Talk:Elizabeth II
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. |
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 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. |
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 It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
Other talk page banners | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
VE Day celebrations?
editThis article https://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/reports/a46126585/real-story-queen-ve-night-out/ contains an account by the Queen’s cousin, Margaret Rhodes, which implies that Princess Elizabeth was among a party that dance the conga at the Ritz Hotel on VE Day. "For some reason, we decided to go in the front door of the Ritz and do the conga," Rhodes recalled. "The Ritz has always been so stuffy and formal – we rather electrified the stuffy individuals inside. I don't think people realised who was among the party – I think they thought it was just a group of drunk young people. I remember old ladies looking faintly shocked. As one congaed through, eyebrows were raised." Is this a credible? Corsac Fox Kazakhstan (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- Also found https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_-Gs0CIDf0 Corsac Fox Kazakhstan (talk) 08:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- It's not clear what changes you want to make to the article. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- I was suggesting adding a sentence that describes Princess Elizabeth's celebratory conga at the Ritz on VE day. Though I was a bit wary as it is quite thin evidence. This would give a non-fictitious account, contrary to the vulgar fiction of dancing the jitterbug with GIs in The Crown on Netflix (see my comment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Crown_season_6 ) CorsacFoxWiki (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's not clear what changes you want to make to the article. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Main Photo
editI 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)
- 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 don't know. I'm stumped. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- If it isn't a painting, then what is it? Pepper Gaming (talk) 20:08, 15 May 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)
- 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)
- It isn't a painting. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:57, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- can we not open a new RFC to discuss this? Pepper Gaming (talk) 11:52, 15 May 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- So I guess we're still getting nowhere with this. Ric36 (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- A photo is better than a painting. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 18 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)
Broken link "The requested page could not be found"
editThe link
has rotted.
Suggest
https://www.royal.uk/encyclopedia/princess-margaret CorsacFoxWiki (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- The rotted link is archived on the Wayback Machine here. This could also be added.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- That seems excellent. CorsacFoxWiki (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- sorry for the misunderstanding. 2A02:6B6F:F8D1:C600:F599:76B5:D2B2:7728 (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- That seems excellent. CorsacFoxWiki (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Edit Request: Pertaining to The Commonwealth Realms exclusion and inclusion
editIn both the short description and certain other spots I have attempted to simply add the line "and the other Commonwealth Realms" or equivalent as this is important information. However, each time I have attempted this it has been removed. So, I have come down to the talk section in order to discuss this.
I firmly believe that it would better reflect the fact that the Commonwealth Realms are of equal status to that of the United Kingdom.
Each crown that Her Majesty had is equal in status to that of the UK and thus should be treated as such in the short description and whenever appropriate to do so, as opposed to being excluded from relevant spots. Since this article isn't just about Her Majesty as the Queen of the UK, rather being about Her Majesty as a whole, including all her Queenly titles, I truly think that it would be better if the Commonwealth Realms were given equal prevalence to the UK. I see no reason why this isn't an entirely reasonable request as, like I said, all of these crowns are entirely equal to each other.
Aggressively Monarchist Australian (talk) 04:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- The intro, infobox, etc, are as they are via consensus to abide by WP:WEIGHT. GoodDay (talk) 04:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)