Wikipedia - User contributions [en]

Template talk:British royal family

2007-11-24T23:10:24Z

76.16.73.77: /* Grandchildren of George V? */ new section

Camilla Parker Bowles shouldn't be on the template until after the wedding. She is not now a member of the royal familly. ([[User:Alphaboi867|Alphaboi867]] 05:36, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC))

==Diana and Sarah==

Shouldn't Diana, [[Princess of Wales]] and [[Sarah, Duchess of York]] be on here? They are the mothers of the 2nd and 3rd (Diana), and 5th and 6th (Sarah)

Hence the note "as of April x 2005". [[User:AndyL|AndyL]] 13:26, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:I've removed Camilla - she can go back on 8 April, no sooner, [[User:Jguk|jguk]] 20:38, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Personally, i don't think she should be on at all! She is to blame for many problems within the family, however she is a member of the royal family, much against our own wishes !!

==Styles->Interesting Info==
The styles can be provided in each of the relevant biographical entries, there is absolutely no cause to be prefixing on other pages through a template. [[User:Whig|Whig]] 18:53, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

== Protected. ==
This style dispute has spilled over from [[Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom]] and elsewhere. Enough, already. — [[User:Rdsmith4|Dan]] | [[User talk:Rdsmith4|Talk]] 19:10, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
:This is not so much a "spill over" as it is '''part''' of the [[Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom]] page, as this template is transcluded into that article, and Jguk has respected the edits I've made to try to restore NPOV. This protection is improper, no request for protection was made, there is no debate or discussion here on the Talk page, just the unilateral action of one sysop. [[User:Whig|Whig]] 03:23, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
::Right. Sysops are empowered to protect pages to stop or prevent edit wars, and no request is necessary. Discuss here, make a decision, and I or some other admin will unprotect it. — [[User:Rdsmith4|Dan]] | [[User talk:Rdsmith4|Talk]] 03:35, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

The use of abbreviated prefix styles conveys no information here that cannot be ascertained from the biographical articles themselves; and do not in fact give important disambiguating information since practically everyone on this list is simply designated as '''HRH''' (except for the queen and those designated "Lady So-and-So"). The maintenance of this stylistic flourish is especially improper because of its transclusion into articles which are substantially NPOV contested to begin with, and this is a barrier to resolution. Please unprotect. [[User:Whig|Whig]] 04:22, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

There are various different styles in royal families, and therefore it is necessary to use them to give the reader an idea of rank, and origin. eg HRH signifies the highest royal rank, whereas HH is a lower style. Using styles in articles about royality can never be a POV, since it is common for people to refer to royals with their appropiate style, and it is established to be part of their "legal name". [[User:Astrotrain|Astrotrain]] 19:00, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

:Astrotrain, the relevant biographical entries provide the styles, and in the Template here there are no "HH's", just "HM" for the Queen and "HRH" for everyone else except "Lady". So there is no point to this. [[User:Whig|Whig]] 20:58, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

* The styles can be provided here as well, and it seems like no-one agrees with you on the matter. This is a template for royal articles therefore it is important that the full style of the members are listed. [[User:Astrotrain|Astrotrain]] 22:14, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

*:Astrotrain, with all due respect, this has been a long-running discussion covering many weeks, and we're just getting to a point of working out our differences and resolving the NPOV dispute on the [[Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom]] article. There hasn't been a lot of discussion on the template page here (just you and me, really), but I think you've missed the broader context, and I don't want to rehash everything here. The transclusion of this template into the Elizabeth article makes it more appropriate we discuss it there than here, really, and this falls into the larger subject of the [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)]], the related Talk page, the [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles|survey]] and its related discussion, and quite a bit more. The fact that [[User:Jguk|jguk]] is supporting my edits in the Elizabeth article is substantial progress towards resolution, and I hope you will try to work with the rest of us to settle things. [[User:Whig|Whig]] 02:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

*::I agree with Astrotrain here. We should certainly use styles where they would be used normally and where it is useful to do so. I have always said that we shouldn't go out of our way to overuse them, but that isn't the case here, [[User:Jguk|jguk]] 05:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

== Indentation ==

I was wondering if this list should be indented to show the generations, as can be seen in other royal family lists.

The benefit of this is to break up the list, mainly to make it easier to read.

