Talk:List of titles and honours of Elizabeth II

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeList of titles and honours of Elizabeth II was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 8, 2003Peer reviewReviewed
June 7, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Latin[edit]

Latin: Elizabeth II, Dei Gratia Britanniarum Regnorumque Suorum Ceterorum Regina, Consortionis Populorum Princeps, Fidei Defensor. ----should it not be: Fidei defenstrix? she is after all a woman? WilhelmRosendahl

I think it remains defensor as that was the actual title bestowed by the Pope - Chrism 21:03, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Former titles[edit]

Her former titles should also be included:

Please look up what each of these are individually. --Jiang 04:13, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Or we can just forget about this, noting Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom#Former_titles. --Jiang

What about 'Princess of the United Kingdom', 'Dutchess of Edinburgh' and so on? --Jiang 09:22, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

if you look at the page for List of Titles and Honours of Charles, Prince of Wales you will see a list of his Titles, Duke of Cornwall &c. There is no such list for Elizabeth. She is head of state of the Channel islands by virtue of her title Duke of Normady, she is also the Duke of Man and the Duke of Lancaster and I think there are namy more. --Martin TB 09:32, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Only she's never been 'Duke of Normandy' (and in any event would be a Duchess, seeing as she's uh, female) in respect to the Channel Islands-and neither has any English/British monarch since Henry III gave up the title and the continental possessions by the 1259 Act of Paris. Also; there hasn't been a Duke (or Duchess) of Lancaster since Henry V acceded to the English throne in 1413. There is a Duchy of Lancaster separate from the rest of the Crown Estate, but that does not mean a Duke of Duchess of Lancaster also exists, and at any rate a Sovereign cannot hold a title from themselves. Lastly, any lesser title than Queen (such as her pre-accession marital title, Duchess of Edinburgh) become subsumed into the Crown on her accession, as no lesser position of title may be held by the monarch within the United Kingdom (though they may hold them outside the UK).JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She holds no jure uxoris title, seeing that Philip is not, uh, her wife :) Surtsicna (talk) 15:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, touché, Surtsicna. My other points still stand however.

JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dukedom of Normandy[edit]

She is not Duke of Normandy even though her website claims so and she is toasted as such. The Dukedom of Normandy was governed under Salic Law. Any claim to the title was given up in the Treaty of Paris of 1259.

That's besides the point. Before she became Queen she was known as Princess Elizabeth and later Duchess of Edinburgh. This article should state that.--Jiang 19:36, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I lived in the channel Islands for 25 years and have had many dealing with the government regarding Jersey. In the channel Islands the Queen is indeed known as Duke of Normandy, the exact same as she is known as Duke of Lancaster and Lord of Man! This is confirmed by the UK government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.94.197 (talk) 11:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither title is used officially, loyal toasts and local sentiment regardless. She is most certainly not Duke of Lancaster nor is she Duke of Normandy.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 02:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling[edit]

The spelling is definitely 'honorary' - I really don't see the point in maintaining an incorrect spelling in order not to offend someone. - Chrism 18:48, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Exactly! 'Honourary' is an incorrect spelling and isn't listed in any dictionary! - Campdavid 18:59, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wrong in just this context or all contexts? Why do people use it then? Shouldnt the page be moved? --Jiang 22:01, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

'Honour' and 'honourable' are correct in British English but not 'honourary'. For some reason it loses the 'u' and becomes 'honorary'. Similar to 'glamour' and 'glamorous', I suppose. Don't think the page needs to be moved - it just needs to be amended to show the correct spelling (as I tried to do previously). --Campdavid 19:44, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Great Chief[edit]

Shouldn't this article also include Elizabeth II being the Great Chief of the Great Council of Chiefs (Fiji), according to Elizabeth II#Commonwealth titles? -- Itai 22:45, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Queen of Cook Is.[edit]

Does the monarch have an official title for her position as Queen of the Cook Islands, Niue etc..?

No, since they are dependancies. It isn't common practise to have titles relating to them (although of course there are exceptions) - she is not, for example, Queen of Gibraltar either.
That title is in use on a coin: http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/queen-of-gibraltar. DrKay (talk) 11:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honorific[edit]

"Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II's current titles in each of her realms . . ."

I realize this may seem a bit silly in an article about somebody's titles and honors, but I don't think we should call her Her Majesty in referring to her. As I said elsewhere, "'Queen' is descriptive, in that it tells us what she does; 'Her Majesty' is honorific, and adds nothing to the article but a respectful tone that may or may not be warranted. If you say we should call Queen Elizabeth Her Royal Majesty, do you think we should call Kim Jong Il 'Beloved Leader,' or whatever he dictates that he should be called?"

I've removed the "Her Majesty" for now. If you disagree, discuss, and add it back if you want for the duration of the discussion. --Simetrical 02:25, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think Her Majesty is acceptable. It is used in almost every publication written on the Queen at home and abroad. I think we would be going overboard to use some of her other honorifics, such as "The Gracious One" as she is referred to in Parliament. However a simple 'Her Majesty' is simply a reference to her position.

Other titles/Peerage[edit]

question... in addition to these national titles the Queen holds, does she have any other noble titles? I know one of her 'lesser' titles is Duchess of Edinbourgh' as her husband is the Duke. Also, I know she was Duchess of York until she granted the title to Prince Andrew at his wedding to Sarah, Duchess of York. What other domestic British titles does the Queen hold?

The Queen cannot hold any titles from a peerage. She also couldn't have been Duchess of York as the title merged with the crown in 1936. --Ibagli 20:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other titles?[edit]

What about her other titles (Lord of Man, Duchess of Normandy)? I thought she has such titles...--Hun2 14:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought she was also "empress of India" at one stage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ross.woods (talk • contribs) 05:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


No, her father was Emperor of India, but the title was dropped in 1948 after Indian independence in 1947.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Latin title[edit]

The queen's title as queen of the UK is given in English and Latin. Why Latin? Latin is not an official language of the UK. JackofOz 10:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is English, as the UK doesn't have an official language. The law (specifically the proclamation of May 1953) however specifies her title in both English and Latin. - Chrism 17:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Papua New Guinea honours system[edit]

I found [1] this site (a speech by the Prime Minstier of Papau New Guinea) which says that Elizabeth II is soverign of the New Honours System of that country. I think it should be added to this page Dowew 06:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan title[edit]

Just in case anyone thinks I'm making this up, the title formerly used in Pakistan is correct and here's a link to the American Political Science Review (Vol. 47, No. 4, p. 1021) to prove it. [2]

Royal Family Order[edit]

Im quite certain that Elizabeth holds two Royal Family Orders, that of her father and Grandfather as exemplified by [[3]]

Does anyone know when she got her Grandfathers Order ? Dowew 16:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd read somewhere that she received it during her grandfather's Silver Jubilee in 1935. --Mdieke (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good article failure[edit]

  • No references.

Also, it needs to be discussed if lists can be good articles at all. --SeizureDog 06:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking, what if we included another box beside each entery linking to a citation ? Dowew 00:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian Order[edit]

On the official website of the queen it says


Since the mid-twentieth century, the exchange of Orders has become less personal and more formal and diplomatic. The award, return or removal of Orders can still be highly symbolic.

