Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 45

Archive 40

←

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

→

Archive 49

Death and state funeral of Queen Elizabeth II

I don’t want to make assumptions about the health of the Queen, but it appears that a working draft would be helpful to start gathering information: Draft:Death and state funeral of Queen Elizabeth II. Thriley (talk) 15:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

There's an article already at Operation London Bridge. DrKay (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Its not an assumption anymore. She passed Shhssh (talk) 17:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to write this here and (probably) say no more on the subject. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a news ticker. All you get for being first on the block is pending changes and semi-protection (or more). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Assuming the Queen dies, I think it is important to get a draft going so it can appear quickly on the In The News section. Details of the lead up to her death are not trivial and probably should be noted now. Thriley (talk) 16:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

It's a content fork. Articles on the same topic shouldn't be duplicated. DrKay (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Assuming the Queen dies given that she's 96, I think that's a fair assumption Star Mississippi 16:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

That article is about the plan around what is to be done after her death, not the actual death and funeral itself. Thriley (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I would agree with User:DrKay. The plans around her death are inclusive of the actual death and funeral itself presumably. Although planning on how that article might be changed upon the implementation of those plans (bearing in mind I believe she is presently in Scotland, and so such a situation would be Operation Unicorn), may change the wording of the article significantly? 90.198.253.144 (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

We have a similar situation in regards to Winston Churchill, theres Death and state funeral of Winston Churchill and also the plan Operation Hope Not, both very detailed articles. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 16:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

We have Operation Tay Bridge and Operation Forth Bridge, both even more similar articles, both of which are redirects, so that argument goes nowhere. DrKay (talk) 17:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

There's no argument, just a note. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Hong Kong

I believe Elizabeth ll was also Queen of Hong Kong from 1952-1975, however, it is not listed in the list of subject colonies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.179.216.239 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

We don't list any subject colonies. The list is of sovereign states. DrKay (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

It was a colony of the UK. She wasn't the monarch of Hong Kong as a separate title. Gust Justice (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Protection on related pages

The page for requesting an increase in protection is WP:RPP/I. [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Would it be wise to apply greater levels of protection to the pages Charles, Prince of Wales, Monarchy of the United Kingdom and Head of the Commonwealth till the current situation of Queen Elizabeth II's health is resolved, as when the news appears it's probable an influx of editors will come to all four of these pages. I understand it would be an unusual measure, but this is an unusual circumstance which should be rather temporary. 90.198.253.144 (talk) 90.198.253.144 (talk) 15:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes I agree that these pages could also do with greater levels of protection, Charles in particular. --88.108.44.8 (talk) 15:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree too, thanks for the great idea! I've requested an increased protection (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase). Please feel free to add more relevant pages (or let me know here, happy to add them). AlanTheScientist (talk) 15:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Charles' article is already indefinitely semi-protected and I'm not seeing anything that justifies increasing that. Beyond that, we do not protect pages proactively. All of which said, I assure everyone that a lot of eyes are on this and related pages. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for putting that request through for me. :) 90.198.253.144 (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@90.198.253.144 I think Camilla, Archie, and Lilibet should have some degree of protection as there is some argument about their titles. EmilySarah99 (talk) 10:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

sapphire jubilee not mentioned

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

should be referenced Sispandýrilla (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

It is: 'On 6 February 2017, she became the first British monarch to commemorate a Sapphire Jubilee'. DrKay (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Spoken version will need an update

See #"Listen to this article" - audio out of date SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm not saying this should be done until things settle down a bit, just putting this here for future reference. I'm not sure how to edit the spoken version anyway. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:51A4:420B:D6BC:FEEB (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Not worth doing for at least a few months, this article is going to be heated for a while. 9yz (talk) 18:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

After heavily edited we can work on the spoken version soon. Thingofme (talk) 05:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 September 2022 (2)

Change Operation London Bridge to Operation Unicorn under "Death". Please see https://www.thenational.scot/news/21224640.operation-unicorn-happens-queen-dies-scotland/ SeventiesKid1970 (talk) 18:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Intro Queen of UK AND realms

Elizabeth was Queen of the UK AND Queen of each Commonwealth realm equally. To be fully accurate that fact should not be separated and should say: “…was Queen of the United Kingdom and 14 other Commonwealth realms from 6 February…”. It used to say something like that and I’m not sure why it was changed after her death as it is now incorrect. Max3218 (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Or something similar to that. Some very good examples that seem to have had agreement are in some of the early talk page, not sure why that wasn’t used. Max3218 (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

This was discussed above under #An event to come, which may need work on, now.. I would support amending the statement to read "...was Queen of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth Realms from..." (i.e., without the number 14, as the actual number of Commonwealth Realms in existence at any given time differed throughout her reign...the number 14 would have been truly only at the time of her death). Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes that was the discussion I was referring to and the outline got consensus along the lines of “Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; 21 April 1926 – 8 September 2022) was Queen of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms from 6 February 1952 until her death in 2022. She was queen of 32 realms at the start of her reign and monarch of 14 of them at the time of her death. Her reign of 70 years and 214 days was the longest of any British monarch and the second-longest recorded of any monarch of a sovereign state” I think that’s a good combining of what’s there now and what got consensus. Max3218 (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I suggest we change the first lead paragraph to this aforementioned quotation. This would be perfect in terms of consensus you previously mentioned, as well as fixing both the issue here as well as one that I recently raised in regards to making it clear that it was 14 realms at the time of her death and not a constant throughout her reign. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 22:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

She was was first & foremost recognised as Queen of the United Kingdom. She was born there, resided there & died there. GoodDay (talk) 00:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Of course, and that is why she was styled as "Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms". But that doesn't negate the fact she was also Queen of Her other Realms. Furthermore, whether the UK or Canada each are "equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown"; see the Balfour Declaration of 1926. I don't know what it is you are suggesting exactly in regards to the lead section? JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 00:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

He's on autopilot with the "first and foremost" thing.

