least in the UK, but also in Australia, there are some vestigial formal powers. As far as I recollect, the monarch in the UK invites a leader of a political party to form a governent, but she is not required to choose the party with the most seats. This discretion has yet to be misused, but remains as a formal power. In the case of Australia, unless it has changed without my noticing, the monarch appoints a Governor-General as her representative: presumably, s/he has a few roles to play and therefore has some limited powers.

Can we find someone who knows about constitutional issues to rephrase these things? Some Editors, maybe?--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 22:10, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

I will check this, but my understanding is she has no power - she appoints people on the advice of the prime minister or other figure, i.e. effectively these posts are filled by the governments. It is true that no law says she has to pick the biggest party to form a government - because the UK constitution works by precedent and convention - but she arguably has no authority to do so since the establishment of a constitutional monarchy and parliamentary sovereignty in the 17th century. John Stephenson 23:00, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

Further to this, I think the idea is that because parliament is supreme, the Sovereign is obligated to appoint whoever is most likely to command the support of the House of Commons - even if their party be in a minority. This happened with Harold Wilson in 1974. If she didn't appoint the PM with most support, parliament would be able to topple her choice through a no-confidence vote. Also, in the past it was technically possible for the Sovereign to sack a prime minister - apparently this last happened in the 1830s - but in practice it would be very unlikely to happen today, since there is so little precedent for it. The UK doesn't really work through laws written in stone; rather, there's a sort of collective expectation about what's 'the done thing'... John Stephenson 23:07, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

The problem is with the expression "formal political power". What you have described above is actual practice, but if the monarch chooses to part with recent precedent this departure would be lawful. In particular, the appointment of a prime minister is solely within the monarch's purview and in certain cases the evaluation of which party would command most support could be a subjective view. Even in other cases, the fact is that the monarch possesses "formal political power", however s/he should choose to exercise it. I suggest that you remove the phrase completely, and talk about the lack of a written constitution and reliance upon precedent, whilst formally and ceremonially the monarch has supreme political authority as Head of State.--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 06:32, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

There is one relatively recent semi-precedent for the Queen sacking a PM: the little unpleasantness in Australia in 1975, when the Governor-General, wielding the Head of State's power but apparently without having consulted the Queen at all on the matter, sacked Gough Whitlam. As I recall from news reports at the time, when the Queen did find out about it, she deliberately kept well away from the whole issue, and the action was so unpopular that the Governor-General had to retire from public service. Bruce M.Tindall 16:46, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

I think that does not apply in the UK [although I am not 100% sure]. The Oz incident is because the Governor General [representing the Queen] actually has more power there than the Queen does in the UK...--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 17:20, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Purpose of this article

Hi, regarding Martin's edit: ""...Nevertheless, there remain doubts in some quarters about specific discretions, such as choosing a prime minister, which are not necessarily constrained by precedent or constitutional limitations..." I don't object to the content, but I think we may be digressing here. Maybe such detail belongs on an article such as Monarchy of the United Kingdom or constitutional monarchy, as this article should really focus on Liz's life. John Stephenson 21:46, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

If you want to remove that part completely, that is fine by me. Perhaps when there is an actual article to refer to, such as Monarchy of the UK or const. monarchy you could link to them. My only complaint was that the summary was potentially misleading, and you can solve that by giving the detail as I did, or omitting it completely. If you feel it is irrelevant to the article, just remove it! --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 21:56, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

Christian

I deleted: "The Queen is known to be a practising Christian, regularly attending Anglican church services." This is obvious, because she's the head of the Anglican church. Indeed, if she were not, she couldn't be monarch. Perhaps an allusion to her Christianity can be added somewhere? John Stephenson 22:58, 20 September 2007 (CDT)

Quick question: that's obvious to you and me--is it equally obvious to everyone? Lots of people in the secular world end up heading institutions they might not be otherwise be members of or part of. Still, if you think it is obvious, that's fine. Aleta Curry 19:43, 13 November 2007 (CST)

Hmm, it's like asking if the Pope has to be Catholic! If people can't work it out, then they won't find much use for an encyclopedia anyway.--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 19:49, 13 November 2007 (CST)

No it isn't--stop picking on me!! The Pope has to be a priest, a priest has to be RC. The Queen's not a priest, and the head of the NY Yankees doesn't have to be a ball player. That's all I'm saying. "If people can't work it out.." oh, jeepers, Martin--like, if you're a royal watcher, you know how much people work out about them that's just wrong! Aleta Curry 20:03, 13 November 2007 (CST)

Not picking on you:-( How can anyone be the Head of a Church without belonging to that Church? It doesnt make sense! --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 10:00, 14 November 2007 (CST)

The text in question says she is a PRACTICING member of the Church--something rather rare in England these days when attendance at rituals is 2%. Richard Jensen 06:31, 15 November 2007 (CST)

Again, I repeat that this is a requirement of the position. Hwoever, if everyone insists that it is not obvious, I will allow you to state the "bleeding obvious"--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 06:43, 15 November 2007 (CST)

the point is that she goes well beyond what is required because she beleives and follows the religion; that is NOT required. Richard Jensen 06:49, 15 November 2007 (CST)

She APPEARS to beleive and follow the religion, which is part of her job. I cannot imagine otherwise. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 07:33, 15 November 2007 (CST)

well I can imagine otherwise: "Paris is worth a Mass" is what Henry IV, a Protestant said on becoming king of France and having to become a Catholic. Richard Jensen 16:54, 15 November 2007 (CST)

Okay, I inadvertently started this because I confused two separate issues--I think. I was speaking to John's statement above, when I asked what was "obvious"--because to me "Supreme Governor" is not the same as "chief priest", which is obviously a practitioner, hence the NY Yankee boss comparison. John said "indeed, if she were not, she could not be monarch" and I was asking would people know that the monarch of the UK *had* to be an Anglican, not "would people know that the head of the Anglican church was an Anglican". Still, Richard's point is well-taken, there's a difference between someone who actually follows a faith and someone who was initiated in babyhood and never follows any of the tenants of that faith. Psst...Martin...I know you're not really picking on me :) Aleta Curry 19:00, 15 November 2007 (CST)

well to mess it up a little more: Is it in fact true that she is a devout person? There is no mention of that whatever in Pimlott's long and detailed bio. Richard Jensen 19:10, 15 November 2007 (CST)

Haha, you are impossible, Richard! I really have no idea, and this was my point. We should have no idea, because the Queen's personal opinion does not obtrude [this is partly her own character, and partly her perception of the role of Monarch]. It is also important to bear in mind why the Church of England exists: it was created by Henry VIII after his excommunication by Rome. Even if the Monarch thinks God is a waste of time, the role of joint head of the Church does not allow any room for personal opinion. It is very different from being King of France and being expected to be a Catholic.--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 19:20, 15 November 2007 (CST)

Just had an edit conflict with Martin--what was I saying? I don't know if I can answer that--if your question (Richard) is, "well, Elizabeth may go to church, but is she *really* a Christian?" Certainly, Ingrid Majesty Magazine Seward is always going on about the Queen's faith getting her through things. Some Diana fans|fanatics raked the poor old girl over the coals for "taking/dragging/forcing Wm & Harry to go" to church following the death of their mother. (Where was she supposed to take them, for Mercy's sake--Disneyland?) Or is your question "does Elizabeth go to church'? Aleta Curry 20:31, 15 November 2007 (CST)

Wha...?

Surely HRH The Duchess of York became HM immediately her husband ascended to the throne? Aleta Curry 18:16, 18 December 2007 (CST)

No. Just as Prince Philip is not a king, she was never Queen and remained with the title she took from her husband before his accession to the throne. The only change after George VI was crowned is that she was given the additional title Her Royal Highness [HRH] in front of the previous title. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 18:45, 18 December 2007 (CST)

I'm truly surprised, 'cause I'm good with titles. I would have blown the million-dollar question. In any case, that's not completely analogous, because in England female consorts are always called Queen, while male consorts are never called "King" (at least, not yet!) I think the note should speak to this in some manner. I'm amazed. I'm heading right to the official site to see if it's explained there. Aleta Curry 21:52, 18 December 2007 (CST)