Examples are The Queen's conferring the Order of Merit on President Mandela, or her return of the Romanian Order received from President Ceausescu and her instruction to erase the President's name from the Register of the Order of the Bath. [4]

Anyone know when this order was or when it was given and returned --Dowew 16:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

moves[edit]

As this page has been moved a few times in the last while, I suggest we keep it at this name as: This article talks about all realms of the Queen, not just the UK, and 2, having the UK made a rather long title for this article Brian | (Talk) 06:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with this logic. Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom only has one title: "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith." However, Elizabeth, as a person, has been created queen by sixteen different countries, and thus is vested with sixteen different regal titles. Perhaps the word "Queen" could even be dropped from this article title, making it: "List of titles and honours of Elizabeth II." --G2bambino 15:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed lunacy[edit]

I removed the following chunk:

The very long list of Queen Elizabeth's titles and honors gave rise to the assertion that when the Queen is late for official ceremonies, the ceremony master starts reading out her titles precisely at the moment the Queen is supposed to appear, proceeding thus until the Queen arrives. Though never officially confirmed by the Palace, this assertion is widely believed to be true.

It managed to stay in there for 17 months.

--Ibagli (Talk) 04:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good move. Talk about weasel words! — J M Rice 22:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dates[edit]

On some of the orders and decorations, I think it would be inappropriate to state that she ceased to hold them in 1952. For royal family orders and her war medals, she wouldn't hold and wear those decorations by virtue of being sovereign of them, so I've been bold and removed the 1952 end dates on some. --Ibagli (Talk) 00:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One cannot hold multiple appointment to a single Order. When she became Queen, she became soverign of the Orders. At that time, her ordinary membership in all the Orders ended. Yes, she would wear the orders, but she wears the Soverign's badge. Dowew 05:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that this is true, but I don't believe it would be the case for royal family orders (which can only be granted by that specific sovereign) and war and jubilee medals. --Ibagli (Talk) 16:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that they can only be authorized for wear by that specific soverign, but after the demise of the soverign members of the previous Royal Family Orders still live, and the Order needs a Soverign. This is why, for example Elizabeth is soverign of the Royal Order of Victoria and Albert since in 1952 there were still living members Dowew 21:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And as far as I can tell, Princess Elizabeth was never actually made a member of the Royal Family Order of George V. After all she was only 10 years old when he died. It seems she just wears the Badge as Soverign in honour of her grandfather. Dowew 23:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Married Titles[edit]

What about the titles she holds as the wife of Prince Philip? Duchess of Edinburgh, Countess of Merioneth and Baroness Greenwich? Obviously, she doesn't use them, but they certainly don't merge into the crown as they're not her titles. I think that should be given some consideration, and that those 3 should be added. --IBCharlie 23:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point. I agree that they should be mentioned in the article, but I'm not sure how best to do that. And, now that I think of it, none of her pre-1952 titles (Princess Elizabeth of York, etc.) are included, either. Any thoughts? Alkari 08:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that she granted the titles to her husband, does she actually become a recipient of them herself through him? Seems rather cyclical. --G2bambino 23:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it was her father who granted Philip the titles, not her. But yes, as the wife of the Duke of Edinburgh she is the Duchess of Edinburgh, Countess of Merioneth and Baroness Greenwich. She doesn't hold the titles in her own right, though (if, for example, Philip were to die before Elizabeth, Charles would inherit the titles and the Queen would cease to be Duchess of Edinburgh etc.). Alkari 23:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes... that would be right. A big "Duh!" on my part! --G2bambino 01:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe it is proper to cite the Queen as presently holding the titles Duchess of Edinburgh, Countess of Merioneth or Baroness Greenwich. She did rightfully hold those titles from her wedding to her succession, but I believe not since. Yes, royal and noble wives do hold the female equivalent of their husband's titles, but not when one is also Sovereign (since the Sovereign cannot hold a peerage from herself). The British monarchy website does not include those titles as part of her full title, neither should Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.148.4.53 (talk) 18:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian provincial honours[edit]

User:Dowew asserts that the Queen is not Sovereign of the Canadian provincial honours. This may well be correct, however, we may need to find a reliable source to verify or discount this. Personally, I understand that it was not until recently that the provincial honours were accepted as part of the Canadian Honours System, but now that they are, and the Queen is fount of all honours in Canada, as well as the fact that every law, including those that establish honours, is passed in the Queen's name, she must have some part in the provincial orders, whether explicit in the constitution of the order or not. Of course, I could be wrong. --G2bambino 20:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the Queen is fount of honours, but that does not make her soverign of the orders unless it is recognised in the constitutions of the orders. Most specifically, the Queen is definately not in anyway affiliated with the National Order of Quebec (notice the "National" part) which was created by Renee Levesque making himself as Premier Soverign of the Order while in office. As well, here is the act creating the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador [5] with not reference to the Queen but laying down the foundations of how the order will function. I agree it is a little bizarre that The Queen in Right of Newfoundland and Labrador or the Queen in Right of Quebec is not Soverign of the Orders but thats just one of the anomolies of the Provincial Federal relationship in Canada. I agree that writting "This is Wrong" in the citation box for the National Order of Quebec was wrong of me, but seriously, lets put citation needed until one is found. Dowew 20:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did read some of the legislation regarding provincial orders, however, it is signed into law by the Lieutenant-Governor in the name of the Queen - thus, the order is created by the sovereign's authority, even in Quebec. I'm certainly no expert on honours and decorations, so I don't know exactly what makes the Queen sovereign of an order, but if she creates an order does she, or does she not, automatically play a "role" in it? --G2bambino 21:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Orders were created with the authority of the Queen in Right of the Province, however, since the constitutions of the orders do not recognize her as Soverign she does not play a role (in an official capacity)...she does of course, remain Queen of the Provinces and she does recognize the legitimacy of the leutenant-governor of Premier to confer these decorations, as demonstrated by the fact she was in attendance at the first Newfoundland and Labrador investiture during 2002 and the fact that Prince Charles and Prince Edward were both made honorary member of the Saskatchewan Order of Merit. So, although they were created under her authority as queen by her governments she had no direct link to the orders themselves. Dowew 21:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a title for someone who, in theory, creates an award (meaning, it's technically "their" award) but does not name themselves in any position within the order? --G2bambino 21:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creator? – DBD 21:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, Founder might be the correct way to describe her role in the provincial orders, but that title has no meaning within the orders themselves or in Canadian law. It could better be described that the provincial orders were "Founded during the reign of Elizabeth II" rather than Elizabeth II being founder. Dowew 02:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Alberta Order of Excellence Act [6] says nothing about the Queen being the Sovereign of the Order, or even that there is a Sovereign of the Order. However, the Royal Warrant creating the New Zealand Order of Merit [7], for instance, specifies that there is a sovereign, and that Her Majesty is the Sovereign. --Ibagli (Talk) 15:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of the statutes of the various provincial Orders that I could find create a position of Sovereign of the Orders, so I removed them from the list. The exception (so far) is the Order of Ontario, since I can't find the statutes creating it. --Ibagli (Talk) 16:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaica[edit]

Turns out the Queen was not included in the Jamaica honours either. She was not included in the constitutions of the orders [8] Dowew 20:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

link[edit]

I think much of this info on this page came from this article [9] Dowew 21:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hong Kong[edit]

I don't notice any of her titles from this former British colony. Are there any? Starseeker shkm 01:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure there aren't. I don't know of any awards specific to Hong Kong from before the transfer.--Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 05:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antigua and Barbuda[edit]

She is just a ordinary member of those orders, not soverign. [10] Dowew 23:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Victorian Chain ?[edit]

Is it worth listing the Royal Victorian Chain as something she is soverign over ? It is not technically an Order but it is her personal gift. Dowew 03:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"...and of Her other Realms" — Queen of France?[edit]

