Talk:Elizabeth II: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 07:17, 6 January 2025 editDrKay (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators160,103 edits →How come her full name isn't given as Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor?← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 12:40, 6 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,311,521 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 49) (bot
Line 236:		Line 236:
	:the 1986 one should be used as its in the middle of her reign ] (]) 22:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)		:the 1986 one should be used as its in the middle of her reign ] (]) 22:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
	::I also like the 1986 photo; she's recognizable but still looks similar to the coronation photo. '']'' ‹ ] — ] › 22:25, 14 December 2024 (UTC)		::I also like the 1986 photo; she's recognizable but still looks similar to the coronation photo. '']'' ‹ ] — ] › 22:25, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

	== Puffery and grammar in opening sentence ==

	''Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; 21 April 1926 – 8 September 2022) was Queen of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms from 6 February 1952 until her death in 2022. She was queen regnant of 32 sovereign states over the course of her lifetime and remained the monarch of 15 realms by the time of her death. Her reign of 70 years and 214 days is the longest of any British monarch or female monarch, and the second-longest verified reign of any monarch of a sovereign state in history.''
	This was the first part of the lead to this level 4 article.

	The above is overly wordy. It contains bloated language reflectinmg the deference of certain editors. For example, '...by the time of her death' = when she died. Eg..'verified reign of any monarch of a sovereign state in history'. = she was verified so she must be important' 'any sovereign state' = this makes her more important than a non-sovereign state, even though we won't bother defigning sovereignty here, not that it is in the least bit relevant to the intended meaning. It is also clearly noted in the linked article of long reigning monarchs. Female? Unnecessary, except if you want to stress that the reign was long. It looks as though whoever wrote this was bowing down before their keyboard. Just keep it as simple encyclopedic English that can be understood easily without wading through superfluous puffery. Grammar - remained...by the time of her death, should by...at the time of her death. The last sentence is grammatically wrong too. ] (]) 01:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
	:The words 'verified' and 'any sovereign state' were used because there are longer reigns than hers or Louis XIV's in antiquity and in non-sovereign states. ] (]) 07:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
	::Thanks fopr your reply. Yes, I know that is possibly the reason but it is unnecessary IMO to insert it (the words used are therefore superfluous). People will assume we are not talking about a native chief somewhere or a semi-mythical king in antiquity. There comes a point when explaining everything to be spotlessly precise is counterproductive. There is a link to a list of longest reigning monarchs anyway that will deal with those other cases. I think the main aim should be to make the lead comfortably readable, which adding lots of extra words to convey a meaning does not do. For example, the four jubilees were repeated, four with the type of jubilee and then with the years (which is unnecessary if we know her ascention date - people should know that a silver jubilee is after 25 years, we don't have to tell them, and then tell them that 1952 plus 25 is 1977. This is what I mean by puffery. It comes across that we are trying to force on the reader that in our view she was extra special and so we are justified in using five words to say something when only one is necessary. ] (]) 08:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
	:::I agree about the readability issue. However, with your comment about the silver jubilee, I think you might be falling prey to the fallacy . Most people - especially people outside of the UK, who will also be reading this article - do not know what a silver jubilee is. ] (]) 16:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

