Talk:Queen Elizabeth II

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 paragrapgh 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)

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)

(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)