Talk:List of sovereign states headed by Elizabeth II

The new article

Love the new article, G2. PS- is this sorta a response to Gazz's concerns at List of Australian monarchs article? GoodDay (talk) 23:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I realise I'm getting a rep as a major wet blanket, but what is the difference between this and Commonwealth realms?--Gazzster (talk) 03:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I take it back. On principle its rather good. It's a good start to simplifying this morass of CR articles. Well done, G2.--Gazzster (talk) 03:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

And I like 'states headed by E2' rather than Commonwealth realm.--Gazzster (talk) 03:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

GoodDay: Thanks, and no, this wasn't intended as any "response" to Gazz's concerns. This table just covers the reign of EIIR, so it can't replace any lists of leaders for other countries.

Gazzster: If this simplifies things, that's great. However, I highly doubt it can replace much of what's covered in the CR articles. Maybe it means some excess can be taken out of Commonwealth realm now, though. --G2bambino (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Would it work better if arranged horizontally, rather than vertically? JPD (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No... I think it's actually rather a cube right now, and if turned horizontally the dates' columns would be more spread out than their rows are now. I thought about somehow turning the country names vertically, but I've no idea how to do that in html, let alone if it would actually help. --G2bambino (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by a cube, but I've tried some horizontal versions at User:JPD/Sandbox. I prefer the horizontal version, but if the vertical format stays, it at least needs some more date columns. Turning the country names might also be a good idea, if possible. JPD (talk) 03:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This page is very confusing. Why do dates start at time of independence?

I find this page rather confusing. Enlighten me.... Why do the darker green dates start at the time of independence for many relams? It gives the impression the Monarchy didn't have any role prior to that... For example:

• For Australia and Canada, the Queen's role flows from top to bottom..... This seems ok-- it gives the impression the Queen was incharge from beginning until now.
• However, for Barbados + Jamaica many other countries etc... it starts half way down the page??? it gives the impression that the Queen/monarchy was not in-charge at all prior.

Following independence that is when the first Queen's representative known as a "Governor General" was appointed but before that Barbados, Jamaica etc. etc. pretty much all had "Governors" that also represented the Monarch.... Just like how a head of Governent prior to independence are a "Premier" and after independence they become a "Prime Minister".... In other words.

The current territories of the UK:

• Bermuda(UK)
• British Virgin Islands(UK)
• Cayman Islands(UK)
• Turks and Caicos Islands(UK) etc.

All have a representative of the Queen known as a "Governor", + a Head of Government known as a "Premier".

The former territories of the UK:

• Barbados
• Jamaica
• Saint Lucia
• Grenada etc.

All have a representative of the Queen known as a "Governor General", + a Head of Government known as a "Prime Minister".

CaribDigita (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Before independence those countries weren't countries. --G2bambino (talk) 02:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. The title does say "states". JPD (talk) 03:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if the state is not independent Her Majesty Q.E.II (is currently and was at the time) also the Head of State of the U.K. so she still would have "headed" those nations as well even if they were territories... And in fact she would have had more power in the *territories* when they had Governors, rather then when they became Governor-Generals... The GGs pretty much carry out all of the Queen's duties now-a-days in the countries they are resident in... So it's actually the Governors General now that is doing the "Heading" in most of these nations. The Queen today pretty much just gives a passing "nod" or assent via her representatives. CaribDigita (talk) 15:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, there's some at the Australian articles who suggest their Governor General is Australia's HoS. GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually on the Parliament website of Barbados too they say their GG is their HoS too... http://www.barbadosparliament.com/heads_of_state.php I'm guessing they made an error... However, the role of the Queen now has diminished to practically nothing. The parliaments around the world have continually passed various legislations stripping more and more power from the Monarchy and vesting it in the GGs. At this point, supposedly the only power the Monarch still really has over Barbados is to declare the nation in a State of Emergency. CaribDigita (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

That occured to me too. As far as I know, Australia is the only former British colony governed by a GG whose powers are defined by a constitution. but I think the issue is obscure enough to let pass in this article. It would be too messy to explain.--Gazzster (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't I know it. I still got a 'bump' on my head, from the Kevin Rudd article 'infobox' discussions. GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Before each state achieved independence, the Queen reigned as Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, on independence, the Queen reigned of whichever state in question, eg. Queen of Barbados in Barbados rather than Queen of the UK in Barbados. That's why not all states are shown as being headed by the Queen since 1952 many weren't states then but still part of the British state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.135.120.35 (talk) 13:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

True, but this makes no difference. If a territory is not independent the fact remains that Queen Elizabeth would be their Head of State(even as a territory). Even if a country becomes independent (like Canada) as long as they don't become a republic she's still going to be head of State. So anything on this map showing Queen Elizabeth as head of state **still--** would have had her as their Head of State since 1952 independent or not. Think of Puerto Rico. Their Head of State is the U.S. president and if they become independent and do not choose a president technically the US president would still be their Head of State. This map is perpetrating mis information. I see it already on the Antigua article where it states QEH has only been their Queen since they become independent. If that were the case, then who was their Monarch before independence??? CaribDigita (talk) 23:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe you're right. I have noted the difference in dates too. There may even be some (unintended) bias going on here, prejudicing the smaller, 'primitive' states as if they were little more than colonies, in favour of the older and 'developed' states like Australia and Canada.--Gazzster (talk) 00:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

States headed by Elizabeth II: United Kingdom?

