Talk:Elizabeth II

Request for article creation for Reign of Elizabeth II?

Wikipedia 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)

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/wiki/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/wiki/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♦ ^{(talk to me)} 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 Wikipedia 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)

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. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 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. DrKay (talk) 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. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 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 explained in this comic strip. Most people - especially people outside of the UK, who will also be reading this article - do not know what a silver jubilee is. Birdsinthewindow (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion of Military Service in infobox

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

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

Knowledgework69 (talk) 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. Remsense ‥ 论 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. Knowledgework69 (talk) 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. Remsense ‥ 论 16:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

if you read the second paragraph below on my reasons on why i highlighted the service number Knowledgework69 (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Appreciated, but I was already aware of the potential significance associated with being assigned a service number. Remsense ‥ 论 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. Knowledgework69 (talk) 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. Remsense ‥ 论 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 (War Medal and Defence Medal) - She is one of only four Royals to have these decorations - Notable

further brief information of her service can be found on here Military service by British royalty

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. Knowledgework69 (talk) 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. Knowledgework69 (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

It's in the article body, where it belongs. Celia Homeford (talk) 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. DrKay (talk) 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. Knowledgework69 (talk) 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 Knowledgework69 (talk) 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 Knowledgework69 (talk) 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. Knowledgework69 (talk) 18:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

"hon. rank of 2nd sub." says London Gazette. "hon. rank of J. Comd." 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"). DrKay (talk) 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 List of titles and honours of Elizabeth II#Decorations and medals 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. Knowledgework69 (talk) 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.

Wikipedia cannot be used as a source.

I find intransigent WP:BLUDGEONing contrary to the official record and reliance on circular references unconvincing. My view remains unaltered. DrKay (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I thought it was implied that I meant her duration in the war as I had previously stated her service was only from 1945 Knowledgework69 (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I am happy to leave the infobox as is for now Knowledgework69 (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2024 (UTC)