For example:

{| class="toccolours" style="float:right; margin: 0 0 1em 1em; font-size: 95%; width: 20em;"
|+ style="font-size: larger; margin-left: inherit;"|<big>'''[[British Royal Family]]'''</big>
|-
| style="text-align: center;"| [[:Image:UK Royal Coat of Arms.png]]
|-
|
*[[Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom|HM The Queen]]
*[[Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh|HRH The Duke of Edinburgh]]
**[[Charles, Prince of Wales|HRH The Prince of Wales]]
**[[Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall|HRH The Duchess of Cornwall]]
***[[Prince William of Wales|HRH Prince William of Wales]]
***[[Prince Harry of Wales|HRH Prince Harry of Wales]]
**[[Prince Andrew, Duke of York|HRH The Duke of York]]
***[[Princess Beatrice of York|HRH Princess Beatrice of York]]
***[[Princess Eugenie of York|HRH Princess Eugenie of York]]
**[[Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex|HRH The Earl of Wessex]]
**[[Sophie, Countess of Wessex|HRH The Countess of Wessex]]
***[[Lady Louise Windsor]]
**[[Anne, Princess Royal|HRH The Princess Royal]]
*[[Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester|HRH The Duke of Gloucester]]
*[[Birgitte, Duchess of Gloucester|HRH The Duchess of Gloucester]]
*[[Prince Edward, Duke of Kent|HRH The Duke of Kent]]
*[[Katharine, Duchess of Kent|HRH The Duchess of Kent]]
*[[Prince Michael of Kent|HRH Prince Michael of Kent]]
*[[Princess Michael of Kent|HRH Princess Michael of Kent]]
*[[Princess Alexandra of Kent|HRH Princess Alexandra]]
|}
I would appreciate any thoughts. [[User:Rascalb|Rascalb]] 02:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it should be indented, and it '''was indented''', but someone keeps changing it!![[User:Cooldoug111|Mac Domhnaill]]

* The list is in order of precedence, not by generation. It can only work as you suggest, if the monarch is the first generation. Consider if say [[Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester]] were still alive, she would be a generation above the Queen, but this could not be shown logically by your indents. The same will also be true if the Queen is succeded by Charles who will be a generation below the Kents and Gloucesters. [[User:Astrotrain|Astrotrain]] 23:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

** That version also suggests William and Harry are the children of Camilla (as pointed out by a user previously) [[User:Astrotrain|Astrotrain]] 20:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

*** Couldn't Camilla be put underneath William and Harry? [[User:207.90.94.104|207.90.94.104]] 18:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
::: I think that if you did that, it would look like Camilla is the daughter of the Queen and married to Prince Andrew. [[User:Rascalb|Rascalb]] 22:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

== Royal Arms in templates ==

As detailed by OPSI (previously HMSO) in all [http://www.opsi.gov.uk/about/copyright-notice.htm copyright notices] issued, while the Royal Arms are covered by Crown Copyright, they are '''not''' to be considered free use, and can only be used with Fair Use/Dealing rationales. As such, the Royal Arms should never be placed in templates or onto user pages as discussed at [[Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy]]. Inclusions of this template make up about a fair number of the remaining file links on [[:Image:UK Royal Coat of Arms.png]], and while it should probably be removed, I'm loathe to turn the template into a plain bordered box. So does anyone have any ideas as to what image to replace the Arms with, or any serious rationale as to why it should be included other than "it's pretty" or the equivalent? [[User:GeeJo|GeeJo]] [[User talk:GeeJo|(t)]]⁄[[Special:Contributions/GeeJo|(c)]] • 07:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