Besides the one you referenced, she held 14 other monarchical titles at the time of her death. However, that's somewhat trivial here. The meat of your comment is on point. As I mentioned above, earlier, in a remark that it seems you may have already seen, the lede presently reads as if she queen of only one country when she died. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree. What has happened is that this revision made me raise my previous talk section about it needing to better specify that it was not 14 realms throughout her entire reign (as it was 32 overall of course). This then made another user better it with this revision. However, that didn't last very long and for some reason it eventually got made worse to what we have now which at some point made you raise your issue about how it makes it sound like she died as Queen of only the UK. The easy solution to all of this is to change that first lead paragraph to the much better suggestions under Talk:Elizabeth II#An event to come, which may need work on, now. and have any further revisions reverted citing both the talk page and the note right above that very lead section. However, it has been a struggle to get anyone to do so thus far. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 03:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

DrKay's version, is best. GoodDay (talk) 03:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

If you mean "Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; 21 April 1926 – [date of death])[a] was Queen of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms from 6 February 1952 until her death. She was queen regnant of 32 different sovereign states in the course of her reign, and served as monarch of Y of them at the time of her death. Her reign of [?] years and [?] months was longer than that of any other British monarch and the longest of any female monarch in history." then I would be happy with this one too. I am indifferent whether it be this one or the other one mentioned. Both ultimately solve the issues at present. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 03:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

If so, I don't understand what your point is in regards to "first and foremost being Queen of the United Kingdom" as it is still in agreement with the other suggestion as both mention "the other Commonwealth realms". JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 03:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Merely pointing out. It would be quite a WP:SEAOFBLUE, if we attempted to list all 32 realms in her intro. GoodDay (talk) 03:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

No one has suggested that we do that. Both lead suggestions that are mentioned here—including your favoured one—both just refer to that she reigned over 32 realms without listing them. I already previously replied to you under Talk:Elizabeth II#First paragraph in lead section could do with greater clarity making the same point. And to repeat, there is already, for example, note b that handily allows for them to listed in an expanded link without the need to clutter the lead. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 04:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Saying "Queen of 32 Commonwealth realms", is no good. The United Kingdom must be mentioned, per my previous reasons. GoodDay (talk) 04:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I am either failing to understand something in this exchange or you have got to be trolling at this point. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 04:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not trolling. Bring your proposal to my talkpage, so I can get a clear picture of what you're suggesting. There's just too much activity here. GoodDay (talk) 04:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Once again, you are stating something that no one has even claimed. Both proposals do mention the United Kingdom. To be exact, each say that she was "Queen of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms". There is nothing more that hasn't already been said here (sometimes more than once) that would warrant further discussion on your talk page. To get a better grasp on what it is people are proposing I suggest you read all of the replies in this thread, particularly my entry on 03:12 (UTC) which provides some background beyond this thread. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 08:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

With all the traffic going on here. It's kinda difficult to co-ordinate anything, tbh. GoodDay (talk) 03:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Regardless she was also the queen of 14 other realms (and 32 total). Accuracy in titles etc is important. As I believe (from looking over other talk subjects) you are an extended confirmed user please make the intro paragraph change that has a gained consensus from multiple users in multiple talks and has (I see) a pending request. Max3218 (talk) 00:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC) Additionally, it is in line with the standard set (listing UK followed directly by dominions, territories, realms, etc) in each of the previous and now current British monarchs. Max3218 (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Where were you all, when this was being ironed out 'bout a month or two ago? The United Kingdom is where she was born, resided & died. @DrKay:'s version is best. GoodDay (talk) 02:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

GoodDay, dude, are you trolling? Literally the one I put in quotes above is taken directly from the talk page at the top. In none of those exchanges was only putting the UK discussed and I simply combined the DrKay version with what is currently there. It literally says/means the exact same thing. Is there a different confirmed user or administrator that can handle this because at this point clearly weird is going on. Max3218 (talk) 07:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Are you content with what's currently in the opening paragraph of this page? GoodDay (talk) 07:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

No, as it is now, it’s repetitive in both dates and stating of reigning over ur and simply reads strange. The one posted above is better and is modeled 99% off of the one that got consensus. I think there is biased going on here given that your wiki home page is clearly anti-monarchy. Unfortunate stuff like that can’t be put aside to do what makes the wiki page best Max3218 (talk) 07:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you agree with DrKay's proposal, as I do? GoodDay (talk) 07:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

“Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; 21 April 1926 – 8 September 2022) was Queen of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms from 6 February 1952 until her death in 2022. She was queen of 32 realms at the start of her reign and monarch of 14 of them at the time of her death. Her reign of 70 years and 214 days was the longest of any British monarch and the second-longest recorded of any monarch of a sovereign state“ That is DrKays proposal with the dates filled in and slight word change in last sentence. It is more accurate (both grammatically and in terms of content) and more succinct then what is there now. It got consensus. Please list out and explain exactly what the issue(s) with it are that is delaying it being made the opening paragraph. Max3218 (talk) 07:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Some tweaking is required, as she was monarch of the UK and six other Commonwealth realms at the start of her reign. During her 70 years, she reigned over a total of (including the UK) 32 Commonwealth realms (some became realms during her reign, while other left to become republics). By the time of her death, she was monarch of the United Kingdom and 14 other Commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 07:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

That’s literally what it says already. Max3218 (talk) 08:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

"...at the start of her reign" needs to be corrected to "during her reign" in your proposal. That is the one issue that @GoodDay has that is actually in disagreement between the two proposals. As for everything else, that issue being corrected aside, both proposals will effectively be the same and we really should be indifferent about them. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 08:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

So with that little tweak, we're in agreement. GoodDay (talk) 08:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. As I don't have extended confirmed user access, if you are happy with @Max3218's proposal with that correction/or @Max3218 is happy with @DrKay's proposal I suggest either one is moved to the article and revert further changes citing the talk pages (in line with the already existing note above the current lead). JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 08:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll let DrKay implement it, if he so chooses. GoodDay (talk) 08:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Of course. Should he accept the correction, how about moving @Max3218's proposal? He has previously requested that it be moved to the article by someone with extended–confirmed access. We really should have used one of the previous suggestions already and this is basically what we have been trying to establish. We certainly need to change the lead section in its current form as we have all established that it is limited and furthermore it has some pressing importance as the first paragraph in an article at the top of ITN. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 09:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Glad to see intro change was finally implemented Max3218 (talk) 21:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Queen of Rhodesia

Should Rhodesia be included in the list of states governed as monarch, perhaps with a ‘(disputed)’ added on? Between 1965 and 1970, she was seen as the Head of State. She officially denied this, but did also attempt to grant a pardon to Rhodesian criminals who were about to be executed. The issue is made complex by what was her own view, and what was the British government’s view. Thoughts? Mooreo.odm (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

See #Hong Kong. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Hong Kong was a territory, ‘Queen of Rhodesia’ was a title created in 1965 after Rhodesia became independent and succeeded the colony of Rhodesia. Mooreo.odm (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

If you mean the list in the infobox, infoboxes should be simple and succinct; this one is already complex and long. I don't think we should expand it further with something contentious and debateable. Infoboxes are not designed for controversy or nuance. DrKay (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

It would be simple and succinct, only adding one line, for example:

Rhodesia (disputed) 1965-1970

Like all the other listed countries, it would link to a corresponding article, in this case using Queen of Rhodesia which would enable people to read about it without making the infobox too complex. Mooreo.odm (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Don't add Rhodesia. GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree, don't add it. It was not recognized as independent during that term of years.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:26, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

"Listen to this article" - audio out of date

Not sure how to remove it and I wanted to discuss here first because so much is happening at the same time. I think we should remove the audio version as the audio says she's currently the Queen. AlanTheScientist (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Please see this section for discussion about the audio version of the article. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The fact that it dates from 2014 is also a good reason, and I was tempted to remove it, but let's get a consensus.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Remove to talk; an eight-year-old version does a disservice to readers, it can be re-instated when re-done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Keep but add {{Spoken article requested}} once the attention around her death subsides. The spoken version is seriously out of date now, but I don't think it should be removed. @CLYDEFRANKLIN 22:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I've never understood the attraction of adding spoken versions to articles and letting them become years out of date. The obvious thing to do for people with visual impairment is to use Microsoft Narrator or similar text to speech software.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

A thank you to whoever changed the picture on top

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I thought the coronation photo would be best, but this one will do just fine. NOW that she's gone, it would be better for a glamour shot that her at extreme old age. It's nice to see that I'm not the only one who thinks so. Notwisconsin (talk) 20:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

See #Infobox photograph for after her death for the discussion on what the new image would be. A diehard editor (talk | edits) 13:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit request

Moved from WP:RFPP/E

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Add https://news.gallup.com/poll/328193/donald-trump-michelle-obama-admired-2020.aspx as a source to the sentence: "As of 2021 she remained the third most admired woman in the world according to the annual Gallup poll, her 52 appearances on the list meaning she had been in the top ten more than any other woman in the poll's history."

Change "according to the annual Gallup poll" to "according to an annual Gallup poll".

Change meaning to mean. Uwsi (talk) 02:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The last one would not be grammatically correct and would not be an improvement. The other two seem fine. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 03:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

30 2001:2D8:695C:A07E:3EBA:DFB3:B797:13DD (talk) 19:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Suggested edit

"In November 1947, she married Philip Mountbatten, a former prince of Greece and Denmark, and their marriage lasted 73 years until his death in April 2021."

Worth adding "A year and five months/ 17 months before hers" there? WorthPoke2 (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

No. Original research and needlessly specific. Moncrief (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

...and 14 other Commonwealth realms

Whoever is doing it. Please STOP changing "...and 14 other Commonwealth realms", to "of 14 other sovereign states". It's getting quite annoying. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Incorrectly stating Operation London Bridge due to location of death.

