Talk:Elizabeth II

The article fails to mention her majesty’s last name at the start. I think that is rather essential; don’t you? Did she take the name of the guy she married or does she keep her surname since she is after all the Queen? Or did she take his name like any other woman would? If she took his name than the royal family will have a different last name from there on. --68.118.201.68 (talk) 22:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Please change: the death in 1997 of her daughter-in-law to read the death in 1997 of her former daughter-in-law Alexander06 (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

"George V specifically adopted Windsor, not only as the name of the 'House' or dynasty, but also as the surname of his family." (emphasis added) ‎is stated explicitly on the page of the "Official Website of the British Royal Family" which is dedicated to explaining to the public the surname of the Queen, and which is there labelled The Royal Family name". That explanation derives from and is consistent with the proclamation of George V issued in 1917, which says "We, out of Our Royal Will and Authority, do hereby declare and announce that as from the date of this Our Royal Proclamation Our House and Family shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that all the descendants in the male line of Our said Grandmother Queen Victoria who are subjects of these Realms, other than female descendants who may marry or may have married, shall bear the said Name of Windsor..." (emphasis added) The Royal Website is also consistent with the Orders-in-Council of Elizabeth II issued: 9 April 1952 (which states "I hereby declare My Will and Pleasure that I and My children shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that My descendants, other than female descendants who marry and their descendants, shall bear the Name of Windsor") (emphasis added) and 8 February 1960 ("I declare My Will and Pleasure that, while I and My Children shall continue to be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, My descendants other than descendants enjoying the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess and female descendants who marry and their descendants shall bear the name of Mountbatten-Windsor.") The notion that "Royals don't have surnames" is popular to the point of being an urban legend among monarchists and history-buffs, but it simply isn't true. The reliable citations, above, documenting Windsor as Elizabeth II's declared surname have not been refuted by any authority comparable to that of the royal decrees as clarified on the Royal Website. People come to an encyclopedia to have popular misconceptions corrected. That is what affixing "Windsor" to Elizabeth II's name in this article does. FactStraight (talk) 05:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Being a member of the Family of Windsor is not the same thing as having Windsor as a surname, or even having a surname at all. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

You're right, which is why we need not focus on anything so vague as "being a member of the Family of Windsor". Rather, George V was quite specific: "all the descendants in the male line of Our said Grandmother Queen Victoria who are subjects of these Realms, other than female descendants who may marry or may have married, shall bear the said Name of Windsor..." Elizabeth II has also been specific: "My descendants other than descendants enjoying the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess and female descendants who marry and their descendants shall bear the name of Mountbatten-Windsor." Are there any reliable sources which refute these declarations? Or that authoritatively refute the Royal Website, which reads: "George V specifically adopted Windsor, not only as the name of the 'House' or dynasty, but also as the surname of his family"? FactStraight (talk) 02:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Frankly, you seem to be picking and choosing from the article you cited to, which says, "For the most part, members of the Royal Family who are entitled to the style and dignity of HRH Prince or Princess do not need a surname". You are also ascribing a lot of weight to the article even though it is at a site with limited value. For the most part, the site tries to explain things in very simple terms, which often has a profound effect on accuracy and precision. -Rrius (talk) 04:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm not asserting that British royals use a surname, at least not often. I'm saying that they have one, and that Wikipedia should acknowledge that fact precisely because there is a widespread myth -- bordering on an idée fixe among some Wikipedia editors -- that, because they seldom use a surname, that omission is proof they lack one. It isn't. I'm not sure I understand your other point: Are you implying that the Official Royal Website is somehow not accurate or precise in stating that they have a surname? Based on what evidence? FactStraight (talk) 06:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

If you go here: [1] and click on the link "View the original" (part way down on the left), you can see the original scan of the official England and Wales birth register index for April-June 1926. She is listed as Windsor, Elizabeth A. M. DrKiernan (talk) 10:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

The choice of name I see for this queen is:

"Elizabeth, 'of course'"

OK, but could someone add that this resulted in the "I" being added to the name of the previous Elizabeth? (Elizabeth I's article has her as simply Elizabeth before the explicitly-stated accession of Elizabeth II.)

Suggested new sentence: (Therefore, she became Elizabeth II, and the previous queen Elizabeth was given the number "I".)

128.63.16.20 (talk) 18:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

 Not done: This is already mentioned in the first sentence of Elizabeth I which is probably the more appropriatae place for it. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 23:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm not convinced that being top in the Women's Hour "power list" is a valuable addition to the article. She is after all the head of state, and the source is not an especially distinguished one. DrKiernan (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Agreed. That's just a glorified popularity contest because, as you say, she is the head of state so she is the most powerful woman in Britain regardless. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Her Majesty has been hospitalised at King Edward VII Hospital for treatment of gastrointenteritis. 74.69.11.229 (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Do we report everytime a Royal goes into hospital? This is not news. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

The Church of Scotland is presbyterian. The Queen is clearly Anglican. See here[2]. While she is the ceremonial head of the CofS, she is the literal head of the CoE. The CoS website even states that she is not an adherent. See here[3]. Revmqo (talk) 06:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Further "Church of England" and "Church of Scotland" are not religions. They are religious bodies. The religions are Anglican and Presbyterian, both forms of Christianity.... but different forms.Revmqo (talk) 06:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

As I said in an edit summary, there are reliable academic sources saying she is a member of the Church of Scotland. DrKiernan (talk) 06:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Religion as listed in info boxes is generally the theology of practice of the individual, not the name of a church. As such, it should be listed as Anglican or Presbyterian (for the Church of Scotland). It doesn't take a lot of research to determine the Elizabeth is an Anglican by practice and only attends the CofS when required as part of her job as monarch. The theologies are quite different forms of Christianity and she is clearly Anglican. Evidence of her Anglicanism as her actual personal faith practice. [4], [5], [6], and [7] Revmqo (talk) 07:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

That she is Anglican is not in question. The official website[8] and academic books[9] state explicitly that she is a member of the Church of Scotland. She attends the Church of Scotland when in Scotland on private visits, at Balmoral for example. I have suggested two alternatives:

(1) Use an all-encompassing term like "Protestantism".

(2) Remove religion from the infobox. DrKiernan (talk) 07:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Being a "member" of the Church of Scotland is not in doubt. Yet she is only a member because of her office, not because of her practice of faith. My argument is that the "religion" line in infoboxes is for personal religious practice. Admittedly, the Queen is in a unique position since different countries in the commonwealth have different official religions.

First, we must come to consensus to what the information provided by the "religion" line item means

Second, we should consider changing the words to adjectives, not Proper Nouns - since this is more consistent with other similar pages

Third, if consensus ends up being the listing of both, I would argue for an * on the second listing

• I don't believe that removing the information is the appropriate approach. Also, if you read the sources carefully, you will see that she attends Presbyterian services while in Scotland, but that she also attends Anglican ones. I believe this indicates her willingness to perform her official function, but also to practice her own personal faith at the same time. Revmqo (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

• So would that mean by virtue of somewhere having a state religion, and QEII being Sovereign, she'd automatically be a member of that church? Why not just change it to "Christianity" CaribDigita (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC) [reply ]