	== Inclusion of Military Service in infobox ==

	<!--{{Infobox royalty
	\| title = ]
	\| image = Queen Elizabeth II official portrait for 1959 tour (retouched) (cropped) (3-to-4 aspect ratio).jpg
	\| alt = Elizabeth facing right in a half-length portrait photograph
	\| caption = Formal portrait, 1959
	\| succession = {{Br separated entries\|]\|and other ]s}}
	\| moretext = {{nowrap\|(])}}
	\| reign = 6 February 1952{{Sndash}}{{Avoid wrap\|8 September 2022}}
	\| coronation = 2 June 1953
	\| cor-type = ]
	\| predecessor = ]
	\| successor = ]
	\| birth_name = Princess Elizabeth of York
	\| birth_date = {{Birth date\|df=yes\|1926\|04\|21}}
	\| birth_place = ], London, England
	\| death_date = {{Death date and age\|2022\|09\|08\|1926\|04\|21\|df=yes}}
	\| death_place = ], Aberdeenshire, Scotland
	\| burial_date = 19 September 2022
	\| burial_place = ], St George's Chapel, Windsor Castle
	\| spouse = {{Marriage\|]\|20 November 1947\|9 April 2021\|reason=d}}
	\| issue = {{Plainlist\|
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	}}
	\| issue-link = #Issue
	\| full name = Elizabeth Alexandra Mary
	\| house = ]
	\| father = ]
	\| mother = ]
	\| signature = Elizabeth II signature 1952.svg
	\| signature_alt = Elizabeth's signature in black ink
	\| religion = ]{{Efn\|name=religion\|As monarch, Elizabeth was
	]. She was also a member of the ].}}
	{{Infobox military person
	\|embed = yes
	\|embed_title = Military Service
	\|allegiance = ]
	\|branch = ]
	\|unit = ]
	\|serviceyears = 1945
	\|rank = ]
	}}
	\| module = {{Listen voice
	\| filename = Elizabeth II Coronation speech.ogg
	\| description = ]
	\| name = Queen Elizabeth II
	\| recorded = 2 June 1953}}
	}}-->
	Hi All,
	I believe the military service of the late Queen, should be featured in the info box, during WW2 (1945) she served in the Women's ATS (A female branch of the British Army at the Time) and was issued with a service number (230873) so was an active duty member of the armed forces which is further backed up by the biography on royal.uk

	''"The Queen's relationship with the Armed Forces began when, as Princess Elizabeth, she joined the Auxiliary Territorial Service (ATS) in 1945, becoming the first female member of the Royal Family to join the Armed Services as a full-time active member."'' - Royal.uk <ref>https://www.royal.uk/the-queen-and-armed-forces#:~:text=The%20Queen's%20relationship%20with%20the,a%20full%2Dtime%20active%20member.</ref>

	Considering the inclusion of other British Monarchs service records has been included in their info box I firmly believe the queens should be included also

	I have included more sources below as well as the provisional redesign of the infobox proposed
	<ref>https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/sovereign-soldiers#:~:text=More%20recently%2C%20the%20Duke%20of,Army%20Corps%20in%20the%201940s.</ref>
	<ref>https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/why-queen-elizabeth-signed-up-in-the-second-world-war</ref>
	<ref>https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62918601</ref>
	<ref>https://www.awm.gov.au/articles/blog/queen-elizabeth-ii-and-the-second-world-war</ref>
	<ref>https://www.forcesnews.com/royals/queen/queen-all-her-military-titles</ref>
	<ref>https://www.rct.uk/collection/2002230/hm-queen-elizabeth-ii-b-1926-when-princess-elizabeth-trains-as-an-a-t-s-officer</ref>
	<ref>https://www.britishlegion.org.uk/stories/our-tribute-to-her-majesty-queen-elizabeth-ii</ref>
	<ref>https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a41135888/how-queen-elizabeth-ii-served-in-ww2/</ref>
	<references /> ] (]) 14:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

