Talk:Elizabeth II
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Elizabeth II article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
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  |
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 may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
| 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 Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
.svg){kind=small}
.svg)
.svg){kind=small}
 | This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
 | 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. |
 | Other talk page banners | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
List of Prime Ministers
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I wanted to add a list of prime ministers in the Reign section akin to the Queen Victoria Article. I will add the table here for review before submitting it publicly. Andreiflorea993 (talk) 13:50, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- Does that add any value? Would it not be better to just link to List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom? DeCausa (talk) 14:00, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- I agree a link to that article would be better than including a list in the article. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 17:53, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
- You might be right, I thought it would add visual value, for those who are searching for something in relation to EIIR. It felt very organic on the Victoria article.
| British Prime ministers of Queen Elizabeth II | |
| Year | Prime Minister (party) |
|---|---|
| 1951 | Sir Winston Churchill (Conservative) |
| 1955 | The Earl Eden of Avon (Conservative) |
| 1957 | Tthe Earl Macmillan of Stockton (Conservative) |
| 1963 | The Lord Home of the Hirsel (Conservative) |
| 1964 | The Lord Wilson of Rievaulx (Labour) |
| 1970 | Sir Edward Heath (Conservative) |
| 1974 | The Lord Wilson of Rievaulx (Labour) |
| 1976 | The Lord Callaghan of Cardiff (Labour) |
| 1979 | The Baroness Thatcher (Conservative) |
| 1990 | Sir Tony Blair (Labour) |
| 2007 | Gordon Brown (Labour) |
| 2010 | The Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton (Conservative) |
| 2016 | The Baroness May of Maidenhead (Conservative) |
| 2019 | Boris Johnson (Conservative) |
| 2022 | Liz Truss (Conservative) |
| See List of prime ministers of Elizabeth II for details of her British and overseas premiers | |
- I will add this to the article since no further objections/replies noted Andrei Florea 💬 13:16, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
- Missing John Major NimbleNumbat (talk) 15:07, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
- thank you. that is a very apt observation. will incorporate right away Andrei Florea 💬 16:15, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
- Missing John Major NimbleNumbat (talk) 15:07, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
- I oppose this addition, as this article is about Elizabeth II & not the UK prime ministers who served during her reign. Indeed, the table crowds the section. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
- The same table appears on Queen Victoria's article and works well, as it provides context for the prime ministers who served during her reign. I agree with the other editor, though, and think that a link to the list of her prime ministers would work just as well. If that approach is preferred, the same change should also be made on Queen Victoria's page. ItsShandog (talk) 18:10, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
- I would oppose this table in this form as it should not include Prime Ministers with their peerage titles as none held them as Prime Minister (except the Earl of Home but that was only briefly) due to it being considered constitutionally inappropriate by her reign for the Prime Minister to come from the Lords. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 18:37, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
- According to the List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom, from 1902 until 1942, every prime minister had simultaneously held the position of the Leader of the House of Commons. No prime minister has attempted to serve an entire term while serving in the House of Lords since the end of Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury's term in 1902. Dimadick (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed, the last PM in the Lords was technically Alec Douglas-Home (but only for 4 days before he disclaimed). The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed. will change accordingly Andrei Florea 💬 22:33, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed, the last PM in the Lords was technically Alec Douglas-Home (but only for 4 days before he disclaimed). The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
- Here is a revised version of the table. Andrei Florea 💬 17:15, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
- Where is it? You say here is one but I do not see a revised version of the table. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 18:13, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
- According to the List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom, from 1902 until 1942, every prime minister had simultaneously held the position of the Leader of the House of Commons. No prime minister has attempted to serve an entire term while serving in the House of Lords since the end of Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury's term in 1902. Dimadick (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