Shouldn't it be Unicorn rather than London Bridge, as she died in Scotland? 82.16.221.233 (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Operation London Bridge is the name for the series of pre-planned events that take place immediately following her death. This has been in place for years, so it is not tied to the specific location of death. TNstingray (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The IP's partly right. Operation Unicorn (Scotland) is the variation of London Bridge if the death occurred in Scotland (which it did of course). But my understanding is is that it is a subset of London Bridge rather than a totally separate plan so I don't think it is wrong to still refer to London Bridge. DeCausa (talk) 17:20, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

First paragraph in lead section could do with greater clarity

She was Queen of a varying number of countries through the length of her reign, not of 14 realms throughout. It would be better to seperate these sentences and say "...was Queen of the United Kingdom and of 14 other sovereign countries as of her death. Her reign of 70 years and seven months, from 6 February 1952, was the longest of any British monarch."" --JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I made this change. Further tweaks may be needed but for now I think it is fitting. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 18:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Much appreciated. As you say, more tweaks will be needed but the lead section should remain important. I don't want to come across as pedantic but I also suggest that "until" should change to "as of" or "at the time of" for extra clarity because "until" can be interpreted to those unfamiliar as though "14 other sovereign countries" was the fixed number that she reigned over throughout her entire reign—when of course this number changed numerous times as different nations decided to drop her as head of state. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 18:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't disagree. I added 'as of' and another editor changed it to 'until'. Update - as fast as things change, someone took out 'until her death' altogether so that should at least resolve things for now. Cheers! ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 18:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah I see, yes that could work for now. All the best! JamesLewisBedford01}} (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

This has already been changed multiple times and effectively gone back to the original; it is now worse as "8 September 2022" is unnecessarily repeated in the same sentence. Clarity is still needed on this issue but it does seem a bit pointless to address this in the short term whilst there are so many updates, especially without consulting talk pages. I don't have extended user access anyway but I would hold off from any resolution for the time being. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 19:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Resolution to this should now be found under #An event to come, which may need work on, now.. Now that she has passed the lead should be changed to “Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; 21 April 1926 – 8 September 2022] was Queen of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms from 6 February 1952 until her death in 2022. She was queen of 32 realms at the start of her reign and monarch of 14 of them at the time of her death. Her reign of 70 years and 214 days was the longest of any British monarch and the second-longest recorded of any monarch of a sovereign country” and any further revisions should be reversed and directed to that section of the talk page. Please may someone with extended confirmed user access make the necessary changes. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 23:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Would like to add on, on the last sentence at the end of the lead, there is a sudden abrupt transition to her death, the sentence being "Elizabeth died on 8 September 2022 at Balmoral Castle, Aberdeenshire." I would think a change from that sentence to "Following declining health and increased medical supervision by doctors, Elizabeth died on 8 September 2022 at Balmoral Castle, Aberdeenshire."

Do let me know if you have any comments. Thanks. (signed by User:IssacT6) 19:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The present opening paragraph makes it sound like Elizabeth died as monarch of one country. It should be clear in the first paragraph that she was queen of 15 countries upon her death. But, that fact isn't even iterated anywhere else in the lede as is currently is. The third paragraph says she became queen of various countries in 1952. However, with nothing else being mentioned about her headship of state of multiple countries again, combined with the first sentence, it all communicates she used to be queen of multiple nations, but, by the time she died, she was Queen of the UK only. That is obviously inaccurate. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I’m not sure why the current version is in place as a consensus on an outline for the opening was reached in the very first talk of this article. Combining the consensus template with what is currently there would and Should be “Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; 21 April 1926 – 8 September 2022) was Queen of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms from 6 February 1952 until her death in 2022. She was queen of 32 realms at the start of her reign and monarch of 14 of them at the time of her death. Her reign of 70 years and 214 days was the longest of any British monarch and the second-longest recorded of any monarch of a sovereign state” Max3218 (talk) 22:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe this revision has existed at any point in the last 24 hours and this issue sought to fix ambiguity that wouldn't have been the case if that quotation was in place. I agree that this should be used as the lead section for reasons I have now listed under #Intro Queen of UK AND realms. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 22:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not an ideal composition, to me. However, it's vastly superior to what's there now. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Though few don't like it. The United Kingdom is the realm she was most associated with. I doubt anyone feels like crowding in 15 or 32 realms into the lead. GoodDay (talk) 02:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The quotation does not crowd in 14 or 32 realms, it only references them. In fact, in the current revision there is already note b that handily allows the reader to see the 14 realms without cluttering the lead. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 02:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

R.E: Infobox Photo

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Since a Consensus on the infobox photo hasn't yet been reached, I'm wondering if it's possible for there to be two photos in the infobox (one modern photo and one old photo). Could that be a possibility? Pepper Gaming (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Doubt it, seems like golden mean fallacy Dronebogus (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not an impossible thing to achieve; it can certainly be done, but I don't think that it will likely ever happen, sorry. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