* The arms have not been sourced from the OPSI- they are the copyright of whoever drew them. [[User:Astrotrain|Astrotrain]] 18:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
:No, they're not. See [[Crown Copyright]]. The Royal Arms are covered by the licence, and will be until at least 2040. The exact wording of the licence is:
::''"The material featured on this site is subject to Crown copyright protection unless otherwise indicated. The Crown copyright protected material ('''other than the Royal Arms and departmental or agency logos''') may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium provided it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. Where any of the Crown copyright items on this site are being republished or copied to others, the source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged." [[User:GeeJo|GeeJo]] [[User talk:GeeJo|(t)]]⁄[[Special:Contributions/GeeJo|(c)]] • 19:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
: Yes, I assume that applies to the image actually on the page- but according to the coat of arms tag- "Representations of coats of arms are subject to copyright as original works of art and do not fall under Bridgeman Art Library Ltd. v. Corel Corporation's purview as they are not representations of two-dimensional works of art."- so if they are redrawn by someone, they can be used freely. [[User:Astrotrain|Astrotrain]] 19:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
::That's true, and if a Wikipedia user took it upon themselves to create their own representation of it, it would be freely usable in any and all templates. Unfortunately, noone yet has — this image was uploaded by [[User:Boffin]] without any statement on the source, so we have to assume it's from a regular government department, and the only thing that's been done to it since then has been a conversion to a PNG with transparancy instead of whitespace. That alone isn't enough to constitute an original piece. [[User:GeeJo|GeeJo]] [[User talk:GeeJo|(t)]]⁄[[Special:Contributions/GeeJo|(c)]] • 21:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
:::This particular image is from [http://www.flags.net/ Graham Bartram's website] and he has allowed use of his images on Wikipedia. [[User:Craigy144|Craigy]] ([[User_talk:Craigy144|talk]]) 21:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
:::: I had suspected it was from Graham's work. It is clearly not from a government website (as they don't use the full royal arms), and the royal.gov.uk website never has any particular high quality arms. [[User:Astrotrain|Astrotrain]] 21:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
:::::Alright, so that qualifies the image for {{tl|Withpermission}} (or more specifically {{tl|Flags.net}}.) But unless Graham's released it under a free license, rather than just permission specific to Wikipedia, the fact remains that this is a non-free image, and shouldn't be used in templates. [[User:GeeJo|GeeJo]] [[User talk:GeeJo|(t)]]⁄[[Special:Contributions/GeeJo|(c)]] • 21:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
::::::Fair enough. But that's a different kettle of fish and I suggest you take that up elsewhere seeing as we're detracting from your main argument and we've established that this image clearly isn't from OPSI - [[WP:PUI]] might be a good place to start. [[User:Craigy144|Craigy]] ([[User_talk:Craigy144|talk]]) 21:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
(enough indenting) No, my main argument wasn't that the Royal Arms was from OPSI (I only highlighted that to show that the Arms weren't free use under crown copyright), but rather that the use of the image is only covered by fair use guidelines, and as per [[Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy|Wikipedia's Fair Use policy]], fair use images shouldnt be on '''templates''' such as this one. Noone has actually addressed that point yet, and we've gotten sidetracked into a discussion of copyright ownership. I'm not calling for the image to be removed from the site entirely, and never have been. The image should be retained for use on specific articles, such as [[Royal Arms of the United Kingdom]]. [[User:GeeJo|GeeJo]] [[User talk:GeeJo|(t)]]⁄[[Special:Contributions/GeeJo|(c)]] • 00:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
:OK. Maybe we could use [http://vector-images.com/image.php?epsid=320 this image] with [[:Template:Vector-Images.com|this template]] for the templates? It's not as good, but I guess it would get round the copyright problems. [[User:Craigy144|Craigy]] ([[User_talk:Craigy144|talk]]) 20:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

== Diana and Sarah - Take two ==

I do not believe that [[Diana, Princess of Wales|Diana]] and [[Sarah, Duchess of York|Sarah]] should be included on the template. Even if the royal family says that Diana was still part of the family after her divorce, she is now deceased. Should we keep [[Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon|The Queen Mother]] on the template? As for Sarah, she is still alive, but until there is word form the RF about her status, she should stay off template. [[User:Prsgoddess187|Prsgodd]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]][[User:Prsgoddess187|ss187]] 18:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

== This template seems to cover the same ground as [[Template:House of Windsor]] ==

At a quick glance that template seems to be more comprehensive and flexible, in some ways. Maybe the two could be merged in some way ? --[[User:Richardb43|Richardb43]] 14:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

* No- the Royal Family template includes consorts such as the Duke of Edinburgh or the Duchess of Kent, who cannot be in the HOW template. The RF template goes on the article of living royals, and the house template for deceased royals [[User:Astrotrain|Astrotrain]] 14:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

== Grandchildren of George V? ==

Why have the Gloucesters, Kents, P/Pr Michael, and Princess Alexandra been removed? They're certainly still members of the royal family!