Table | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
MOS:BIO
See related Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#MOS:ROYAL, discussion. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
Rhodesia
As I've said at least twice now in edit summaries, the sources do not support the repeated insertion. If anything, they say (or more accurately imply) the opposite. Smith did not remain loyal to the Queen "as Queen of Rhodesia". He remained loyal because he was a stupid far-right racist who thought white upper-class people (like the Queen) were superior. The newly-added cite confirms this. DrKay (talk) 10:27, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
- Queen of Rhodesia is what the title was called, and that's the subject of that article. Elizabeth didn't accept it, but that was the title under which Smith declared. I've restored the mention, as I'm not seeing any valid reason for not linking to our extant article on that very subject. — Amakuru (talk) 10:54, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
- I can't really see what the issue is. Referencing Queen of Rhodesia seems uncontroversial. The abstract of this source summarises the position thus:
DeCausa (talk) 11:14, 19 January 2026 (UTC)The rebel government’s stated assertion of enduring loyalty to the Queen presented the British Government and the monarchy with a challenging dilemma, for, crucially, it was attempting to seize the status of a dominion, with continuing allegiance to the Sovereign, rather than that of a republic...The regime ignored its sacking by the Governor, Sir Humphrey Gibbs, and unilaterally appointed one of its own nominees as an ‘Officer Administering the Government’, borrowing the traditional title of a governor-ad interim, and claiming a continuing allegiance to Elizabeth II as the ‘Queen of Rhodesia’, whom it distinguished sharply from the Queen of the United Kingdom
- The title is not in contention. It's the original research by synthesis linking the title to Smith's reasons that's contentious. It's conflating two things in a way that none of the sources do. DrKay (talk) 11:20, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
- I have also found this book source: "Kenrick, David (2019). Decolonisation, Identity and Nation in Rhodesia, 1964-1979. Springer International Publishing. p. 135. ISBN 9783030326982.". (link here), where it affirms Smith and Rhodesia were professing loyalty to the person of the Queen, whom they recognised as Queen of Rhodesia (even if she refused to recognise it). The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
- As I understand it (but I could be wrong), the issue seems to be that the quoted phrase "loyalty and devotion" is specifically from the UDI Declaration which doesn't explicitly mention "Queen of Rhodesia". The two aren't linked in that document. "Queen of Rhodesia" came later. I'm reading DrKay's objection as either use the words in quotes and refer to Elizabeth personally or paraphrase without quotes and refer to Queen of Rhodesia - but I could be wrong. (For the latter option, I think my source above is better for that than Kenrick which is a rather specific quote from one minister.) DeCausa (talk) 13:37, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
- I have also found this book source: "Kenrick, David (2019). Decolonisation, Identity and Nation in Rhodesia, 1964-1979. Springer International Publishing. p. 135. ISBN 9783030326982.". (link here), where it affirms Smith and Rhodesia were professing loyalty to the person of the Queen, whom they recognised as Queen of Rhodesia (even if she refused to recognise it). The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
- The title is not in contention. It's the original research by synthesis linking the title to Smith's reasons that's contentious. It's conflating two things in a way that none of the sources do. DrKay (talk) 11:20, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
- I can't really see what the issue is. Referencing Queen of Rhodesia seems uncontroversial. The abstract of this source summarises the position thus:
Should we "James VI and I" this?
She was the first and only Queen Elizabeth of Scotland. which remained an independent kingdom until the ascension of James VI and I... after Elizabeth I died... It is only fitting we use the same numbering system as with James. Scuba 06:52, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
- Not quite certain what it is, you're requesting. GoodDay (talk) 06:56, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
- Nobody calls her that. Surtsicna (talk) 10:45, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
- No. She was only ever known as Elizabeth II. Plus Scotland is not a sovereign nation any more. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 11:20, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
- No. Because post Union the regnal numbers were essentially combined into one. Which is why we have William III and II but then only William IV (instead of William IV and III). Keivan.fTalk 17:32, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
"Succeeded by her eldest son, Charles III"
There's no "III" in his given name. It should read "by her eldest son as Charles III" ~2026-38283-9 (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
Done--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:39, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