	:It should be telling that the most substantial thing you mention about her service was that she was issued a service number. Contrasting with other monarchs, her service is not a key fact of her biography, and thus shouldn't be included in the infobox. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 14:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
	::I mean she was commander in chief of the British Armed forces i feel like it is important to reflect her service prior to this, shes a WW2 veteran and I believe should have her military service displayed like most other British Monarchs, her service is no less important then the service conducted by Charles III or Prince William and both of them have the service in both the article body and infobox. ] (]) 16:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
	:::I do not feel that way, and after reading your explanation it remains unclear to me why you would feel that way. My argument above can be repeated unchanged. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 16:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
	::::if you read the second paragraph below on my reasons on why i highlighted the service number ] (]) 16:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
	:::::Appreciated, but I was already aware of the potential significance associated with being assigned a service number. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 17:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
	::::::Right no worries, but I fail to see why her active service is not on her info box, I understand why it was removed for the likes of Edward, Duke of Edinburgh, as he did not commission/ Finish training. however not only did the Queen Commission and finish her training in the ATS, she reached the rank of Junior Commander (Captain), documented in the London Gazette, she also continued to advocate for the ATS later becoming the Women's army Corps after leaving service, highlighting the importance she viewed on her time in the ATS, She served in WW2 she is a veteran, not only that her later role was heavily linked to the armed forces, it is important, hence why it is displayed on other British monarchs info boxes, to highlight the service prior to accession, as the monarchy is integrally linked with the armed forces as it forms a large portion of their role. I also fail to see how "her service is not a key fact of her biography" when it was something that was unique she was the only head of state in the world by the time of her death who served in WW2 Id say that is biographically important, She was head of the armed forces her service is important to the biography of that, there are countless times where in British media, articles and works where her time in the ATS has been discussed at length as the small selection of sources i attached above show. ] (]) 17:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::I hope this question doesn't come off the wrong way, but I mean it to frame my point: what did she do while in the service? These facts all rotate around it, but the service itself seems comparatively transparent. That is to say, all of these points you make are true, but they are essentially trivia. I don't mean trivia in the "useless nonsense" way, but in the sense that they are relatively isolated facts that don't really bear significance in connection to the unambiguously key aspects of her biography. They belong in the body of the article, but they are not the first things a reader should know about her. That would be completely disproportionate to their significance in relation to the things that are contained in the lead and infobox. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 17:16, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::Yes I see your point and don't worry it didn't come off the wrong way, however I must stress if U take Charles IIIs page his military service was nothing exactly remarkable either (I am in no way admonishing those who serve) But his was added, The Monarchy and their link to the armed forces is perhaps one of the first things Brits, Aussies, Canadians etc think about when they think of the monarchy they are the Commander in Chief, Honorary Colonels, patrons etc, so when people do think about Queen Elizabeth they do think about her time in the ATS and her later associations with the armed forces, The Monarchy and the Armed Forces connection is widely documented and very notable.
	::::::::Lets look at the facts here.
	::::::::- First female Royal to join the armed forces - Notable
	::::::::- Last head of state to have served in WW2 - Notable
	::::::::- A commander in chief, undertaking military training - Notable on the basis most monarchs do
	::::::::- She was awarded two medals for her service in WW2 she is the only female member of the royal family to ever be awarded serving military decorations (] and ]) - She is one of only four Royals to have these decorations - Notable
	::::::::further brief information of her service can be found on here ]
	::::::::Fundamentally her service during WW2 arguably came to shape how she reigned, it has been documented on the connection she felt with the forces as a result of this, she was a commander in chief who had been there and done it, if you get what I am saying it was very significant her service. ] (]) 18:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
	::I would also like to note the reason i highlighted her service number, is because that is what qualifies her as a member of the armed forces, if she did not have a service number, her position would be honorary and ceremonial. the issuing of a service number is only issued to Active members of the armed forces. I would also say it is notable and deserves to be in the info-box because she is the first and only female member of the Royal family to serve in the armed forces in an active role, which is notable in of itself. ] (]) 16:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
	:It's in the article body, where it belongs. ] (]) 15:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
	:No. The infobox is long enough as it is. All her military ranks and positions were honorary, which is confirmed by the gazette notices. ] (]) 17:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
	::She completed military training, and served as her service number clarifies, her role was active duty for the duration of the war. As is documented in a number of sources, she was awarded two medals for her service in world war 2, which where not awarded to honorary positions. ] (]) 18:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
	:::https://www.royal.uk/queen-elizabeth-ii-and-the-armed-forces - ''"becoming the first female member of the Royal Family to join the Armed Services as a full-time active member."'' - Official website of the British Monarchy ] (]) 18:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
	::::https://collection.nam.ac.uk/detail.php?acc=1994-07-291-59#:~:text=Princess%20Elizabeth%20(later%20Queen%20Elizabeth,as%20a%20driver%20and%20mechanic. - British National Army Museum on the queens service ] (]) 18:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
	:::::https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/queen-elizabeth-ii-during-world-war-ii - I would also like to point out it is expressly stated in archives that the King did not bestow her with a special honorary rank, and she started at lowest rank in the ATS along with other women. ] (]) 18:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
	::: says ''London Gazette''. says ''London Gazette''. Many statements above are either simply wrong ("her role was active duty for the duration of the war" -- no, she did not fight in the war from the age of 13) or unevidenced ("she was awarded two medals for her service in world war 2"). ] (]) 19:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
	::::"no, she did not fight in the war from the age of 13" - I Have never alleged she was 13 at the point of attestation as she commenced service in February 1945 shortly after her 18th birthday, 18 being the age people can join the forces of their own consent. Please don't try to insist I don't know what I am talking about by saying I have said since the age of 13, which has not been said once.
	::::as for the defence medal please see the sources used on the queens titles and honours page ] which clearly shows the defence and war medal which as I stated earlier where only given out to active service members for their part in the second world war.
	::::I would like also emphasise to imply that official websites of the crown are being purposefully incorrect or misleading is rather absurd. Royal.uk has access to the royal archives. And is the official website of the Head of State of the United Kingdom. ] (]) 20:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
	:::::You said, and I quoted you exactly without any alteration, "her role was active duty for the duration of the war". The duration of the war was 1939 to 1945. There is no other meaning of the term. She was 13 at the start of the war.
	:::::Misplaced Pages cannot be used as a source.
	:::::I find intransigent ]ing contrary to the official record and reliance on circular references unconvincing. My view remains unaltered. ] (]) 21:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
	::::::Sorry I thought it was implied that I meant her duration in the war as I had previously <u>stated her service was only from 1945</u> ] (]) 21:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::I am happy to leave the infobox as is for now ] (]) 21:49, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

	== Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2024 ==		== Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2024 ==

Latest revision as of 12:40, 6 January 2025

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Elizabeth II article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49Auto-archiving period: 15 days

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1: I don't like the portrait, I think this other picture is much better. A1: There was a very, very long discussion and vote on which picture to choose, and a strong consensus was established to use the current one. It is best to avoid restarting the discussion.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Elizabeth II is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

[REDACTED]

This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 2, 2012, and on September 19, 2022.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 29, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
June 15, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed
January 26, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed
August 26, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
January 26, 2008	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
September 22, 2009	Good article nominee	Not listed
February 23, 2010	Good article nominee	Not listed
May 21, 2010	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
May 31, 2010	Peer review	Reviewed
February 4, 2011	Good article nominee	Not listed
September 14, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed
February 21, 2012	Featured article candidate	Promoted
January 14, 2023	Featured article review	Kept
A fact from this article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 2, 2006.The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Queen Elizabeth II (pictured) once worked as a lorry driver?
News items involving this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "In the news" column on September 9, 2015, June 2, 2022, and September 8, 2022.
Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 2, 2004, February 6, 2005, June 2, 2005, February 6, 2006, June 2, 2006, June 2, 2007, February 6, 2008, February 6, 2009, February 6, 2010, February 6, 2012, February 6, 2015, February 6, 2017, February 6, 2019, February 6, 2022, and November 20, 2023.
Current status: Featured article

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

This

level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Spoken Misplaced Pages

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages

Biography: Politics and Government / Royalty and Nobility

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Top-importance).

British Royalty: Operation London Bridge Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.British RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject British RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject British RoyaltyBritish royalty
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Operation London Bridge task force.

Commonwealth

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Commonwealth, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Commonwealth of Nations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CommonwealthWikipedia:WikiProject CommonwealthTemplate:WikiProject CommonwealthCommonwealth

Caribbean: Antigua & Barbuda / Bahamas / Barbados / Jamaica / Saint Kitts & Nevis / Saint Lucia / Saint Vincent & Grenadines Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caribbean, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the countries of the Caribbean on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Misplaced Pages visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.CaribbeanWikipedia:WikiProject CaribbeanTemplate:WikiProject CaribbeanCaribbean

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject Antigua and Barbuda (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Bahamas (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Barbados (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Jamaica portal This article is supported by WikiProject Jamaica (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Saint Kitts and Nevis (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Saint Lucia (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (assessed as Mid-importance).