Gerhard Ertl

2007-10-30T02:36:15Z

76.16.73.77: Reverted vandalism

{{Infobox_Scientist
|name = Prof. Dr. Gerhard Ertl
|image = Prof Ertl-Portrait.jpg
|birth_date = {{birth date and age|1936|10|10}}
|birth_place = [[Bad Cannstatt|Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt]], [[Baden-Württemberg]], [[Germany]]
|residence = [[Germany]]
|nationality = {{flag|Germany}}
|death_date =
|death_place =
|field = [[Surface chemistry]]
|work_institution = [[Leibniz University Hannover|Technical University of Hannover]], [[Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich]], [[Technical University of Munich]], [[Free University of Berlin]], [[Technical University of Berlin]], [[Fritz Haber Institute of the MPG]], [[Humboldt University of Berlin]]
|alma_mater = [[University of Stuttgart]], [[Technical University of Munich]]
|doctoral_advisor = [[Heinz Gerischer]]
|known_for = [[Surface chemistry]]
|prizes = [[Wolf Prize in Chemistry]] (1998) [[Image:Nobel prize medal.svg|20px]] [[Nobel Prize in Chemistry]] (2007)
|religion =
|footnotes =
}}'''Gerhard Ertl''' (born {{birth date|1936|10|10}} in [[Stuttgart]]) is a [[Germany|German]] [[physicist]] and a Professor [[emeritus]] at the Department of Physical Chemistry, [[Fritz Haber Institute of the MPG|Fritz-Haber-Institut der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft]] in [[Berlin]], [[Germany]]. He won the 2007 [[Nobel Prize in Chemistry]].

== Education ==
From 1955 to 1957, he studied physics at the [[University of Stuttgart|Technical University of Stuttgart]] and then at the [[University of Paris]] (1957-1958) and [[Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich|Ludwig Maximilians University]] in [[Munich]] (1958-1959). He completed his [[Diplom]] in Physics (equivalent to a Masters degree) at the Technical University of Stuttgart in 1961, followed his thesis advisor [[Heinz Gerischer]] from the [[Max Planck Institute for Metals Research]] in Stuttgart to Munich and received his PhD from the [[Technical University of Munich]] in 1965.

== Academic career ==
After completing his PhD, he became an assistant and lecturer at [[Technical University of Munich]] (1965-1968). From 1968 to 1973, he was Professor and Director at [[Leibniz University Hannover|Technical University of Hannover]]. Then, he became a Professor at Institute for Physical Chemistry, [[Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich]] (1973-1986). During the 1970s and 80s, he was also a Visiting Professor at the [[California Institute of Technology]], the [[University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee]] and the [[University of California, Berkeley]].
In 1986 he became professor at the [[Free University of Berlin]] and at the [[Technical University of Berlin]]. He was director at the [[Fritz Haber Institute of the MPG]] from 1986 till his retirement in 2004. He became professor at the [[Humboldt University of Berlin]] in 1996.<ref>{{cite journal
| author= H.-J. Freund and H. Knözinger
| title = Foreword for the Gerhard Ertl Festschrift
| journal = [[J. Phys. Chem. B]]
| year = 2004
| volume = 108
| issue = 38
| pages = 14183 - 14186
| doi = 10.1021/jp049239i
| url= }}</ref>

== Research ==
Gerhard Ertl is known for determining the detailed molecular mechanisms of the catalytic synthesis of [[ammonia]] over [[iron]] ([[Haber Bosch process]]) and the catalytic oxidation of [[carbon monoxide]] over [[palladium]] ([[catalytic converter]]). During his research he discovered the important phenomenon of oscillatory reactions on platinum surfaces and, using photoelectron microscopy, was able to image for the first time, the oscillating changes in surface structure and coverage that occur during reaction.

He always used new observation techniques like [[low-energy electron diffraction]] ('''LEED''') at the beginning of his career, later [[ultraviolet photoelectron spectroscopy]] ('''UPS''') and [[scanning tunneling microscope]] ('''STM''') yielding ground breaking results.

He won the [[Wolf Prize in Chemistry]] in 1998 along with [[Gabor A. Somorjai]] of the University of California, Berkeley for "their outstanding contributions to the field of the [[surface science]] in general and for their elucidation of fundamental mechanisms of heterogeneous catalytic reactions at single crystal surface in particular."<ref>{{cite web | | publisher = [[Wolf Foundation]] | title = The Wolf Foundation Prize in Chemistry | url = http://www.wolffund.org.il/cat.asp?id=15&cat_title=CHEMISTRY | accessdate = 2007-10-10}}</ref>

Gerhard Ertl was awarded the 2007 [[Nobel Prize in Chemistry]] for his studies of chemical processes on solid surfaces. The award, worth [[Swedish Krona|SEK]] 10 million,<ref>{{cite press release | date = 10 Oct 2007 | publisher = [[Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences]] | title = The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2007 | url = http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/2007/press.html}}</ref> was announced on Ertl's 71st birthday.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/10/10/nobel.chemistry.ap/index.html|title=Nobel for ozone layer scientist|date=2007-10-10|author=[[Associated Press]]|publisher=[[CNN]]}}</ref> "I am speechless," Ertl told The Associated Press from his office in Berlin. "I was not counting on this." <ref>{{cite web | | publisher = [[Associated Press]] | title = German receives chemistry Nobel | url = http://www.telegram.com/article/20071011/NEWS/710110562/1052 | accessdate = 2007-10-18}}</ref>

== Publications ==
Gerhard Ertl is one of the editors of the
[http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-3527312412.html Handbook of Heterogeneous Catalysis]

== Personal ==
Ertl and his wife Barbara have two children and several grandchildren. His hobbies include playing the piano and also playing with his cats.<ref name = " "> {{cite web
| title = Profile: Nobel prize the perfect birthday present for Ertl
| work = Deutsche Presse-Agentur
| url = http://science.monstersandcritics.com/features/article_1364188.php/Profile_Nobel_prize_the_perfect_birthday_present_for_Ertl
| accessdate=2007-10-10
}} </ref>

== External links ==
* [http://w3.rz-berlin.mpg.de/pc/ERTL/Ertl.html Gerhard Ertl]
* [http://www.wolffund.org.il/full.asp?id=58 The Wolf Prize in Chemistry in 1998]
* [http://w3.rz-berlin.mpg.de/pc/ERTL/Ertl-publis.html Publications by Gerhard Ertl]


{{Persondata
|NAME = Ertl, Gerhard
|ALTERNATIVE NAMES =
|SHORT DESCRIPTION = German Professor emeritus at Chemistry, 2007 Nobel Prize
|DATE OF BIRTH = [[October 10]] [[1936]]
|PLACE OF BIRTH = [[Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt]], [[Germany]]
|DATE OF DEATH =
|PLACE OF DEATH =
}}

{{Wolf Prize in Chemistry}}
{{Nobel Prize in Chemistry Laureates 2001-2025}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Ertl, Gerhard}}
[[Category:1936 births]]
[[Category:Living people]]
[[Category:People from Stuttgart]]
[[Category:University of Munich alumni]]
[[Category:University of Munich faculty]]
[[Category:Wolf Prize in Chemistry laureates]]
[[Category:Nobel laureates in Chemistry]]
[[Category:German Nobel laureates]]
[[Category:Living people]]
[[Category:German chemists]]

[[ar:غيرهارد ايرتل]]
[[ca:Gerhard Ertl]]
[[cs:Gerhard Ertl]]
[[de:Gerhard Ertl (Physiker)]]
[[es:Gerhard Ertl]]
[[eo:Gerhard Ertl]]
[[fr:Gerhard Ertl]]
[[ko:게르하르트 에르틀]]
[[it:Gerhard Ertl]]
[[he:גרהרד ארטל]]
[[ka:გერჰარდ ერტლი]]
[[nl:Gerhard Ertl]]
[[ja:ゲルハルト・エルトル]]
[[no:Gerhard Ertl]]
[[pl:Gerhard Ertl]]
[[pt:Gerhard Ertl]]
[[ro:Gerhard Ertl]]
[[ru:Эртль, Герхард]]
[[scn:Gerhard Ertl]]
[[sr:Герхард Ертл]]
[[fi:Gerhard Ertl]]
[[sv:Gerhard Ertl]]
[[ta:கெரார்டு எர்ட்டில்]]
[[vi:Gerhard Ertl]]
[[zh:格哈德·埃特尔]]

Talk:List of titles and honours of Elizabeth II

2007-01-07T05:06:06Z

76.16.73.77:

{{oldpeerreview}}
{{FailedGA}}

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? [[User:WilhelmRosendahl|WilhelmRosendahl]]

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

Her former titles should also be included:
*Queen of [[South Africa]] ([[1952]]-[[1961]])
*Queen of [[Pakistan]] ([[1952]]-[[1956]])
*Queen of [[Sri Lanka]] ([[1952]]-[[1972]]).
*Queen of [[Ghana]] ([[1957]]-[[1960]])
*Queen of [[Nigeria]] ([[1960]]-[[1963]])
*Queen of [[Tanzania]] ([[1961]]-[[1962]])
*Queen of [[Sierra Leone]] ([[1961]]-[[1971]])
*Queen of [[Trinidad and Tobago]] ([[1962]]-[[1976]])
*Queen of [[Uganda]] ([[1962]]-[[1963]])
*Queen of [[Kenya]] ([[1963]]-[[1964]])
*Queen of [[Malawi]] ([[1964]]-[[1966]])
*Queen of [[Malta]] ([[1964]]-[[1974]])
*Queen of [[The Gambia]] ([[1965]]-[[1970]])
*Queen of [[Guyana]] ([[1966]]-[[1970]])
*Queen of [[Mauritius]] ([[1968]]-[[1992]])
*Queen of [[Fiji]] ([[1970]]-[[1987]])

Please look up what each of these are individually. --[[User:Jiang|Jia]][[User talk:Jiang|ng]] 04:13, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

:Or we can just forget about this, noting [[Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom#Former_titles]]. --[[User:Jiang|Jia]][[User talk:Jiang|ng]]

What about 'Princess of the United Kingdom', 'Dutchess of Edinburgh' and so on? --[[User:Jiang|Jia]][[User talk:Jiang|ng]] 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. --[[User:Martin TB|Martin TB]] 09:32, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

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.--[[User:Jiang|Jia]][[User talk:Jiang|'''ng''']] 19:36, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

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

Exactly! 'Honourary' is an incorrect spelling and isn't listed in any dictionary! - [[User:Campdavid|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? --[[User:Jiang|Jia]][[User talk:Jiang|'''ng''']] 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). --[[User:Campdavid|Campdavid]] 19:44, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

----

==Great Chief==

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]]? -- [[User:Itai|Itai]] 22:45, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

== Queen of Cook Is. ==

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.

== Honorific ==

"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. --[[User:Simetrical|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.
----------------------------------------------

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. --[[User:Ibagli|Ibagli]] 20:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

==Other titles?==

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

==Latin title==
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. [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 10:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

: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. - [[User:Chrism|Chrism]] 17:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

== Papua New Guinea honours system ==

I found [http://www.pm.gov.pg/pmsoffice/pmsoffice.nsf/pages/053A93E52C202D204A25708C000CD4EC?OpenDocument] 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 [[User:Dowew|Dowew]] 06:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

== Pakistan title ==
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. [http://www.jstor.org/view/00030554/di960891/96p0006u/5?frame=noframe&userID=8fa78608@shef.ac.uk/01cce4403500501bee18f&dpi=3&config=jstor]

== Royal Family Order ==

Im quite certain that Elizabeth holds two [[Royal Family Orders]], that of her father and Grandfather as exemplified by [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Elizabeth_II%2C_Buckingham_Palace%2C_07_Mar_2006.jpeg]]

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

==Good article failure==
*No references.
Also, it needs to be discussed if lists can be good articles at all. --[[User:SeizureDog|SeizureDog]] 06:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
:I was thinking, what if we included another box beside each entery linking to a citation ? [[User:Dowew|Dowew]] 00:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

== Romanian Order ==

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. [http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page4872.asp]

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

== moves ==

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 [[User:Brian New Zealand|Brian]] | [[User talk:Brian New Zealand|(Talk)]] 06:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

: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." --[[User:G2bambino|G2bambino]] 15:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

==Removed lunacy==

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.

--[[user:Ibagli|Ibagli]] ([[user talk:Ibagli|Talk]]) 04:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

==Dates==

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. --[[user:Ibagli|Ibagli]] ([[user talk:Ibagli|Talk]]) 00:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

== Married Titles ==

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. --[[User:IBCharlie|IBCharlie]] 23:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)