One image, is enough for the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Boldly closing as this is duplicative of the poll happening above. Let's wait for the outcome of that discussion (#Infobox photograph for after her death). If consensus can't be found in that discussion, a follow-up poll can be opened after that discussion is closed. (Sorry for collapsing the conversation, but the normal atop/abot templates don't play well with the gallery markup.) Aoi (青い) (talk) 01:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Cast your !vote Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 I have compiled a gallery of all the candidate images, Just sign under your choice(s) 4me689 (talk) 22:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC) Why have you not included the uncropped image? There are plenty of people who originally voted for C before the full, retouched image was uploaded who subsequently expressed a preference for it. nagualdesign 22:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC) Is it really appropriate to open a separate discussion on this when there is already an ongoing one above? Shouldn't there be a close there first, especially considering the choice of options for a second !vote is probably a contentious choice? For example, option D above seemed about as popular as option 1 here but is not included in these options. Alduin2000 (talk) 23:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC) D actually appears more popular than F, if anything, D should replace F. F, while the popular choice of many above, isn't even in second place when it comes to consenus. FrederalBacon (talk) 23:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC) I think rather than replacing options, this should probably be procedurally closed just like the discussions at Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 44#Revert image change. A second !vote can always be opened after #Infobox photograph for after her death is closed if it's needed, but it should almost certainly take the close result for that discussion into consideration which is impossible now for this !vote. Alduin2000 (talk) 00:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC) I agree. 4me689 really jumped the gun on this. I'm sure they meant well but options 1 and 2 were not "all the candidate images" by any stretch of the imagination, and this section only interferes with the ongoing discussion above. nagualdesign 01:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC) Option 1 nagualdesign 22:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC) As she's most notable for her longevity, in her age & reign. GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC) U-Mos (talk) 23:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC) Still prefer this one, at least for the time being. Many of our readers are mourning the Queen they knew right now, and an elderly photo resembling her appearance in the past 20 years is much better than using an old one just for the sake of it. This isn't equivalent to deceased film stars or people who were notable primarily while young, as the Queen has had a constant and unchanging role throughout most of her life.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC) I prefer this one as well, as it shows her as she is best known right before her passing. GuardianH (talk) 23:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC) According to me, this option is the best image. It is because shows the old age and a clear smile of Her Majesty the Queen. Also, it is the latest image among other options. VNC200 (talk) 02:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC) Option 2 4me689 (talk) 22:31, 12 September 2022 St.doggo (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC) FrederalBacon (talk) 22:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC) But also happy with Option 3. TheScrubby (talk) 22:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC) I thought it was pretty clear that option C was the winner. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC) Prime rather than the tail end of her life (which is standard in infobox after a person dies). PD Rivers (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC) schetm (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC) Looks neater with side colours cropped out. Particularly as they aren't the same width.--Llewee (talk) 23:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC) Lomu KH (talk) 00:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC) Definitely a younger image when she travelled the world to meet people and also rode horses—both of which she was frequently pictured doing—two things she had stopped doing in the first image which doesn’t reflect her at all. Easily the best choice Idiosincrático (talk) 04:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC) Option 3 nagualdesign 22:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC) Παραλλάξιος (talk) 23:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC) Seeing as though you can vote for more than one option. TheScrubby (talk) 23:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Does anyone object to archiving this section? We are left with multiple section headers with the same name on the page, causing editing problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

The longest reign of any monarch without enforced regency (Louix XIV had regent for 8 yrs)

As it points out in the 2nd lead para of Louis XIV, "Louis [who became king on 14 May 1643] began his personal rule of France in 1661, after the death of his chief minister, the Cardinal Mazarin."

Packing this out (see his infobox and obvious links)

• 05 Sep 1638 Birth
• 14 May 1643 Accession -- his mum acted as regent
• 07 Sep 1651 Declared adult -- regency ended but he chose to delegate rule to Chief Minister
• 09 Mar 1661 Started to rule personally
• 01 Sep 1715 Died

Ignoring the 10 years when he delegated everything to a chief minister (after all QEII did that too) it is inescapable that he had no authority for the first 8 yrs, so the time during which he had authority to rule was (according to [2]) was 63 years 11 months 26 days. Conveniently, France had adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1582, so unlike in the UK, we don't have to worry about any lost days in the calendar change (which that site seems to ignore). Unfortunately for Louis XIV, by that metric, he drops to about 8th in the List of longest-reigning monarchs, only three months above Victoria, who rises to at least 9th (I say at least, because there isn't enough information to confirm whether the two 7th century monarchs had regents, so I'm assuming they didn't). Ferdinand III is demoted from 9th because of his own subjection to regency.

As confirmation of this view please see Johann II, Prince of Liechtenstein#Early life, which states:

Until he was surpassed by Elizabeth II on 9 May 2022, his reign had been the longest precisely documented tenure of any European monarch since antiquity in which a regent (that is, a regent of a minority regency) was never employed.

Since QEII is second only to the European monarch Louis XIV in the figures including regency, I suggest we amend the last sentence of the 1st para of the lead (currently

Her reign of 70 years and 214 days is the longest of any British monarch and the longest recorded of any female head of state in history)

to read:

Her reign of 70 years and 214 days is the longest recorded of any female head of state in history and the longest precisely documented tenure of any head of state in the world without being subject to enforced regency.

Enginear (talk) 03:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose - as Louis XIV was King of France for 72 years, regency included or not. GoodDay (talk) 03:58, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose we should hit the major statistical points but not get bogged down in it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose - we should keep it simple and avoid any unnecessary modifiers. For the record I think we should just change it to say 'the second longest reign' instead of splitting it by gender since it's even more straightforward and frankly saying 'longest reign by a female' is unlikely to express the fact that she is the second longest reigning of any gender. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 16:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 September 2022

Dates are written as DD/MM/YYYY as opposed to MM/DD/YYYY. Is there a reason incorrect date format is used Baggedpizza98 (talk) 00:18, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: DMY is more correct than MDY here on a England-centric article. See MOS:DATETIES Cannolis (talk) 00:29, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Double link in lead

Do we really need two links to the article about her death in the lead? It's currently linked twice; in the first paragraph "until her death in 2022" and later is linked again in the last paragraph "Elizabeth died aged 96." The first link should be enough for readers IMO. 88.108.44.8 (talk) 06:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I am sure it was an innocent mistake, but I removed it per WP:OVERLINK. Thanks ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 12:56, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits re World War II

Strattonsmith please review WP:FAOWN and WP:WIAFA, and gain consensus for your edits. Some of your edits are not improvements, and this content has been reverted, rightfully so. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Strattonsmith please have a look at MOS:OVERLINK. Also, this article uses UK and US, not U.K. or U.S. [3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:37, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

See MOS:US. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Operation Unicorn

The part under the Queen's death mentioning Operation London Bridge is incorrect. Since she died it Scotland, it is known as Operation Unicorn. Operation London Bridge will launch when the Queen's body is transferred to England.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/queen-elizabeth-operation-unicorn-scotland-b2162764.html

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/08/operation-unicorn-plans-if-queen-dies-scotland 50.218.31.202 (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Queen dying in Scotland does not have anything to do with the planned name of the operation (signed by User:IssacT6) 18:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

A featured article has something unsourced? For shame! We do not approve.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@IssacT6: I believe there is some confusion. As mentioned by the IP editor, there are two operations now. The more notable one is Operation London Bridge which involves her death. There is also Operation Unicorn. Per the Guardian, "Operation Unicorn, the codename for the plans in Scotland, leaked some time ago and indicated it is likely her coffin will temporarily rest at the Palace of Holyroodhouse, having been taken there by road two days after her death." Per the Agence France-Presse: (1, 2) "It is no secret that the UK's plan for the eventual death of Queen Elizabeth II was codenamed London Bridge. But there were special provisions if the monarch died when she was in Scotland, called Operation Unicorn."

There is some confusion on my end about how both function together, but it is clear to me that Operation Unicorn is currently active until the Queen is transported to England. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Again, regardless of what it is called, it is unsourced in a featured article.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee: Late because of not getting a notification, but I did put a few sources in my reply that could have been used to source it. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Can you put those sources in the article? It's still unsourced.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I did not notice that it was so in the article. Apologies for the assumption. I have added the sources to the article. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Thnaks. I wasn't sure whether doing it myself would accomplish anything, since I didn't know for sure what was supposed to be there and what the sources supported.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. Now I understand. Sorry for the trouble. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Infobox image decision 2.0

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I notice that there's still a massive divide on which image we should use to represent the Queen in the infobox. The two images that the majority were in favour of were either the portrait from 1959 (Option C) and the headshot image from 2015 which was in the Infobox prior to her death (Option F).

While Option C won the original vote, there are still many people in favour of keeping Option F as the infobox photo which lead to the final consensus to be unclear. I think it is best to open a discussion to see which of the two images people prefer so we can get a clearer consensus and draw a closure on the matter.

• 
  (Option C: Official portrait from 1959 tour)
• 
  (Option F: Infobox photograph prior to death)

If anyone wishes to vote, please do so in one of the respective sections below Pepper Gaming (talk) 23:59, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment

• Are we really doing this again? The RFC on overall image choice literally closed two days ago. Was the close actually controversial? Option F wasn't even the second choice, from what I can see. Thparkth (talk) 00:06, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  The outstanding issue above was whether we could go with both of the above images.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  It doesn't seem like this current discussion will resolve that issue, as currently constructed. Thparkth (talk) 00:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  Nope, just a rehash of the same discussion above, more limited. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Option C

1. Sigh I guess we're gonna have to do this again, despite an uninvolved editor closing the above discussion with consensus for some form of C. I'm maintaining my support for C, for the reasons I stated the first two times this week we discussed this. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:10, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
2. Grumble I still support option 'C'. This is pointless. Thparkth (talk) 00:15, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Option F

1. As we remember her - An elderly monarch, who was not only a grandmother, but a great-grandmother. GoodDay (talk) 00:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Header Date of Death confusion

We have a confirmed date of death of Elizabeth II, but on the header, it just says, "her death in 2022", Wouldn't it be better to put "her death On September 8 2022"? PerryPerryD Talk To Me 19:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Please explain why it should be repeated twice in the same sentence. DrKay (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

In that case why mention 2022 at all? Why not stop at her death? PerryPerryD Talk To Me 19:55, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Best to do it, like it's done at George VI's page. GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't see what's confusing about saying 'she died in 2022' when that's true. I do see something potentially confusing about describing her as the Head of the Commonwealth with no proviso, given that the Head of the Commonwealth is Charles III. It's good to have a footnote just like on the George VI page, as User GoodDay says. Joe (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Systematic overlinking

This article has been systematically subjected to MOS:OVERLINKing for over a week now. My efforts to get one editor to stop doing that have been unsuccessful. At some point before TFA, someone may need to go through and reduce the WP:SEAOFBLUE, which is daunting and rendering the article hard to read. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about it. Once activity has slowed down on this bio page, say in about a month's time, we can gradually de-link. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but then it would appear TFA with this unnecessary sea of blue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

What we are getting now is things like UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, introduced by Strattonsmith, causing an unnecessary WP:SEAOFBLUE. We don 't need to link UN Secretary-General when that person is clearly identified in the next wikilinked word, where one can explore what the position is if wanted. No one will click on UN Secretary-General from this article; they'll clikc on Ban Ki-moon. The low-value links are decreasing readability and reducing the value of the necessary links. And we are ending up with every country linked, in contradiction to MOS:OVERLINK. Could we at least attempt to clean up some of this before TFA? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I've no objections to delinking the offices of the visiting heads of state & government. GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, before going through and repairing the overlinking, it would be good to get it to stop :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't personally see this article as way too overlinked (only a little overlinked), mostly because there's lots of disparate topics connected to this person, more-so than for most people, so it's only natural for there to be lots of links. Anyway, I did just remove a lot of duplicated (and triplicated and quadruplicated) links that probably cropped up over the years with various editors not checking the whole rest of the article to see if the thing they were linking was already linked to elsewhere. Hopefully it's a smidge better now. Joe (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

And going backwards again. Here is a link that anyone can install to check for duplicate links (which is only part of the MOS:OVERLINKing problem, but hopefully well help):

• User:Evad37/duplinks-alt

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:47, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

The Queens full name

In the opening statement mentioning the Queens name it should read Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor as that is her official full name and doesn't mention it. You can confirm this here - https://www.royal.uk/royal-family-name Matt1998hew (talk) 21:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

We already had an RFC on that topic, concerning the intro & the infobox. The result was 'leave out Windsor'. GoodDay (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Charles, Anne, Andrew, and Edward?

How come the mention of her children in the lead just lists them by their first names? (Charles, Anne, Andrew, Edward). On every other article for members of the royal family (such as the article for Prince Philip for example), they are listed by their full titles (e.g. Anne, Princess Royal). I don't see why this article should be an exception to this. 88.108.44.8 (talk) 06:49, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

The Infobox and the body of the article give their full titles, but I wouldn't expect the lead to do so, as the word count is tight there and there is a lot of information to pack into a few short paragraphs. Sometimes less is more...  — Amakuru (talk) 07:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

"ER II" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect ER II and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 10#ER II until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 18:10, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

"E.R. II" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect E.R. II and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 10#E.R. II until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 18:11, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Current Events - London Bridge Task Force

I wanted to let editors know and invite editors to the WikiProject of Current Events new task force The London Bridge Task Force, which will be working on improving all the articles around the death of Elizabeth II. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Running this article as Today's Featured Article

See Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 19, 2022. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Continued at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Elizabeth II SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've started a discussion on whether to run this article as Today's Featured Article on the day of the funeral, which seems to be 18 September. Please feel free to leave views there. Wehwalt (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Good idea! AlanTheScientist (talk) 22:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Good suggestion Tweedle (talk) 01:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

That’s a good idea. NatriumGedrogt (talk) 21:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with that. Chongkian (talk) 00:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Why not? CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 02:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Direct link to the conversation, if people wish to leave their comments there. Wittylama 07:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Just voiced my support for it there. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 08:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Time of Death

The British PM, Liz Truss, was informed at 4.30 pm that Queen Elizabeth had died. Hence the press sources stating that her children and grandchildren had travelled to be with her are misleading inasmuch as she had died by the time everyone had arrived, other than Prince Charles and Princess Anne who were present. Billsmith60 (talk) 23:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

While it's true the PM knew at 4.30pm we don't know what anyone else knew at the time. It's not for us to do the analysis / original research here. Let's rely on sources. AlanTheScientist (talk) 23:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely. I'm merely flagging up that the 'official' version cannot be true, as a number of Royal VIPs didn't arrive until 5 pm or after, according to the BBC. Let's see if editors note that point. Billsmith60 (talk) 00:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Editors can't note that point until a reliable source notes that point. Again, that'd be original research.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  11:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Billsmith60 and Ved havet: To my knowledge, we can point out a discrepancy if it is very basic, so long as we stick strictly to facts and sources. That is easily done with footnotes. Though, this has to do both with time and with who, which is trickier than a time discrepancy. However, I will say that I don't see the point in making an example as I don't see any reference to an official statement in the article. If it is somewhere in the article, I would like for it to be pointed out first. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:OR, we may only perform "routine calculations" (e.g. calculating someone's age based on their birth date). Concluding if family members arrived before or after the Queen's death based on reports about when the prime minister was told about her passing, can not be classified as a routine calculation. Based on WP:OR, "if you use [well-sourced material] out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research". So, using two pieces of material to come to a conclusion not explicitly supported by the source is, indeed, original research and not permissable on Wikipedia.

At the moment though, the article simply states her family travelled to Balmoral, which is obviously correct. Even "travelled to Balmoral to be with her" would be correct, because that was indeed their intention, regardless if they arrived too late or not.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  02:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, only Charles & Anne were with Elizabeth II, when she died. This is shown & sourced at the Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II page. GoodDay (talk) 02:48, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The lead paragraph is getting too wordy

I suppose it's understandable human nature, if disheartening, that the impulse of so many is to fatten a lead with cruft that doesn't belong there when an article is hot, but please don't do so mindlessly. Read WP:LEAD. Moncrief (talk) 01:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I think part of the issue is also that it is simply not very could and reads strangely, dates being repeated, etc. It’s unfortunate as a consensus was built before her death to have an intro of “Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; 21 April 1926 – 8 September 2022) was Queen of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms from 6 February 1952 until her death in 2022. She was queen of 32 realms at the start of her reign and monarch of 14 of them at the time of her death. Her reign of 70 years and 214 days was the longest of any British monarch and the second-longest recorded of any monarch of a sovereign state“ Max3218 (talk) 07:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Monarch/Queen Regnant: Although I think reaching the consensus first paragraph was great wiki work, reading that paragraph with the eye of an average reader suggests we might be expecting too much or aiming at a rather more educated readership. "Monarch" is a generic term; "Queen regnant" is a specific type of monarch. Although I already understood the terms, I had to do a double take on the second sentence and this early in the entry this may lead to readers finding Wikipedia too highbrow a source: "So she was only monarch of 15?" "So now I have to find out what all these terms mean?" etc Although this leads some readers to the wonders of researching further in Wikipedia :) the majority may simply stop reading because the article requires too much work. Surely the first section/paragraph should provide something akin to a TLDR. Obviously WE know that "queen regnant" means "monarch" and that "monarch" does not necessarily mean "queen regnant", but we shouldn't assume our readers will read straight through that without a double take. To make this a simpler read I suggest that the term monarch is removed as it does the opposite of clarifying. For example this small change might read "During her lifetime she was queen regnant of 32 sovereign states of which 15 remained at the time of her death." or similar. Wordwood (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I strongly supported this paragraph to be implemented right away as it was a vital upgrade that we needed to fix the mess before it in the 24 hours or so after the death. However, you do make a really good point here and I would also support this change to remove 'monarch'. And if "of which" doesn't flow as well I would recommend just replacing 'monarch' by doubling up 'queen regent" to read "She was queen regent of 32 sovereign states during her life and remained queen regent in 15 at the time of her death". A problem we are describing here is the problem with elegant variation. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 15:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I think the problem we're entirely failing to recognise here is that "queen regnant" is by far the less helpful of the two. Using both isn't so much "the problem of elegant variation" as "the solution of helping gloss the needlessly obscure term we used for no good reason in the previous sentence". Unless we're doggedly taking the royal-wonk position of "we're going to relentlessly use this until you absorb it by osmosis, or give in as look it up" (see also: AccedeGate), and if you wish to avoid the use of synonyms, it makes a lot more sense to use "monarch" in both places. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

First of all, using both in that particular sentence is no longer an issue since the slight rewrite (and current version) below by @GoodDay. On which one to use I wouldn't be opposed to either. I don't think Queen regnant is "royal-wonk", rather just more specifying. "Monarch" on the other hand wouldn't be a bad fit considering the next sentence we also say "her reign of 70 years and 214 days is the longest of any British monarch". JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 20:37, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I tweaked it, so that "queen regnant" is shown, only. GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussion regarding Archie and Lilibet as prince and princess

A discussion has been started here regarding Archie and Lilibet as prince and princess. Thanks. cookie monster 755 21:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I think that what would be appropriate is that, per 1917 declaration (amended later to also include females), it is mentioned that both Archie and Lilibet have the option to claim HRH titles with the ascension of King Charles but that it appears unlikely because of Harry’s and Meghan’s stated want for them to have more ‘normal’ lives. Just one potential idea to address it. Max3218 (talk) 21:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Max3218 I agree, though I see no point in making such an edit (though others opinions may differ) as I expect the sussexes to make a statement soon, especially since that already made a big hoo ha about it at Archie's birth. EmilySarah99 (talk) 09:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Link to death in lead?

"She was queen regnant of 32 sovereign states during her life and served as monarch of 15 of them at the time of her death"

Should there be a link to Death of Elizabeth II for "her death"? I know it's linked at the bottom of the lead but I think a link here would be great instead. Koopatrev (talk; contrib) 00:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I think when her funeral occurs, the lede could be updated to say something like "Elizabeth died at Balmoral Castle, Aberdeenshire, aged 96 and was buried at King George VI Memorial Chapel at St George's Chapel." That would cover both her passing and the funeral, while making the link a bit more obvious for further reading. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

balmoral castle

balmoral castle link for her death location links to christian weston chandler 2600:1700:CC40:4380:7009:A7B:196:8185 (talk) 00:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed Already fixed (vandalism reverted). General Ization ^Talk 01:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Charles article link duplicated twice in the lead

The article link to Charles is duplicated twice in the lead. Only once is necessary imo. 88.108.44.8 (talk) 15:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

•  Done link removed. Thank you for pointing that out! HouseBlaster^talk 16:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

No problem! --88.108.44.8 (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 September 2022

Request to change “Mother” section in the infobox from “Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother” back to “Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon.” The mother in this case should be referred to by her maiden name like past queen consorts. AKTC3 (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Done. DrKay (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)