For a long time there was a claim to the throne of France. Do the royal arms reflect this? Of course, it eventually became obsolete, but obsolete titles do pop up in royal titles. Does anyone know when/if this claim was formally renounced or abandoned, or is France still one of "Her other realms"? I ask because it was disclosed today that in 1956 UK and France discussed union under the Queen. — J M Rice 22:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the claim to the French throne was dropped in 1801, as were the French arms. Alkari 23:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belize[edit]

[11] Dowew 03:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like she is not Soverign of the Belize orders either Dowew 03:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hold on a second here. The constitution of the Order of Canada states that the Order consists of "Her Majesty in right of Canada, the Governor General of Canada, the Governor General's spouse and the Companions, Officers and Members and the honorary Companions, Officers and Members" = so, nowhere is she named as Sovereign of the Order. Still, the Governor General's website clearly states that the Queen is the Sovereign of the Order [12]. So, does the Queen specifically have to be named Sovereign within any given honour's consitution to be the Order's Sovereign? Does she simply have to be named specifically as a component of the Order? Or does neither make her Sovereign? --G2bambino 04:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto for the Order of Australia - though it says here that the Order was created through Letters Patent rather than by the Parliament, which could perhaps be significant. --G2bambino 04:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

contradiction tag[edit]

I didn't see anything arguing for the contradiction tag here, so I'm going to just remove it. If someone still feels the article contradicts another article, feel free to put it back in.--Eloil 14:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth Styles[edit]

The only person given a royal style by any Commonwealth realm other than the United Kingdom is the monarch. Styles such as "Royal Highness" are only granted in the UK. --Ibagli (Talk) 15:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

historical[edit]

Are there articles listing titles held by former sovereings. Or an article about titles past and present are/were held by (or entitled to) ALL UK monarchs rather than specific individuals, and how thses titles have changed over time. 82.11.195.211 20:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Style of the British Sovereign DBD 20:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Nzarmy.gif[edit]

Image:Nzarmy.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duchess of Edinburgh, Duke of Lancaster, Duke of Normandy and King of France[edit]

Can I refer readers to a book published in 1951 called "British Titles - The Use and Misue of the Titles of Peers and Commoners, with Some Historical Notes" by Valentine Heywood with a forward by Sir Greald Woods Woolaston KCB KCVO, Garter Principal King of Arms 1930 to 1944, which clearly lays to rest a number of the issues mentioned above?

On the very first page he says:

"There is another difference in the usage on Royal styles between this country and Continental monarchies. Recitals of the styles of the Austrian and German rulers embrace a vast pluarity of titles, from emperor to count. Practically every title that had ever accrued to, or been assumed by the Hapsburg and Hohenzollern familes in their progress to the Imperial diginity was retained. No such glittering array is need to bolster up the dignity of His Britannic Majesty. The Sovereign has no titles but those set out [in the coronation]".

Although talking about George VI, it is clear that as the Fountain of Honour, the Sovereign has not peerages or knighthoods, because s/he is above such titles. That is the reason that George VI did not continue to be Duke of York after he suceeded to the throne, and why the Queen does not rely on her hsuband for a courtesy title - she is not the Duchess of Edinburgh etc since to hold such a title rank her below the Duke of Edinburgh and that cannot happen.

Heywood also refers to a decision by Cairns LC in a judgement in the Buckhurst Peerage Case. Referring to the Dukedom of Cornwall, he said that it was held:

"...by the Prince of Wales for the time being. The Prince of Wales becomes the Sovereign of the country. Becoming Soverign of the country it is impossible that he can hold any other dignity. The fountain and source of all dignities cannot hold a dignity from himself. The dignity, therefore, as a dignity to be held by the Sovereign, terminates, not by virtue of any provision in its creation, but from the absolute incapacity of the Soveriegn to hold a dignity."

For this reason the Queen is not the "Duke of Lancaster" (note is would be the "Duke" even though the Queen is female), since the title merged with the crown when Henry V suceeded to the throne (he held the title when he was Prince of Wales). However the Duchy still exists, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is a goverment minister, but it is a Duchy without a Duke.

As has been mentioned above any claim to the Dukedom of Normandy was relinguised by the Treaty of Paris in 1295 and the Kingdom of France was dropped in 1801 when the Sovereign's titles were revamped to reflect the merger of the English and Scottish crowns with that of Ireland.

Any attachments to the Duke of Lancaster in Lancashire of to the Duke of Normandy in the Channel Islands is purely emotional. Mithrandir1967 19:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Duchess of Edinburgh" applies because she is the wife of the Duke of Edinburgh, rather than because the Dukedom merged with the crown. I'm inclined to agree with the other arguments.--Ibagli (Talk) 20:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Duke of Edinburgh is the husband of the Soveriegn and not the other way round (I know that is odd be there it is). His title stems from the Sovereign and the title of "Duchess of Edinburgh" stems from him, and therefore by extension stems from the Sovereign. As Cairns LC says: "The fountain and source of all dignities cannot hold a dignity from himself."

Interestingly that is why the Queen has accepted no honorary degrees since she suceeded to the throne since by doing so she would be subservient to the Chancellor of the University concerned and in the case of UK (and probabaly Commonwealth) Universities she would be subservient to herself as she controls the creation and management of Universities through the Privy Council. Mithrandir1967 12:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is all fascinating stuff. But why, then, do we continue to list these titles (Duke of Normandy at the very least)? Shouldn't they at least be in another section or footnoted?

Also, what's with the Non-official titles section? If it deserves to be here at all (I wonder...) it surely should be at the bottom of the article and possibly merged in with Non-national titles and honours? --kingboyk (talk) 20:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS Dukes of Normandy says "the monarch of the United Kingdom retains the title Duke of Normandy in respect to the Channel Islands". --kingboyk (talk) 21:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the titles of Duke of Normandy and Lancaster weren't created by the crown, were they? Surely they still exist by virtue of being sovereign titles themselves, rather than being peerage titles? DBD 12:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen is the Duke of Lancaster rather than the Duchess by her own wishes. Also the title Duke of Lancaster as a title of the monarch dates from the War of the Roses when Henry VII became King of England. Before this he was the Duke of Lancaster. It is therefore the right of the Monarchy to continue to use this title as the other lords of the realm use theirs.--Willski72 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willski72 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-Utter, complete, and total nonsense. The title 'Duke of Lancaster' was absorbed into the crown on the accession of Henry V in 1413, and at any rate a monarch can't hold a title from themselves; once they acceed to the throne; they cease to use any lesser titles they used before their accession. Elizabeth II is not 'Duke of Lancaster', nor is she 'Duchess of Lancaster', nor has she ever been, because she can't be. It is not used anywhere in any official capacity either outside or inside Lancashire, Loyal Toasts or no. Also; the title 'Duke of Lancaster' was created by the (English) crown (and yes; it was a 'mere' peerage title, albeit with certain feudal rights pertaining to it; but no less than any other peerage title in existence when it was created) but was not, nor was it ever a sovereign title. Yes; there certainly is a Duchy of Lancaster; but existence of the Duchy (land) does not neccesarily follow that there is a Dukedom (the title), which in this case, there certainly isn't. Oh; and Henry VII was not Duke of Lancaster before 1485; he was Duke of Richmond.