Melanesia: Papua New Guinea / Solomon Islands Mid‑importance

	Oceania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Melanesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Melanesia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MelanesiaWikipedia:WikiProject MelanesiaTemplate:WikiProject MelanesiaMelanesia
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Papua New Guinea (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Solomon Islands (assessed as Mid-importance).

Polynesia: Cook Islands / Niue / Tuvalu Mid‑importance

	Oceania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Polynesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Polynesia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolynesiaWikipedia:WikiProject PolynesiaTemplate:WikiProject PolynesiaPolynesia
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Cook Islands (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Niue (assessed as Top-importance).
	Tuvalu portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tuvalu (assessed as Top-importance).

Belize Mid‑importance

	Belize portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belize, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belize on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelizeWikipedia:WikiProject BelizeTemplate:WikiProject BelizeBelize
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Australia Mid‑importance

[REDACTED]

	Australia portal Elizabeth II is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian at the National Library of Australia.
[REDACTED]	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Canada: Governments / Politics Mid‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Governments of Canada.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada.

United Kingdom Top‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

New Zealand High‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Grenada Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Grenada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Grenada on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GrenadaWikipedia:WikiProject GrenadaTemplate:WikiProject GrenadaGrenada
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pakistan Low‑importance

	Pakistan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Zimbabwe: Rhodesia Low‑importance

Elizabeth II is within the scope of WikiProject Zimbabwe, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Zimbabwe and Zimbabwe-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.ZimbabweWikipedia:WikiProject ZimbabweTemplate:WikiProject ZimbabweZimbabwe

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by Rhodesia task force (assessed as Top-importance).

WikiProject Zimbabwe open tasks:

Tasks clipboard

Zimbabwe-related tasks

You can help!

Zimbabwe

Requests: Ruwa Scout Park, Central African Jamboree, Bulawayo Asian Civil Rights League, Rhodesia Bantu Voters Association, Nyasaland Chiefs Conference, Nyasaland African National Congress, Monarchy of Rhodesia, more...
Stubs: Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe, Econet Wireless, Khame Ruins, Wildlife of Zimbabwe Category:Zimbabwe stubs
Category sorting:
Verify or Factual Accuracy:
Update:
NPOV :
Citations:
Copyedit, Style or Cleanup:
Expand:
Related Wikiprojects: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Zimbabwe - Zimbabwe-related topics notice board - Collaboration Project

view • edit • discuss • history • watch

Malta Mid‑importance

	Malta portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Malta, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Malta on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MaltaWikipedia:WikiProject MaltaTemplate:WikiProject MaltaMalta
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

[REDACTED]

South Africa Low‑importance

[REDACTED]	South Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of South Africa on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject South AfricaTemplate:WikiProject South AfricaSouth Africa
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Scouting Low‑importance

	Scouting portal Elizabeth II is part of the Scouting WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Scouting and Guiding on the Misplaced Pages. This includes but is not limited to boy and girl organizations, WAGGGS and WOSM organizations as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to Scouting. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ScoutingWikipedia:WikiProject ScoutingTemplate:WikiProject ScoutingScouting
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Girl Guiding and Girl Scouting task force.