"she was never queen" is contradicted by the official website at [1] which clearly calls her "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother." The definitive Oxford Dictionary of National Biography calls her "queen of Great Britain, Ireland, and the British dominions beyond the seas, sometime empress of India, consort of George VI, later styled Queen Elizabeth the queen mother," and says "The new king and queen moved into Buckingham Palace in February 1937 and were crowned on 12 May in Westminster Abbey. Significantly, Elizabeth's throne on that occasion was placed level with the king's." After her husband died: "a visit to the former queen at Balmoral in the aftermath of her bereavement from Winston Churchill, prime minister again, may have assisted her in finding a new role in British life as the queen mother, a title she adopted at this point, and by which she was known universally for the next fifty years. (Courtiers in her own household referred to her as Queen Elizabeth, which she reportedly found more pleasing.)" Other books of course had the title: E. Longford, The queen mother (1981) · P. Mortimer, Queen Elizabeth: a life of the queen mother (1986) · A. Morrow, Without equal: her majesty Queen Elizabeth, the queen mother (2000) · G. Talbot, The Country Life book of Queen Elizabeth, the queen mother, 3rd edn (1989) · H. Montgomery-Massingberd, Her majesty Queen Elizabeth the queen mother (2001). So that seems to settle the issue: she was a Queen.Richard Jensen 22:47, 18 December 2007 (CST)

Not at all. If she had been Queen, her title would have been Queen Elizabeth II. And the current Queen would be Elizabeth III. Informally, she may have been seen as the Queen, but clearly that was never her title. She was later known as Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother. She was a queen by virtue of being the consort of the King, but as far as I know she was called HRH The Duchess of York as her formal title, until the later one of the Queen Mother. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 05:08, 19 December 2007 (CST)

Martin--please cite your sources. The standard reference work (Dict National Bio) in the very first line calls her "queen of Great Britain, Ireland, and the British dominions beyond the seas, sometime empress of India, consort of George VI, later styled Queen Elizabeth the queen mother," -- the multiple books cited call her Queen, as does the official UK Palace website, and no no one calls her Dutchess of York. 05:32, 19 December 2007 (CST)

OK, it is not correct that she remained hte Duchess of York, as she acceded to the throne jointly with the Duke of York. What is important is the difference between being Queen and Queen Consort. This is why she was not called Elizabeth II. Here is a useful citation:

When King Edward VIII abdicated on 11 December 1936 to marry an American divorcée, the accession of the Duke and Duchess was proclaimed and they assumed the responsibilities of the throne.

Their coronation took place on 12 May 1937. Queen Elizabeth became the first British-born Queen Consort since Tudor times.

Source: http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page4580.asp --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 06:28, 19 December 2007 (CST)

alas that source is wrong. DNB again: "Mary [Princess Mary of Teck] (1867–1953), queen of Great Britain and Ireland, and the British dominions beyond the seas, and empress of India, consort of George V, was born in Kensington Palace on 26 May 1867." Richard Jensen 07:14, 19 December 2007 (CST)

I am not sure if it matters anyway; the important thing for this article is that she was Queen Consort. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 07:56, 19 December 2007 (CST)

agreed -- but it is a shock to see the Brits get their own royalty wrong. Richard Jensen 07:58, 19 December 2007 (CST)

Well, this royal watcher says it most certainly does matter;) and Richard, Brits get their own royalty wrong all the time, because titles and styles are so complicated. Re Mary of Teck, Richard, they may be referring to the fact that, since she took her title from her father, she was not "British-born"? (That's only a question, since I've no idea what the rules for citizenship would have been)--they may just be plain wrong.

Anyhow, back to the issue at hand. Martin, I'm going to change your last edit. A British queen is always HM these days, hasn't been HRH for centuries.

Aleta Curry 16:16, 19 December 2007 (CST)

OK. I give up with all this: if the government website cannot be relied upon, who can? Martin Baldwin-Edwards 17:12, 19 December 2007 (CST)

Rename

Following CZ naming policy for royals this article should be Elizabeth II (there is no other Elizabeth II and no disambig is needed; it there WAS another the policy would call for "Elizabeth II (Britain)"). Richard Jensen 12:35, 21 May 2008 (CDT)

I have discovered some page-moving stuff that can be activated from URL's, so I'm looking into doing a 'move cluster' function. I'll do this one when it's working. J. Noel Chiappa 19:57, 21 May 2008 (CDT)

Unless people think 'Elizabeth II' could be the name of a ship... John Stephenson 05:04, 22 May 2008 (CDT)

well there are lots of things named after Henry VIII -- movies, plays, books, pubs. Nobody mistakes them for Henry himself. In this case most readers right away will tell the difference between the woman and the ship. (the 2nd QE2 ship is named after the first QE ship which was named after her mother) :) Richard Jensen 07:24, 22 May 2008 (CDT)

Without knowing about this discussion I came across Victoria and boldly moved it to Victoria of the United Kingdom because of possible confusion with future Victoria articles. I do think it is a good idea to keep the titles of royalty in the format of the present Elizabeth II and now Victoria articles for consistency's sake. There might not be much confusion between this queen and other Elizabeths the second but in the case of Victoria there certainly is with Victoria, Australia and Victoria, BC coming to mind. People searching the term Victoria would then see a redirect page directing them to whatever Victoria they want, including the queen. Personally, I think Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom has a better ring to it than Elizabeth II (Britain). Elizabeth II could also be useful in directing people who are searching for something called Elizabeth II but are not quite sure what it is they are looking for. Just my 2¢. --Michael Geldorp 11:11, 31 May 2008 (CDT)

Please don't move articles! There are no other Victorias and her name and title is now incorrect. Richard Jensen 13:56, 31 May 2008 (CDT)

I do think eventually that Victoria will have to be a dab page, but the problem is that we haven't really finalized a naming system for royalty, so for the moment there's no definitive answer as to what her page might be titled (or identified - and they might be separate, if an idea of mine gets adopted). So let's just leave it be for the moment, until we figure out for definite what we're doing with royalty.... J. Noel Chiappa 14:54, 31 May 2008 (CDT)

there is no need for a disambig since there is only one Elizabeth II. The title is currently a bad one that does not fit CZ practices. As for formal policies they will take years at the rate we are not moving. So let's just use "Elizabeth II" Richard Jensen 16:22, 31 May 2008 (CDT)

Well, there is the liner QEII... J. Noel Chiappa 18:12, 31 May 2008 (CDT)

people interested in ships willdiscover their mistake by the third paragraph! The liner QE2 was names after the first ship "Queen Elizabeth" which in turn was named after the mother of the current queen. The name of the ship is "Queen Elizabeth 2" not "Elizabeth II". Richard Jensen 18:47, 31 May 2008 (CDT)

reset margin

For what it's worth, I agree Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is a horrible title. I'm just dithering between Elizabeth II (Britain) and Elizabeth II because I hate renaming articles (it's a pain - in addition to moving all the subpages, you also have to fix all the redirects), and so I want to make sure there's no chance we'd ever want it at Elizabeth II (Britain) before I elimintate that one. J. Noel Chiappa 22:10, 31 May 2008 (CDT)

there is no other person names Elizabeth II. Nor is there likely to be one soon, so there is no need for the Britain tag. Richard Jensen 22:16, 31 May 2008 (CDT)

There is no such entity as Britain, so you may not use that. It is either the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, or UK. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 00:16, 1 June 2008 (CDT)

there is no entity of UK or United Kingdom either. I recommend we not use any of these in the title.Richard Jensen 01:12, 1 June 2008 (CDT)

The UK is a legal entity. I don't know what you are talking about. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 06:52, 1 June 2008 (CDT)

While one can argue whether "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" is a good title or not, I do believe something other than just "Elizabeth II" is in order for consistency's sake. Other British monarchs may cause confusion with royalty from other countries as there may very well be more than one place where they have had a number of kings named George, Charles or something else where disambiguation is in order. Isn't it better to have a uniform naming convention then for monarchs? For example, "Name (country X)" or "Name of Country X" instead of having a mixed bag of "Name I (country X)", "Name II (country X)", "Name III", ... I also repeat my earlier point that the page "Elizabeth II" could serve as a good place to point people in the direction of various things called "Elizabeth II (X)"

If "of the United Kingdom" isn't what we want we could go for something like "Elizabeth II (House of Windsor)" perhaps? --Michael Geldorp 12:05, 1 June 2008 (CDT)

I think Prof. Jensen's point is that there is nothing/nobody else with the name "Elizabeth II" (other than the liner), and so we don't need to make allowances for any possible future collision.