Neither was the title 'Duke of Normandy a sovereign title for that matter. The title of 'Duke of Normandy' has not been used since 1259; when Henry III abandoned it via a peace treaty with the French King. Again; that was a title created by the (French) crown; and the French monarch had at any time the ability and right to confiscate it from the English monarch; who held Normandy as the King of France's feudal inferior, and he had the right to re-confer it too (as various French monarchs indeed did between 1259 and 1792). It was not a sovereign title in any way. It has also not been used officially in any substantial way since 1259 to refer to the English/British monarch in relation to the Channel Islands. Thus; Elizabeth II is neither Duke of Normandy, nor Duke of Lancaster (and at any rate; were she to hold either title, she would be styled Duchess, as that is the proper style for a female peer, seeing as we have an equivalent feminine word for the word 'Duke' in english, English language fans. But she doesn't. It's just one of those oft-quoted 'facts'-even erroneously quoted on the Royal website-that is just not true.)JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Garter[edit]

When she was given the Garter in 1947 Princess Elizabeth was recorded in Whitaker's Almanack as "Lady of the Garter", which was an "extra-ordinary" appointment as she was not entered onto the roll of Knights with a number, as you can see in St George's Hall in Windsor Castle. This was in keeping with the appointments of Queen Alexandra, Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth. However when the charter was changed in 1990 to allow women to be appointed as members (and the first was Lavinia, Duchess of Norfolk) they became Lady Companions of the Garter or LG. This caused a problem since women appointees were know commonly know as Ladies of the Garter. That was situation which could not continue since Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother was in a different category to Baroness Thatcher, so now Whitaker's refers to the Princess Royal and Princess Alexandra as "Ladies of the Order" and to Baroness Thatcher as "Lady Companion". The point is that just saying that Princess Elizabeth held the grade of "Lady" confuses the issue - either say "Lady of the Garter" as it was described in 1947, or say "Lady of the Order" as it is described now. Mithrandir1967 20:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be redundant to describe her as a "Lady of the Garter of the Order of the Garter" or "Lady of the Order of the Order of the Garter" as putting that in the table would do.--Ibagli (Talk) 03:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Queen of Canada?[edit]

I'm not very familiar with all of this, which is why I am reading this page. But something looks odd to me. I don't know for sure, so instead of editing the page, I'm going to put it up here and let someone who knows change it if needed.

Under Titles in Canada, it says,

English: Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith[1] (1953-present)

Should "Queen" be added after "God"? (And a comma after "God" as well then.) And should "United Kingdom" be in there at all?

On a related note, Grenada also has "Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" before listing Grenada, which doesn't match up with the style of all the others listed. 205.245.254.76 (talk) 23:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)Anon[reply]

Those are the official titles. Each country sets the Queen's title independently of the other realms, so there's a bit of inconsistency. You can see the Canadian law which sets the title here.--Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 02:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

German titles[edit]

I am aware that the British royal family stopped using their German titles during WWI. I am curious to know what happened to them. Did they go to German members of the familiy who were eligible to inherit them or did they disapear? I would also like to see a complete list of the titles that were "ignored"/relequished at that time ie the German titles Elizabeth II would have had today. Inge (talk) 14:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The German titles were all just titles of family; so, they didn't go to anybody to inherit them. Complete lists of German titles are rather difficult, as lots of times even German monarchs don't know all of them, and help themselves with an "etc.". German titles are titles in one's own right, or titles of family; the latter does afaik only exist for consorts in the UK, but for all family members in Germany, though the UK seems to know some "titles of courtesy" for sons instead.
Elisabeth I would have been Princess of (or Duchess in?) Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, a state that existed until 1918. Linked to this title, she would have been duchess in (not of) Saxony, landgräfin of Thuringia, and count with princely rank of Henneberg, to name the most important titles. All of that, of course, only titles of family, as Prince Consort Albert, and his first-born son, renounced their rights and made the Duchy of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha sort of a British secundogeniture. I believe she had no right to any titles of the House of Hanover, as they aren't inherited through the female line. Queen Victoria was a Princess of Hanover, and Duchess of Brunswick-Lüneburg, and whatever-else titles were attached to this Kingdom. (The depossession of Hanover in 1866 wouldn't have hindered the titles, though.) --84.154.90.216 (talk) 10:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Queen Elizabeth II wouldn't hold any German titles, as they where governed by Salic Law, which no female could succeed to.

That isn't quite what Salic Law means, granted, she wouldn't have been able to succeed to say, the thrones of Hanover or Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, but as a dynast in the male-line of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, had the British Royal family not renounced their S-C-G titles in 1917, she would have been titled 'Duchess of Saxony, Princess of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha' whilst she was a Princess, as indeed her father George VI and uncle Edward VIII did from birth (albeit the male forms of those titles) from birth until the renunciation of those titles in 1917, as well as her Grandfather George V and great-grandfather Edward VII from their births until their accessions. Contrary to the way it is in the British Isles, all Agnates (that is, male-line family members-both male and female) of most and particularly the German noble Houses share the noble status of the head of the family

However, this issue is doubly moot, not only because those titles were renounced in 1917, but because as Sovereign, any lesser titles she held before her accession become swallowed up and 'eclipsed' if you will by the Royal Style and dignity of being Queen (hence she was no longer 'Duchess of Edinburgh' after her accession) To give a parallel, Queen Victoria was most certainly a Princess of Hanover and Duchess of Brunswick and Luneburg before her accession, but she didn't use those titles in any way after she became Queen.

JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Canadian Land Forces Command Badge.PNG[edit]

Image:Canadian Land Forces Command Badge.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Church of England[edit]

Isn't "Supreme Governor of the Church of England" one as well? Not sure where that fits in, though.195.27.20.35 (talk) 03:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:RCMP logo.gif[edit]

The image Image:RCMP logo.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh[edit]

In the titles part, why just Duchess of Edinburgh? It wouldnt be, The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh? such as other princesses that were also daughters of monarchs such as, The Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll and The Princess Louise, Duchess of Fife or also The Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon, so if thats incorrect, modify their titles too in their articles.189.158.72.39 (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100 %. 74.12.100.150 (talk) 06:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comma[edit]

There is no comma after 'the Grace of God' because to do so would grammatically mean that the Queen is Head of the Commonwealth by the Grace of God as well, which she patently is not. Therefore she is only Queen by the Grace of God, so the title should read, for example, 'Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Australian and Her Other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.38.85 (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commander-in-Chief of Australia[edit]

Section 68 of the Australian Constitution vests the Command-in-Chief of the Australian Military Forces in the Governor-General as the Queen's representative. Therefore, the Queen is not the Commander-in-Chief of Australia's Military. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.38.85 (talk) 22:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Titles she could have held[edit]

Her father was a Prince of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and Duke in Saxony unil 1917, when his family renounced those titles. Philip was Prince of Greece and Denmark until he renounced those titles in 1947. Had there not been so many renunciations, she would've been Princess of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, Princess Greece and Denmark and Duchess in Saxony. Should that be mentioned? Surtsicna (talk) 19:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting to think about, but wouldn't inserting such information be essentially WP:OR? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that it would border OR. One could also argue that she could have been Queen of Ireland and Queen of France had there not been several events. Yet for some reason I believe that mentioning the said princely titles would be less OR than mentioning France and Ireland; perhaps because her grandfather and her husband were not deprived of their princely titles, but decided to renounce them themselves. I don't insist on mentioning the Saxon-Greece-Denmark titles; it's just interesting to think about Her Royal Highness The Princess Elizabeth of the United Kingdom, Greece, Denmark and Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, Duchess in Saxony, etc or HRH Princess Beatrice of York, Greece and Denmark. Surtsicna (talk) 11:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True. Perhaps, then, a brief mention of the fact that she could have held other titles had her grandfather and husband not renounced theirs, without going into too much detail (?). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 11:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly wouldn't oppose that. Surtsicna (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, what do you think about saying that, according to the house laws of the relevant monarchies, Elizabeth has the right to use the titles Princess of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, Duchess in Saxony, and Princess of Greece and Denmark? It should be easy to find a source for that statement. Surtsicna (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

flag of Northern Ireland[edit]

I don't know why i'm being reverted when WP:IMOS FLAGS says thaat 2 of the 3 NI honours are entitled to have it in there. I find it stragely convineient that as soon as I bring it up, O Fenian takes it upon himself to change what's in there, with no consensus to do so. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 21:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a source which states that the UB was the official flag of NI before 1953? Mo ainm~Talk 22:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Queen's titles in 1952[edit]

What was her title in Australia in 1952, or in NZ or Canada for that matter? MrTranscript (talk) 21:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Her title in each and every realm was 'merely' "By the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and her other Realms and Territories; Queen, Defender of the Faith." Starting in 1953, each of the commonwealth realms (with the exception of pakistan) introduced royal titles acts, so, e.g. in Canada, her title became 'Queen of Canada' instead, and so on. JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 02:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orders[edit]

I'm not terribly well versed on the subject of orders, so I hope someone can explain to me why the grade Elizabeth was appointed to is given for some orders, but not others. For example, we have "Grand Commander of the Order of the Niger" and "Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Netherlands Lion", yet also simply "Order of the Supreme Sun" and "Order of the Golden Heart". The latter two (and others like them) make no sense to me; Elizabeth wasn't made the orders, she was made a member of them.

Stranger still are entries that list Elizabeth as being an object - a "Grand Cross in Gold" or a "Grand Collar". Are these really grades of orders, or awards (like medals) that are related to orders (such as the Royal Victorian Medal or the old Medal of Service of the Order of Canada)? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it isn't clear. Some of the orders are obscure or defunct and information on them is thin. DrKay (talk) 10:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the orders might exist only in one grade, with no specific rank like "Grand Commander". Gestumblindi (talk) 00:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Latin in Australia[edit]

A Latin translation of Elizabet's earlier Australian title has been added to the article with the supporting source being a book titled The Constitution of Victoria. I'm curious as to what the author of that work actually says on this subject, given that the The Royal Style and Titles Act, passed by the Australian parliament in 1953, makes no mention of a Latin translation of the title, unlike the law passed and the proclamation issued in the United Kingdom. Is there some law unique to the state of Victoria that used her title in Latin? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. However, the seal of Victoria uses Latin for the Queen's titles. It is possible something similar happens in other states; I really have no idea. The author's comments are purely descriptive of the seal: "There's this seal, here's how it's used, here's what it looks like, and it's really quite absurd". Coins of the Australian pound also made use of Latin titles for the Queen. It seems to me that the fact that it is/has been used officially is sufficient basis for its inclusion in this article, even if there wasn't an Act explicitly stating it. Her contemporary titles have no currency in Latin, so although one could make an appropriate translation I don't think they should be included here. —Felix the Cassowary 17:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Elizabeth's British title is translated in Latin in the very law that dictates what her title in the UK is to be. It should therefore remain. The Latin translation for Australia should go or, at least, be categorised differently; no Australian law gives the Queen a Latin title in Australia, even if it is translated into the language on the Great Seal of Victoria. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your current solution is unworkable. Firstly it disregards the use of Latin titles for the Queen on coins minted by the Commonwealth (i.e. Australian) government—so it is hardly the case that the titles were restricted to just one state. (In any case the notion of a state-based title for the Queen, especially before 1986, is at the very least highly dubious.) Secondly, the unofficial category is filled with titles that quite obviously aren't used by the Queen herself (or her representatives in her name). In other words, the title is used officially, and it is on that basis alone that I find it worth including in this article. Finally, to the best of my knowledge the Queen's British titles are quite irrelevant to this discussion. —Felix the Cassowary 20:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
—Felix the Cassowary 20:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was you who said that Elizabeth's Latin titles had "no currency" and should thus be deleted from this article. As you applied that opinion broadly, the British title in Latin would be affected by the implementation of your proposal. However, as the "Current" and "Former" lists are those of the Queen's titles now and previously accorded to her by law, and in British law her title is given in English and Latin, there's no reason not to show both for the British entry. On the other hand, this Latin translation of the Queen's pre-1973 Australian title on the Great Seal of Victoria is known to us only via a reference to it in a book about the Victorian constitution. There's no law in Australia, either in the national or state jurisdictions, that gives the Queen a title in the Latin language. For that reason alone, it doesn't belong where you put it; as much as the Latin Elizabeth II D.G. Regina on Canadian coins doesn't warrant a place directly under the Canadian flag in the list of her legal titles.
Given that, and your perhaps sound objection to my placement of the Victorian Latin translation in the "Unofficial" section, I've instead placed it in a note (and, inspired by my comment above, did the same for the Latin that appears on Canadian coins). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1990 – : Commander-in-Chief of the New Zealand Defence Force[edit]

This needs a cite. I think it is incorrect personally. The Govt-Gen is Commander-in-chef. Under the Defence Act 1990 it would be more correct to say the Queen is Head of the New Zealand Defence force. Brian | (Talk) 10:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Things named after the Queen[edit]

Looking at this diff, which I reverted, I see that Miesianiacal removed the listing for Queen Elizabeth II Court, Regina, saying Canadian entries have their own article.

This seems bizarre, especially as stadiums, bridges, islands and hospitals around the world are listed. The immediately preceding entry is for Queen Elizabeth II Jubilee Sports Centre in Queensland, and the next is for Queen Elizabeth II Quay in Sierra Leone. Why on earth should Canadian structures named after the Queen be removed from this list? --Pete (talk) 20:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's really more bizarre? Repeating information here that's already available at Royal eponyms in Canada, which is linked at the top of the "Things named after" section here (a terrible heading, BTW), or simply having one list? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just explain what's going on here, please. I'm seeking an answer, not picking a fight. --Pete (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What's going on here? You're insisting that we have duplicate lists. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm doing no such thing. I think a building named Queen Elizabeth II Court, Regina belongs in a list of buildings named after Queen Elizabeth II. It is apparently one of the tallest buildings in Regina, not a bus shelter. It is also commonplace on Wikipedia to have the subjects of articles included on more than one list, if they belong there. --Pete (talk) 00:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, it's not that you want to duplicate the list at Royal eponyms in Canada#Queen Elizabeth II, just mention of Queen Elizabeth II Court in Regina, specifically. Why, then, out of all the buildings, other structures, parks, etc. in Canada named after Elizabeth II, is Queen Elizabeth II Court so special as to be the sole one mentioned both here and at Royal eponyms in Canada#Queen Elizabeth II? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no strong feelings for the building. I was directed to you by GoodDay, who is having a thin time of it here, happened to notice your revert and wondered why you were removing good edits. Is there an explanation forthcoming? --Pete (talk) 00:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The explanation has already been given: The edit I reverted was not a good edit. Now, let me ask you: Do you feel the other structures and geographic locations in Canada named in honour of Queen Elizabeth II should be added to this article? A simple yes or no answer will suffice. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking further into this, I see that the Canadian list you mentioned was begun - by you - in mid 2009, and that this article at that time featured a whole bunch of Canadian buildings, including Queen Elizabeth II Court, Regina. There were even images of Canadian things named after the Queen. Some days later you deleted all the Canadian entries from the list. On checking the talk page, I find that this was done without any discussion or consensus. Could you please explain why you did this and why you feel that Canadian structures should be treated differently to (say) a hospital in Queensland or a park in Christchurch? --Pete (talk) 01:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Acting on the advice at the head of the section (This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it.) I've added some significant Canadian buildings named after the Queen. As per another article on monuments, the reader is directed to the Canadian list "for further information". I personally see no problem with having items on multiple lists or within several categories, so long as they are appropriate inclusions. The building you objected to - Queen Elizabeth II Court, Regina - is a member of four relevant categories. City and town halls in Canada, for example. --Pete (talk) 02:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I note you failed to answer my question. Regardless, it seems you might not be all that familiar with Wikipedia's rules and guidelines.
First is WP:BRD: I don't need to seek consensus before I make an edit; I may be bold and, if my edit is not contested, it remains and the article continues to evolve. If, however, one makes an edit and is soon after reverted, the editor reverted should then seek consensus for the edit they wish to make. Right now, that reverted editor is you, since my edit of 2009, being more than two years old, is now the accepted version and yours is not.
Second is WP:BETTER#SIZE: It's common practice to split sections of bigger articles off into sister articles and link from the former to the latter. That is precisely what I did in 2009; not just for this page, but for the other pages listing royal titles and honours of other members of the Royal Family, past and present. One can still see the link to Royal eponyms in Canada at the head of the section on eponyms of Elizabeth II in this article. (Though, the list of Canadian royal eponyms has itself grown since that time.) There's no feeling on my part that Canada needs to be treated specially. If you feel there's enough information to warrant an article on Royal eponyms in Australia, feel free to create it. That would be much more productive and logical than increasing the size of this article again by placing here information that is a duplicate of what already exists elsewhere. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... I think I see now why there was some confusion as to why I deleted the one entry of Queen Elizabeth II Court: When I did so, I did not realise that there were already other Canadian entries in the list of "Things named for Elizabeth II". It's not that I have anything in particular against the building; I only thought it was a lone Canadian entry placed into the section. I apologise for the puzzlement caused by my assumption.
However, my argument against the inclusion of Queen Elizabeth II Court stands and now expands to include all the other Canadian buildings and geographic areas/sites that have crept their way back into this article again. They should go because they're duplicates of what's included in a sister article linked to from the head of the aforementioned section of this page. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
it seems you might not be all that familiar with Wikipedia's rules and guidelines.. Right. Look, Mies, if you don't deal with other editors in good faith, how can you expect them to respond? With snarky little personal attacks like that? I responded to your question above by adding a bunch of Canadian structures to the list. I can't see any good reason for removing just the Canadian examples. It would make more sense to divide them by category such as monuments, schools, geographic features and so on. Or have just one article: Things named after the Queen. You know, something that doesn't strike the reader as weird and puzzling. You still haven't explained why you pulled out just the Canadian items. If you wanted other lists for Australia, Guernsey and so on, why not ask on the talk page? You might have got some guidance from other editors. Just because you got away with something for two years doesn't make it right. Anyway, we're having this discussion now. I think you were wrong at the time and I think you are still wrong. --Pete (talk) 04:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite a stretch to equate a suggestion of unfamiliarity with policy and guideline with personal attack; please don't overdramatise. Also, please pay attention to what I'm writing: I explained (at least twice) already why I moved the Canada-related information. I said already why I didn't, and didn't at all need to, "ask" permission before making a bold edit. I never said I wanted any separate Australian or Guernsey list.
Could you please elaborate on what confusion would be caused by having the Canadian eponymous places only at Royal eponyms in Canada#Queen Elizabeth II and a link there from the top of List of titles and honours of Queen Elizabeth II#Things named for Elizabeth II? How might a reader be baffled or misled? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I ask you not to make personal attacks. That doesn't help. I have carefully read your remarks and no explanation has been provided as to why you removed Canadian items only. I'm still in the dark on that. As you suggest that I should remove the Australian items, perhaps you did it based on your nationality. I don't know and you won't say. You say "There's no feeling on my part that Canada needs to be treated specially", but as I have demonstrated above, that's precisely what you did. I think that a reader looking at your instruction that "Further information" would be found at another article would naturally expect this "further information" to expand on items already here in the list, rather than be material deliberately excised from it. That's confusing and is not common practice. We strive to present information clearly, not hide it away in odd places. --Pete (talk) 06:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see no personal attacks in Mies's last three posts. Such accusations are not going to help resolve your disagreement. DrKay (talk) 08:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Royal eponyms in Canada#Queen Elizabeth II expands on the list here of places named for Elizabeth II. That is in the spirit of WP:BETTER#SIZE and is thus common practice. That guideline asks for a summary at the parent article along with a link to the daughter article; however, that can't be done with lists, since it's basically impossible to summarise a list without getting into disputes over the subjective choice of which items to include in the summary and which to leave out. You keep asserting that it's confusing, but don't explain how; I do not see it as such and cannot understand why you do. What do you want done, keeping in mind that it's poor form, in general, to have needless repetition? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication[edit]

Miesianiacal placed a note within the article (reproduced here:)

So far he hasn't specifically addressed this action. So I will. Looking at the content guideline, summary-style spin-offs are approved, POV forks are not. Miesianiacal's complaint about duplication stems from the fact that another editor inserted a Canadian government building into the list of buildings named after the Queen. Miesianiacal reverted it, later calling it a bad edit. It looked good to me, and I checked with the editor to confirm this. Miesianiacal reverted me as well, making two reverts, before inserting the template we are now discussing. In the meantime, I looked through the edit history, discovering that there had originally been more structures in the list, but that in 2009 Miesianiacal had pulled out the Canadian ones and made a separate article, presumably in line with his perception of a summary style spin-off from an already long list.

At this point I should note that I am not against removing the list of things named after the Queen from this article dealing with titles and honours, but I don't think that Miesianiacal has gone about it the correct way. I would preserve the existing structure of the list and create sub articles:

  • Awards named for Queen Elizabeth
  • Geographic locations named after Queen Elizabeth
  • Structures named after Queen Elizabeth
    • Monuments of or named after Queen Elizabeth
    • Hospitals named after Queen Elizabeth
    • Schools named after Queen Elizabeth
    • Roads or streets named after Queen Elizabeth

I would not divide them along national lines. Seems to me that the unifying elements that make them into a list, hence justifying their current inclusion in this article, are that they are things named after Queen Elizabeth, and that they are distinct types of things - schools, monuments etc. Miesianiacal did not seek approval or give notice at the time of his action in 2009 so that a consensus plan could be formed, he just pulled out all Canadian items.

Wikipedia, or at least the portion that Miesianiacal regularly edits, appears to be turning into a Royal Tour of the Kingdom of Canada, and it is along these lines that I see Miesianiacal's removal of Canadian objects alone as being more like a POV fork. A good housecleaning Wikipedian would, if he were dividing this list into sub articles along national lines, have also made articles for the other nations home to things named after the Queen, rather than leaving them alone for two years, possibly for other editors to make sub-articles, depending on their own nationality, which appears to be Mies's preference.

The guideline above refers to naming and linking of articles, and Miesianiacal moved the Canadian subset of structures named after Queen Elizabeth into an article where there are fifty sections, each listing things named after various royal personages of various nations throughout history. He called this article Royal eponyms in Canada and linked to it with the direction "Further information".