Politics of the United Kingdom High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's History Mid‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Emily Yahr (4 January 2018). "Do you fall down a Misplaced Pages rabbit hole after each episode of 'The Crown'? You're not alone". The Washington Post. Queen Elizabeth's Misplaced Pages page was the third-most-visited entry with 19.2 million views … Traffic to the queen's Misplaced Pages page peaked on Dec. 10, when the second season of "The Crown" started streaming
Armon Sandler (8 September 2022). "Queen Elizabeth II's Misplaced Pages Page Is Trolled After Her Death With A Chief Keef Album Cover: 'RIP Bozo'". Uproxx. In a tweet shared on Thursday afternoon, a user said "Someone already griefed the Queen Elizabeth II Misplaced Pages page lmaooo." The tweet is accompanied by a screenshot of Queen Elizabeth II's Misplaced Pages page with the "Article" tab highlighted.
Jody Serrano (9 September 2022). "How Misplaced Pages's 'Deaditors' Sprang Into Action on Queen Elizabeth II's Page After Her Death". Gizmodo. While some on the internet were glued to Twitter or the BBC, checking for news or watching the planes en route to Balmoral Castle, one group of dedicated Misplaced Pages editors sprang into action updating the late queen's page in the minutes after Buckingham Palace announced the news.
Annie Rauwerda (9 September 2022). "Who the hell updated Queen Elizabeth II's Misplaced Pages page so quickly?". Input. Upon Queen Elizabeth II's death, the world was quick to note the 💕's up-to-the-minute coverage. "WIKIPEDIA DIDN'T WASTE ANY TIME," someone tweeted. "Someone was in there watching her last breaths with a computer on[REDACTED] ready to just press enter," another joked.
Jeff Parsons (9 September 2022). "How Misplaced Pages responded when news of the Queen's death broke". Metro (British newspaper). In the case of the Queen's death, the legion of volunteers that keep up the '💕' sprang into action to keep it updated. The first edit made to the Queen's Misplaced Pages page came just minutes after the first sources broke the news.
Kai McNamee (2022-09-15). "Fastest 'was' in the West: Inside Misplaced Pages's race to cover the queen's death". NPR.
Liam Mannix (13 September 2022). "Evidence suggests Misplaced Pages is accurate and reliable. When are we going to start taking it seriously?". The Sydney Morning Herald. About 3.30am (AEST) on Friday, the British royal family announced the Queen had died. About two minutes later her Misplaced Pages entry had been updated to note her death.

Other talk page banners

This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 198 million views since December 2007.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2011, 2012, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 74 times. The weeks in which this happened:

Section sizes

Section size for Elizabeth II (30 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	7,064	7,064
Early life	4,242	4,242
Heir presumptive	2,961	17,314
Second World War	8,441	8,441
Marriage	5,912	5,912
Reign	13	99,106
Accession and coronation	6,561	6,561
Early reign	9,717	9,717
Political reforms and crises	7,699	7,699
Perils and dissent	10,262	10,262
Turbulent years	15,087	15,087
Dawn of the new millennium	10,807	10,807
Diamond Jubilee and milestones	14,596	14,596
Pandemic and widowhood	13,580	13,580
Platinum Jubilee and beyond	10,784	10,784
Death	16,492	16,492
Legacy	66	28,946
Beliefs, activities, and interests	8,222	8,222
Media depiction and public opinion	20,658	20,658
Titles, styles, honours, and arms	398	3,310
Titles and styles	590	590
Arms	2,322	2,322
Issue	2,022	2,022
Ancestry	1,396	1,396
See also	532	532
Notes	29	29
References	15	8,505
Citations	29	29
Bibliography	8,461	8,461
External links	9,449	9,449
Total	198,407	198,407

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Logs and discussions:

Move logs: Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom
Elizabeth II

Discussions:

RM, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom → Elizabeth II, No consensus, 8 January 2010, discussion
RM, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom → Elizabeth II, No consensus, 25 February 2010, discussion
- RFC, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom → Elizabeth II, Moved, 18 March 2010, discussion
RM, Elizabeth II → Queen Elizabeth II , No consensus, 18 April 2010, discussion
RM, Elizabeth II → Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, No consensus, 20 July 2014, discussion
RM, Elizabeth II → Queen Elizabeth II, Not moved, 2 June 2018, discussion
RM, Elizabeth II → Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Not moved, 30 July 2023, discussion
RM, Elizabeth II → Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Procedural close, 14 August 2023, discussion

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Brandreth, Gyles (2022), Elizabeth: An Intimate Portrait, Random House, ISBN 978-0-241-58260-2

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh was copied or moved into Elizabeth II with this edit on 11:12, 12 October 2024. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Request for article creation for Reign of Elizabeth II?