This article describes the states headed by Elizabeth II. Why is the UK missing? Is this not headed by Queen Elizabeth II? Demophon (talk) 08:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It's there. The list is in alphabetical order from left to right. --G2bambino (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It's there all right, once you scroll far enough. I still prefer a horizontal version, but if noone agrees, can we at least have more date columns? JPD (talk) 02:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Ghehe, you're both right! I didn't notice the scroll bar. It's the last collumn. Demophon (talk) 07:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Colours

Why are the bars for the countries where the Queen reigns today coloured in light green (eg. Antigua and Barbuda, Australia), whilst the ones where she has reigned over in the past are coloured in dark green (eg. Ceylon, Fiji)? Surely these colours should be switched as it would be expected that a dark colour symbolises continuity, whilst a light one symbolises something which has 'faded' away.

The colours were originally this way around but appear to have been switched when the table was rotated. This should be fixed. —Crere (talk) 14:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, but not that important. I don't think it really matters as much, or at least for anyone else since they never replied back here on it. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 10:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I would say that using different colours at all is a misuse of the format. If we were simply listing the states currently or previously headed by QEII, then colour would be a useful way to distinguish between the two categories. However, in this table, we do not simply list the name of a country, but have the horizontal axis depicting the flow of time. Not only can the states which are still in this situation be clearly seen simply by looking at the end of the graph, but the visual impression is that each part of the bar represents a different year. It doesn't really make any sense for the colours for Canada and Ceylon under the 1955 label to be different - they were in a similar relationship with the Queen at the time, whatever has happened since. JPD (talk) 02:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you: there is actually no reason for different colours. There was no difference with the Queen's position of head of state between countries which at the time were under her reign but are no longer today, and those which at the time were under her reign and are still today (eg. Elizabeth II was just as much the Queen of Ceylon in 1960 as she was the Queen of Canada then).

I propose that the bars are all standardised to one colour, and to distinguish between current states headed by the Queen and ones which were formerly headed by her, the current realms should be in bold. —Crere (talk) 12:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Fiji- Republic and Monarchy?

I think this bizarre and unexplained statement, which I removed, is based on the idea that Elizabeth II remains Paramount Chief of Fiji.Paramount Chief is not the same as Queen. It is not a constitutional role; it is a traditional role. It is certainly a high honour, perhaps, as far as Fijians are concerned, the highest, but it is not linked to the headship of state, which is by Constitution in the person of the President. --Gazzster (talk) 05:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I've altered the way the information was presented; hopefully for the better. --G2bambino (talk) 01:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

She's still paramount chief, not queen, as stated here. --Jfruh (talk) 20:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The source says differently, though. --G2bambino (talk) 21:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I how much credence to put into a transcription of a short radio piece that contains no direct quotations that use the word "queen" when this information contradicts everything else I've ever read on the subject -- and anything that's on the Fiji page, for that matter. I'm reasonably sure "Tui Viti" means "King of Fiji" in Fijan, but what significance does this have if the actual government of Fiji doesn't recognize her as monarch? To put it another way, Elizabeth is not the ceremonial head of state of Fiji, because she performs none of the actions that a ceremonial head of state performs, as she does in her other realms. The fact that a group of traditional cheifs in Fiji continue to apply an ancient Fijan royal title to her -- which application apparently grants her no powers and requires of her no duties -- does not make Fiji a "state headed by Elizabeth II". --Jfruh (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the article does explicitly state that Fiji recognises EIIR "only as a ceremonial head of state, with no role in government at all," which is a take off of the source. We can change "queen" (which you'll note is not capitalised) for "Paramount Chief," but that still makes her a type of head of state for Fiji, does it not? --G2bambino (talk) 22:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I would question 'ceremonial head of state' very carefully, even if it is sourced. True, the situation is bizarre, but the very term 'head of state', ceremonial or not, implies a constitutional relationship. According to the Constitution, she has no constitutional role to play. Can we get some more souces on this question?--Gazzster (talk) 03:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is of course compounded by the consideration of the legality of the last coup. The retention of Liz by the traditional leadership of Fiji may be a measure of resistence to the new regime.--Gazzster (talk) 08:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I suppose we're all aware that "head of state" has multiple meanings, plus, there may be a constitutional connotation to EIIR's position as queen/Paramount Chief of Fiji; she is declared to be such (both apparantly) by the Great Council of Chiefs, which, as I understand it, is a body above the President. To tell the truth, though, I'm really not an expert on the structure of Fijian authority; I'm only going by the sources. --G2bambino (talk) 14:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Missing countries

What about India, between 1947 and 1950?