Last modified on August 21, 2017, at 06:45

Talk:Queen Elizabeth II

Return to "Queen Elizabeth II" page.

Could someone please change that picture?

Seconded. I'll go on a trawl. Stargrave 07:39, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Now i've figured out how to use this thing properly ;) - Reverted the vandalism to the original picture, even though it took me a couple of attempts. I'll still see if I can find a better one, but this should do for now unless it gets vandalised again Stargrave 07:49, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Doesn't mention she is the British Head of State or that acts of parliament must be signed by her.

  • Yes, and the actual situation regarding her political power, or lack thereof, is somewhat more complicated than it appears, tying, as it does, into the history of the Civil War, the Reformation and so on. We'll have to see what we can do about that without straying off-topic. Stargrave 08:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Male preference

If nobody minds, I've deleted the reference to HM's original position in the line of succession being a result of the preference given to males. In her case it was irrelevant. Edward VIII and George VI were the oldest children of George V, and George VI had no sons. If there had been no preference for males, she still would have been third in line.

Interestingly, the last time the male preference made a difference was when Queen Victoria died in 1901, with the crown passing to her eldest son Edward VII. Victoria's eldest child was Princess Victoria who married the German Emperor - the whole of 20th century European history could have been very different! Ferret 08:35, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

re Acts

An editor persists in adding the paragraph claiming that the Queen is a pro-abortion, pro-globalism liberal. The Queen does not decide which Acts to sign or decline - she does not defy the will of Parliament, and thus the will of the people, by refusing to sign any Act. No monarch has defied Parliament/the people since Queen Anne refused to sign an Act which would arm the Scottish militias - just when France was threatening war - in 1708. (The Scots had previously taken up arms against the English and on the side of the French.) NeilWalker (talk) 16:21, 20 August 2017 (EDT)

But Queen Anne did have the authority to veto the bill -- it seems that Queen Elizabeth's actions have precedent but are not law. If she cared strongly about these issues, she would not have signed those bills. What do you say to that? --1990'sguy (talk) 16:24, 20 August 2017 (EDT)
The constitutional crisis which would arise from a sitting monarch defying the will of the people would lead to the dissolution of the monarchy. The reigning monarch remains neutral in politics and what they do or do not care strongly about is immaterial. You forget, we have cut kings' heads off in the past for defying the will of Parliament. NeilWalker (talk) 16:27, 20 August 2017 (EDT)
The Queen can veto whatever law she wants to. Elizabeth doesn't do it due to convention. But you admit it yourself. --Elessar (talk) 16:30, 20 August 2017 (EDT)
(edit conflict) Compared to France (French Revolution, the many other revolutions) or Russia (Russian Revolution), Britain has been extremely civil in dealing with its monarchs (Glorious Revolution, etc.). I do remember reading in the news recently about how the Queen's hat she wore one day (was it the 2017 House of Commons speech?) was designed like the EU flag. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2017 (EDT)
Perhaps we're more civil because they learned their lesson and didn't attempt to override the will of Parliament/the people. And, no offense, but observing/discussing what hats/dresses/coats/shoes that royals choose to wear seems to be a peculiar fascination limited just to Americans. Most Britons don't notice and don't care. We see her on the stamps and the banknotes, is about all. NeilWalker (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2017 (EDT)
The UK media seemed to care, both on the Left[1][2][3] and Right.[4][5] --1990'sguy (talk) 16:44, 20 August 2017 (EDT)
And suddenly the mainstream media are the voice and conscience of the people? Because I understand that Conservatives in the USA would argue against that notion rather vociferously. NeilWalker (talk) 18:14, 20 August 2017 (EDT)
The Queen does not "veto" Acts because, like America, Britain is what we call "a democracy". The Queen does not attempt to exercise her personal will over the will of the people. The experience of the American Revolution is just one of the reasons why. Meanwhile, the ignorant are allowed to edit war the article to insert their fallacious opinions. Hmm, I begin to see the problem here. NeilWalker (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2017 (EDT)
What I'm saying is that it seems that the Queen has the ability to veto (or "not sign" or whatever you call it in the UK). Of course it would be unprecedented, but I think someone with more guts would do it. We could not the precedent of not vetoing legislation along with that paragraph, explaining why she did not veto the bills. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:44, 20 August 2017 (EDT)
I'm not really interested in arguing over it; the addition claiming that the Queen is a pro-abortion liberal is so silly that any educated reader will see it for what it is. Far be it for me, a mere history teacher, to override the fallacious opinions of Lord of the Rings fans' edits (between their warning of tomorrow's nuclear attack on New York City.) I believe your nemesis Wikipedia suffers similar problems, saying: "For some reason people who spend 40 years learning everything they can about, say, the Peloponnesian War—and indeed, advancing the body of human knowledge—get all pi**y when their contributions are edited away by Randy in Boise who heard somewhere that sword-wielding skeletons were involved. And they get downright irate when asked politely to engage in discourse with Randy until the sword-skeleton theory can be incorporated into the article without passing judgment." NeilWalker (talk) 17:14, 20 August 2017 (EDT)
What do you think about this: we keep the fact that the Queen has signed these pieces of legislation, but we include the fact that there is a precedent not to interfere with Parliament, regardless of what they pass? --1990'sguy (talk) 17:20, 20 August 2017 (EDT)
As I stated, it makes no difference to me; it is a silly claim, based upon ignorance of the limits of executive power, ignorance of history, ignorance of the constitutional brake, and ignorance of the overriding principle of representative democracy. I've attempted to "fix" it, my "fix" was rejected. It's clear that you have subversive editors here who are making your articles appear silly. I don't have time to debate this any further: I must instead telephone all of my friends in NYC to warn them of the apocalypse. NeilWalker (talk) 18:14, 20 August 2017 (EDT)
Alright, we learn that new user is a liberal and like most of them he acts in typically liberal manner. Let's block him, we don't need this worst sort of liberals here. --Elessar (talk) 02:45, 21 August 2017 (EDT)