Misplaced Pages commonly has articles for the presidencies and premiership of certain world leaders. A 70-year reign cannot be close to being conveniently described in an article purely about the person themselves. Should a separate article be created to truly delve in detail into this 70-year period? --ECSNDY (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

No. Presidencies and premierships are typically periods of consistent policy implemented by a politician. We don't do this for figurehead monarchs. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Why do we have Reign of Juan Carlos I? Peter Ormond 💬 11:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

As I believe you've been told before, see Misplaced Pages:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

That article more or less covers successive Spanish governments' activities rather than Juan Carlos' own actions. Honestly I think it should be renamed. Keivan.f 15:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

There might be sources for say, the role of the monarchy under Elizabeth II or similar. It wouldn't just be "Reign of Elizabeth II" though, that's very generic. CMD (talk) 15:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Main Photo

I would be in favour of changing the image of Elizabeth II to a photo from sometime in the middle of her reign, as that’s what most people will remember her as.

This photo is on the Commons: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/File:Her_Majesty_Queen_Elizabeth_II_of_the_Commonwealth_Realms.jpg Waverland (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I must admit, I have never liked the current photo from 1959 so I'd be mor than happy for it to be changed. Although, I must admit that the 2015 Photo looks better and should be reinstated https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Queen_Elizabeth_II_in_March_2015.jpg Pepper Gaming (talk) 23:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

can we not open a new RFC to discuss this? Pepper Gaming (talk) 11:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

It's unlikely everyone's changed their minds after the very deliberate discussion that was only a year ago. Remsense诉 11:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

18 months ago now, but I agree. Choice of photo for an infobox can be subjective, so I’m not keen on re-opening the issue once a consensus was reached. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Completely understand that, and if a consensus was reached then that must be accepted. I just think that the photo of the 33 year old Queen is not a good representation for how the majority of the public will remember her, but as you say it is definitely subjective. Waverland (talk) 14:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I completely agree with @Waverland, But I think it's time to open an RFC. I've never liked the portrait for many reasons (The fact that it is a Painting, rather than an actual photograph is one of those reasons). I'm still not budging from my original opinion (an opinion I formed 18 months ago when the image was first changed). And I feel like it should be changed to at least a Photograph of the Queen rather than a Painting Pepper Gaming (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

It isn't a painting. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

If it isn't a painting, then what is it? Pepper Gaming (talk) 20:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't know. I'm stumped. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Turns out it's an early colour photograph. But it also looks like a painting at the same time. It's so confusing Pepper Gaming (talk) 10:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I do like the 2015 photo better than this one. Cremastra (talk) 23:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

While i agree with you, it’s not a painting, the portrait of the Queen Mother is but this one is an actual photo. Waverland (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

So it's an actual Photograph and not a Painting? I've always thought of it to be the latter Pepper Gaming (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I’ve just checked and it was take by Donald McKague in December 1958, published in 1959. Waverland (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

this SHOULD be reinstated as not many people remember her as a new, young, monarch Realpala (talk) 18:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Pepper Gaming said:

"But I think it's time to open an RFC. I've never liked the portrait for many reasons (The fact that it is a Painting, rather than an actual photograph is one of those reasons). I'm still not budging from my original opinion (an opinion I formed 18 months ago when the image was first changed)."

Thank you for letting us know that you reject WP:CONSENSUS and will continue to raise this issue until you get your own way. Duly noted. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The last RFC voted for this one by a vote, as I recall, of 16 to 12. A year is long enough for minds to change or new views to come from new editors. I see nothing wrong with a new RFC.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

+1, consensus can change over time. A new RfC would not be against policy.--♦IanMacM♦ 06:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

We've already been through this, multiple times. The 1959 image is what got consensus. PS - I highly doubt you'd get a consensus to replace the image, with a portrait. GoodDay (talk) 10:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

completely understandable, but I think you misunderstood what was being said. there was no discussion to replace the current photo with a portrait, rather confusion over whether the current image was a photograph or a painting. Waverland (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

All that is needed is the same level of consensus that got this on the page, that is a majority vote in a preference poll. Wehwalt (talk) 16:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

@GoodDay Can I ask what you mean by "I highly doubt you'd get a consensus to replace the image, with a portrait"

Do you mean with replacing the current (1959) image with a Painting/Drawing?