I don't see this as being clear to a reader. The name is opaque - if a schoolchild comes here looking for things named after the Queen, just what are they going to think a "Royal eponym" is? - and the direction misleading, implying that one might find further information on the articles already in the list, when the precise opposite is the case. Furthermore, the article is not a subset of what is here already, as the summary-style spin-off article envisioned by the guideline Miesianiacal calls upon envisages, it is a whole different article, of far wider scope and far longer than the information excised from this list.

As noted, I am not against dividing long articles into smaller ones. But I feel that best Wikipractice requires the following:

  • It be done with consensus, or at the very least notification to other editors,
  • the material should be a sub-article, not a section of some entirely different article,
  • the title of the new sub-article should reflect the contents,
  • the links within the parent article should clearly and accurately direct the reader,
  • all of the similar material should be moved into a series of sub-articles, rather than leaving some in the parent article, and
  • the action should not be done to further a specific point of view or agenda.

Miesianiacal has inserted a duplicate note in our article, but the material he claims is duplicated is not found within the summary style spin-off article required by the guideline.

It is like having a list of (say) Shakespeare's plays, removing any set in Italy to another article titled Plays set in Italy, where plays from forty-nine other playwrights are also listed, and then complaining when someone in good faith re-inserts Merchant of Venice into the list of Shakespeare's plays, saying that the material is duplicated elsewhere and does not belong in the list.

I think that a list of Things named for Elizabeth II should contain *all* of those things. After all, it is just a list of things - we are not duplicating long descriptions of buildings or maps of roads or photographs of monuments. --Pete (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Putting aside all the inaccuracies and misrepresentations in the above and focusing on duplication: There are currently entries in the section List of titles and honours of Queen Elizabeth II#Things named for Elizabeth II that are duplicates of entries in the section Royal eponyms in Canada#Queen Elizabeth II. That should not be the case; the entries should be at one place or another. The first question that needs answered, therefore, is: should all structures and locations named for Elizabeth II be listed in this article or in another article or articles? My opinion is that the latter is best, since this page is already broad in scope and legibly long without even having yet collected all the information out there that falls within its focus. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's fields are broad enough for both. There is no problem with adding your own articles and lists, but please don't take away from what we already have. A list of things named after the Queen should contain the whole list, for the convenience of our readers, and it should be in the place where readers are most likely to look for it, not fragmented and hidden away. --Pete (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please directly and less cryptically answer the question put to you? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both, or as many as is required. Why did you pull out only Canadian structures from a list of structures named after the Queen? --Pete (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then do so, please. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I'd have to say that communication has faltered, if not sputtered. I've called for sage assistance here. --Pete (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that does seem necessary at this point. Thank you. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting things off[edit]

In line with WP:SS, and as noted above, I'd like to propose that the "Things named after Queen Elizabeth" should be split off as a distinct summary list article. Buildings and roads and monuments aren't really the "titles and honours" one would expect. An honour to have something named after you, to be sure, and if anybody wants to lay down a Skyring Boulevard in some iconic global city, I'd count that an honour, but I think we can pull out all the things, and leave the intangibles here. And thanks for Miesaniacal for bringing this up. Oh yeah. If we make a new article, it should include all the buildings, roads, bridges and concrete things named after the Queen. --Pete (talk) 05:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And what do you suggest be done with Royal eponyms in Canada#Queen Elizabeth II? ("Things named after Queen Elizabeth II is a terrible article title, BTW.) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the now pointless link. I propose using the long-standing section title "Things named for Elizabeth II" for the new list, in accordance with MOS guidelines. Perhaps "Things named for Queen Elizabeth II" would be better for a stand-alone list. We need to consider readers at all levels, from school-children up. I also intend waiting for views of regular contributors to this article, as creating a new article is best discussed before being bold, given the difficulty of reversion. --Pete (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the link since it is not at all superfluous (not yet, anyway). Please answer my question. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I provided the answer. Nothing. Nothing needs to be done with Royal eponyms in Canada except maybe find a more accessible title. It does not need to be linked to from here, because all the relevant items are already included in this complete list. There is no "further information" to be found there on the items we already list, and the other "royal eponyms" are doubly irrelevant because they are restricted to Canadian items alone, and are named after forty-nine other royal persons. --Pete (talk) 01:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sage advice has been given here, and we should think about what selection criteria to use for a standalone list. "Things named for Queen Elizabeth II" is not really specific enough to include structures and roads, but exclude immaterial items such as prizes and awards and scholarships, unless we want them, leaving this article to list the titles and honours personally belonging to the Queen, and a new article to list things not actually belonging to the Queen but named for her. In any case, I see no good reason to exclude Canadian things from such a list. --Pete (talk) 10:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If Royal eponyms in Canada#Queen Elizabeth II is to be left as is, please explain the rationale behind your desire to have duplicate information in two separate places. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is full of items that appear on multiple lists. The Ford Mustang appears on List of Ford vehicles, Ford bestselling models, List of Ford platforms, List of cars manufactured in the United States, List of 2008 United States EPA fuel economy ratings, List of Trans-Am Series marques, List of automobile sales by model, List of James Bond vehicles, List of Bathurst 1000 vehicles, List of badge engineered vehicles and more or less marginal inclusion in other lists, categories and compendium articles far too numerous to list. We could have a list of such lists, and I have no doubt that it would be well maintained by Mustang fans. I draw your attention to List of hospitals in Canada, especially the three named after the Queen. I'm interested as to why you support a radical move against such a well-entrenched wikipractice of putting things in as many appropriate lists as possible. But I'd prefer you address my proposal instead. So far I see no objections raised. --Pete (talk) 21:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We're not talking about one item being included in multiple lists; you're proposing that 68 items and counting be repeated twice in two different lists. Why? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the list of things, leaving the titles and honours, as per other similar "titles and honours" articles. It can be found at List of things named for Queen Elizabeth II. There may be some gnomework required to square all the details away. Miesaniacal, you're the only editor who has expressed any opposition in a week or more of discussion about this list, and I've checked elsewhere and found no support for your objections, which appear to contradict the Manual of Style. If you have any serious objection, could you please quote the precise policy and guidelines on which you rely? --Pete (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do you expect me to respond to this? You seem to have confused me with some other person you're engaged in debate with. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flags[edit]

Jesus Christ -- I don't think I've seen quite as blatant an example of flag misuse as this article in ages. Can we take a baby step at bringing this in line with MOS:FLAG and remove flags for non-national entities? This means eg. the military flags in "Honorary military positions". Jpatokal (talk) 12:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification requested[edit]

I would likee this or a similar edit reinstated. The number one reason people view this page is to find the long, fancy form of her style which appears to be lacking from Queen Elizabeth II. I understand that this differs between realms, so we have to point people to the list below. Readers will be – and both I and a friend were – confused by the full style given first, which is the old one. Nothing about the sentence "Officially, her style and title in full was Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas Queen, Defender of the Faith." indicates that this is no longer the case. The proposal is for a measly two or three words, thus removing this problem without any additional difficulties. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I reverted was that the addition was superfluous and renders the text less concise; the word immediately following is was, which in context (i.e. immediately following the reference to her accession) seems reasonably clear to be referring to the situation at the time of the accession as opposed to now. (Even if you add at accession, that doesn't actually state that it's changed any more than the current wording does.) The following sentence references the situation at the coronation, while the next paragraph then immediately references the '53 conference and the agreement on new, separate titles. - Chrism would like to hear from you 16:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like the new wording though. - Chrism would like to hear from you 19:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Patroness[edit]

Should this article mention that she is Royal Patroness of Queens' College, Cambridge? jftsang 07:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereign of any of the Orders in any of the former commonwealth realms?[edit]

Does anyone know if she was Sovereign of any of the Orders in any of the commonwealth realms that are now republics?JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 02:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-Is that a no? haha.

93.93.219.250 (talk) 18:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Er, anyone?!?JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 14:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Lady[edit]

Is she really called “Queen Lady” in Jamaican Patois? Missis Queen I can find other cites for, but—like did the BBC get it from the Daily Mail, or did the Daily Mail get it from the BBC? I can’t find any other sources for this, and I don’t consider either of those particularly reliable on matters such as these. —Wiki Wikardo 08:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are more than enough reliable sources there now. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*sigh* They’re the exact same sources as were there before; plus a book that got it from whichever newspaper. —Wiki Wikardo 01:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my bad—it was the BBC reference up there before; you put the Daily Mail one. But, as I previously stated, those are the same story and one news source likely got it from the other, as is common in newspapers. —Wiki Wikardo 01:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Style infobox[edit]

I would like to see the return of the Royal Syle infobox on all Royal pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.67.141.248 (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of titles and honours of Queen Elizabeth II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She has a new medal[edit]

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/the-queen-and-duke-of-edinburgh-receive-long-service-and-good-conduct-medals

Not sure how to add this?

BSc600 (talk) 13:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen just awarded a medal to herself? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 14:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No BSc600 (talk) 01:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Really? In whose name are the medals issued, then? Who's effigy is on the medals to indicate the authority who awards them? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on List of titles and honours of Queen Elizabeth II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lord of Mann[edit]

Why is Lord of Mann called unofficial? Isn't it the correct title? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its not. The Queen can hold no titles from herself. Garlicplanting (talk) 10:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yesss...but the Isle of Man is outside the UK.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 10:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neither here nor there. The Queen is Sovereign of both and still can't hold titles from herself.Garlicplanting (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on List of titles and honours of Queen Elizabeth II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of titles and honours of Queen Elizabeth II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of titles and honours of Queen Elizabeth II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Diamond Jubilee of Queen Elizabeth II which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:02, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

removal of alternative style "Ma'am"[edit]

Does everyone agree with the recent removal of the alternative style "Ma'am"? I think that this should remain, being as it has a very long tradition behind it. But I will abide by the consensus. --L.Smithfield (talk) 04:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Queen of South Africa[edit]

Wasn't she Queen of South Africa until 1961? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3001:600:4A00:AD6F:CE2B:BF3F:C6FB (talk) 16:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It's listed in the "Former" section. DrKay (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unofficial[edit]

I think this section should be removed. We don't list unofficial awards at other celebrities' articles, and the section has become a dustbin of newspaper headlines that includes puns, jokes and descriptions of her role. DrKay (talk) 11:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've already commented on this section on User:Peter Ormond's talk page. I don't think the section needs to be removed, but it needs to make a clear distinction between titles and nicknames. People in certain places might have special titles they like to use to address the Queen, and those are reasonable to list as "royal titles" even if the Queen herself does not usually use them. But one would never address the Queen by using a nickname like The World's Sweetheart: that is not a "royal title" in any way. I'd suggest listing such nicknames in a standalone section at the very end of this article. Cobblet (talk) 18:10, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cobblet: Hope that now it looks fine. Peter Ormond 💬 19:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking steps to address these concerns. List of traditional titles borne by the Heads of State of Nigeria says Oba Obirin ti Ile Nigeria is simply the Yoruba translation of Queen of Nigeria, while you write in the latter article that it's a colloquialism. The beginning of the video you've cited gives only oba obirin, and implies ("or in its own language") that it's a translation. Maybe I missed something since I didn't watch the entire video, but if it's just a translation, it should be removed, as Queen of Nigeria is already listed as a former regnal title.
Also, does it actually make sense to ascribe dates to any of the nicknames, or sobriquets as you've called them? For instance, I'd be surprised if any of your sources suggest that 事頭婆 was used in 1952. I'd remove that column if there are similar issues with most of the others. Cobblet (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cobblet: I removed that column in the Sobriquets section and changed Oba Obirin ti Ile Nigeria to just Oba Obirin, as it appears in the source. I don't think Oba Obirin ti Ile Nigeria was the official translation of the title Queen of Nigeria, as it is not explicitly mentioned in any source. The Pathe reel is of the Queen's 1956 Nigeria tour, when she hadn't become the Queen of Nigeria yet. So, Oba Obirin may just be an unofficial title for her. Futher discussions can be held with User:O.ominirabluejack at User talk:O.ominirabluejack#Greetings!, regarding the Yoruba translation at List of traditional titles borne by the Heads of State of Nigeria. Peter Ormond 💬 21:22, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Digging into this a little more deeply, several articles on JSTOR give the term oba obinrin. Now O. or someone else may know if the difference in spelling creates any difference in meaning, but if not, then from those articles, it seems that this was not a title given specifically to Elizabeth II like the other ones you list, but simply the Yoruba term for any female ruler, i.e., a translation of "queen". What do you think? Cobblet (talk) 23:11, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @User:O.ominirabluejack who may know a lot better. Peter Ormond 💬 23:45, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Cobblet and Peter Ormond.
Thank you for drawing my attention to this. I admit that I am far from an expert where my ancestral language is concerned, but I can at least comment on this with a fair amount of authority. Oba Obirin and Oba Obinrin are actually the same title, and translate roughly to the English Queen Regnant. Elizabeth II is not the only holder of the title; the few queens regnant that my tribe has produced were known by the same title. It is also one of the subsidiary titles of the holders of the Iyalode chieftaincy title, in that sense meaning 'ruler of the women'.
Hope this helps.
O.ominirabluejack (talk) 12:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Given it is a generic term for queens regnant in Yoruba, I have removed it from the list. Cobblet (talk) 21:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Present title[edit]

Elizabeth II is still the Queen. As per the Royal website, Elizabeth II is still referred to as Her Majesty the Queen. The British public refer to her as the Queen and the King's wife has another title, Queen Consort, in order so Elizabeth II can continue being the queen. Likewise, her mother was called the Queen Mother during her reign. She may no longer be monarch as she sadly passed away on 8 September 2022, but she is still the Queen. The title should read : Her Majesty The Queen: 06 February 1952 - present. 2A00:23C7:6482:AA01:29:DE7C:931A:C407 (talk) 06:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

she ceased being "The Queen" upon her death. Even though Queen Camilla was known as "Queen Consort", from the moment of Her husband's ascension she is The Queen Joddd334 (talk) 09:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Needs an explanation of the “The”[edit]

In 1936, until she became Queen, she went from simply “Princess” to “The Princess”. I assume this is because she had gone from 3rd-in-line to heir presumptive. However, this article gives NO such explanation for that change.

The addition of the “The”, whether this was a typical styling for heir presumptived, etc. should be explained in this article. Currently, zero explanation is given. SecretName101 (talk) 02:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the definitive article of 'The' proceedings a princely title declares the individual as a child of a monarch. So Prince William is HRH The Prince William, Prince of Wales as child of The King, likewise Princess Margaret was HRH The Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon until her death, although not child of the current monarch, she was the child of a former monarch Joddd334 (talk) 09:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_titles_and_honours_of_Elizabeth_II&oldid=1203211296"