There is something to be said for consistency, but as long as page-identifiers and article-titles are the same string, I thing the advantages of "Elizabeth II" as an article title outweigh the disadvantages of the inconsistent naming - sigh. J. Noel Chiappa 12:35, 1 June 2008 (CDT)

yes I agree with Noel. Here's a suggested principle: avoid disambiguation when it is not necessary. Reason: the disambiguation code fools people into thinking there must be other people named Elizabeth II. We do not want to mislead readers. (the ship has a different name--"Queen" is part of its name and it uses 2 not II. "Queen" is a title for the woman but is not part of her name.) In CZ practice we use article titles like George I (Britain) only when necessary. In history articles we use (Britain), (France) etc. so that readers will not think the person's name is "George II of Britain". Richard Jensen 14:25, 1 June 2008 (CDT)

I do wish you would stop referring to a non-existent country called Britain. It is journalistic and wrong. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 18:02, 1 June 2008 (CDT)

Martin--I'm a professional historian and we all call the country Britain. It's the TV broadcasters and sociologists who use UK because it's shorter and acronymic. :) Richard Jensen 18:54, 1 June 2008 (CDT)

And 'United Kingdom' is what it says on UK passports. Back to the article: I still think there are grounds for confusion over calling this Elizabeth II. I can point to a weak example: the semi-myth that the play The Madness of George III was renamed The Madness of King George for the film over fears people would think it was a second sequel. :) This is declared 'false' by debunkery website snopes.com, but they do admit there's a grain of truth to it. John Stephenson 22:11, 1 June 2008 (CDT)

well George III in fact was a sequel, and we have the article on George II to prove it. There was a great movie about the Queen a couple years back, and maybe there will be a sequel. I hope so. Richard Jensen 22:21, 1 June 2008 (CDT)

Clearly,. professional historians do not uinderstand law. There are many different configurations of the country/territory from which I originate, but there is only one that has the status of full sovereignty in international law. That is the UK [short title] which is why it issues the passports. The term "Britain" has no meaning at all, other than as an informal contraction of Great Britain [thus excluding Northern Ireland]. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 02:51, 2 June 2008 (CDT)

No. In fact UK, United Kingdom and Britain are all abbreviations of the long formal "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." Historians always prefer Britain to refer to the country, with British and Briton the natural spinoffs. And Martin is wrong about his own passport: it uses the long formal name, not UK. Richard Jensen 04:32, 2 June 2008 (CDT)

Britain and UK may be synonymous for some informally, but we should certainly avoid using 'Britain' to refer to the whole of the UK (see the rows over at Talk:United Kingdom because, as has been repeated here and elsewhere, it excludes Northern Ireland - which is part of the same state as England, Wales and Scotland and is an area over which the Queen is Head of State. We can't really use 'Britain' in titles - there's no 'British Parliament', no 'British law', etc., except as short ways of referring to the UK Parliament, etc. John Stephenson 05:53, 2 June 2008 (CDT)

Britain, UK and United Kingdom are all abbreviations for the exact same formal name (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), Historians have a strong --near unanimous--preference for Britain (which also provides the useful words British and Briton). The Term "British Parliament" is often used see examples in 900+ book titles dating from 1800 to the present. The uses include the finest journals and publishers in Britain. (the law is different in England and Scotland, so we keep those separate.) None of the critics has produced any evidence that Britain is unacceptable--who says so???? Richard Jensen 06:12, 2 June 2008 (CDT)

Richard: I am telling you that it is unacceptable and I am an editor here. Britain has no formal meaning and should not be used, except in casual discussion. The complex legal and political configuration of the British Isles is outside of your expertise, so kindly accept my decision that you may not use Britain for any political or legal structure. I am bored with hearing what historian think: it is of no consequence here. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 06:16, 2 June 2008 (CDT)

But Martin you have no evidence for your opinions. I cite the fact that scholars, editors, publishers all agree. You have never cited any source for your views--did you read about it somewhere? That does undermine credibility, I fear. This is not a legal topic, of course, and you are not a CZ law editor. I might add I am a politics editor. One cure for boredom, let me suggest, is ddoing some research. Richard Jensen 07:01, 2 June 2008 (CDT)

Y'all will excuse me if I mostly stay out of this one. 'Just for grins', I just checked, and my passport does indeed say "UK of GB & NI". I personally don't see the harm in using 'Britain/British/Briton' ('UKian'? 'UKish'? What is the short adjectival form anyway?) Nobody, but nobody, is going to mistake that for some other country, and we're all well aware of the complex history by which various parts have been added to (and subtracted from) the state over the last 1000 years, and in fact if you want a term to describe that polity over that time period, "United Kingdom" isn't so hot because that's a 'relatively' recent term too. J. Noel Chiappa 07:05, 2 June 2008 (CDT)

PS: My passport also describes me as a "British Subject". J. Noel Chiappa 07:10, 2 June 2008 (CDT)