(And to clarify, part of the reason why I was opposed to the 1959 image in the first place was because I originally thought it was a Painting/Drawn portrait Pepper Gaming (talk) 11:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

A photo is better than a painting. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree, I was opposed to the 1959 image for a long time because I thought it was a Painting or a Drawn portrait. Pepper Gaming (talk) 10:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

A photo is also better than something that's easily mistaken as a painting. Ric36 (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

So I guess we're still getting nowhere with this. Ric36 (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I support a change to something in the 2020s Pharaoh496 (talk) 18:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I still don't understand how it can be mistaken for a painting. What aspects look painted? The light play on the jewels, the hair detail, and everything else show it to be a photograph. Cremastra (talk) 23:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

It’s bad photo. Change it to the coronation one. 2A00:23EE:19A0:1D71:C5E4:49EA:D3A3:E3B3 (talk) 07:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Nah. Remsense ‥ 论 07:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Is the coronation pic any better? Ric36 (talk) 18:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I support changing the photo. The current photo is not representative of how Elizabeth II is commonly depicted in present-day media. It also just... looks bad. There are better-quality photos available and we should use them. Birdsinthewindow (talk) 16:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Is it possible to have a slideshow of portraits from throughout her reign? That would be great. --Surturz (talk) 02:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

We did something like that when we ran the article as TFA on the date of her funeral. Wehwalt (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe that even though this conversation is dead, I would like to continue it by putting a series of images of when I believe she was most famous. I also don't really like the current one, as it depicts her when she started to become Queen, rather when most people remember her as. Feel free to nominate many more by putting them on this list, as this is not that many

1 (current image) (1959)
2 (2011)
3 (1986)
4 (2015)
5 (2007)
6 (1953)
7 (1976)
8 (1953)
9 (2011)

Wcamp9 (talk) 04:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Will you have the portrait from 1992? 189.162.192.106 (talk) 02:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Next time a conversation of this kind is dead, please refrain from reviving it. Remsense ‥ 论 02:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Remsense, I have avoided continuing on this conversation as I felt that it was not getting anywhere and it was best left alone. However, your rudeness and stubbornness towards anyone who expresses an opinion in trying to improve Misplaced Pages for readers is hard to ignore. The existing consensus that you claim should be kept was only reached with 28 people, it’s not as if half a million people decided this was a good photo!

If multiple people are raising a question as to how useful/recognisable this photo of QEII is, then I believe the way to address this is by hearing and understanding concerns, and then possibly discuss reaching another consensus. Shutting them down immediately and basically trying to silence other contributors is not the way in which this should be handled. It has been more than 2 years now since the previous consensus was agreed and the previous one was reached in the immediate aftermath of her death, perceptions and feelings most certainly have changed since then. Waverland (talk) 08:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Personally I'd go for No. 3 in part because it's the middle of her reign but also it's a similar in period photo to the one used for Philip. Looks weird to me how his article uses a photo from 1992 and hers from 1959 when they were a married couple. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I very much like the 1959 photo. Surtsicna (talk) 09:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

the 1986 one should be used as its in the middle of her reign Realpala (talk) 22:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I also like the 1986 photo; she's recognizable but still looks similar to the coronation photo. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 22:25, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In § Death replace the wikilink to Operation Unicorn with the redirect target Operation Unicorn. This is for the benefit of readers who have already followed the preceding Operation London Bridge link and lets their browsers display the link as "already visited".

The reason for preferring links to redirect pages is in case the redirect page grows into a separate article, the link source will not need to be edited. This is unlikely in this case (are we likely to write that much more about the Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II?) and because of the proximity of an identical-but-for-the-section link, the convenience of the reader (which is the whole reason for these policies in the first place) should be prioritized. 97.102.205.224 (talk) 14:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Done. DrKay (talk) 15:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

How come her full name isn't given as Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor?

It's currently Elizabeth Alexandra Mary, but if I'm not mistaken, Windsor is her last name. Banedon (talk) 06:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it is. But because the last discussion ended without consensus, we are stuck with the status quo of only given names. DrKay (talk) 07:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories: