Talk:List of guests at the state funeral of Elizabeth II

map

Hello, I just made a map for this article with mapchats.com, which is not the usual for Wikipedia (I used map charts because I am new to making Maps and don't know the basics). And I just want to see what everyone thinks about this

in my opinion it gives a visual element to this article that helps the reader better understand 4me689 (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Duchess of Kent

After she already disapeared from the list do we already have proof that she won't attend? And in my opinion I wouldn't be surprised because she already was frail some years ago. 84.167.95.47 (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

The Telegraph only mentioned the Duke so I removed her for now. Richiepip (talk) 18:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

The Duchess of Kent was absent ... this is confirmed by the Court Circular Rhyddfrydol2 (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Then why is she added again? 84.167.95.47 (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Bowes-Lyon

Should there be something like that for the descendents of her Bowes-Lyon grandparents? !Sir Simon Bowes-Lyon, first cousin! for example? 84.167.95.47 (talk) 17:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Has it been confirmed the Bowes-Lyon's are coming? Anyone can answer that. TheCorriynial (talk) 13:14, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Nothing heard yet.84.167.95.47 (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

If its confirmed, then I'd agree they'd likely should be listed somewhere under the Royal Family under something like:

(I.E Other descendants of the Queen Mother's family and their relationship to the late Queen.) TheCorriynial (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm really suprised today finding a very big part of the family but not one Bowes-Lyon. 84.167.95.47 (talk) 13:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually there were quite a few Bowes-Lyon relatives there. If you watch the footage carefully, you can see them in the quire seating at Westminster Abbey and near the front in St. George’s Chapel. As they are not listed anywhere else, I visually identified some of them using existing photos of Bowes-Lyon relatives. I have added them in an invisible comment for now. Others can help check and identify. I hope this is not considered banned original research. QW3RTYP13.14 (talk) 19:57, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.167.95.47 (talk) 14:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

That also means all remaining first cousins were present.84.167.95.47 (talk) 14:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't know, how many Bowes-Lyon members were there. GoodDay (talk) 14:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

There are only two remaining Bowes-Lyon first cousins. Sir Simon Bowes-Lyon was definitely there. But I am not 100% sure if the man I identified as Albemarle Bowes-Lyon is actually him, because I have only seen him from the Queen Mother’s funeral and haven’t found a current photo of him.QW3RTYP13.14 (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

What idiot has deleted them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.167.95.47 (talk) 11:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I have added back a Bowes-Lyon section. Hope it doesn’t get deleted again. Go to Getty Images 1243350811 and 1243350241 and/or look at the funeral footage for the quire section where extended relations including Bowes-Lyon were seated. A few are still unidentified. QW3RTYP13.14 (talk) 18:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC) Nothing definitive on Albemarle Bowes-Lyon yet?79.238.83.116 (talk) 08:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay, here’s what I got on Albemarle. He was seated in the middle row in the back section of the quire at Westminster. Getty Images 1243364823 he is on the left in this photo at St. George’s. Getty Images 170045791 is a photo of the Queen Mother’s procession to her Lying in State in 2002. According to a BBC website, five rows back the four Bowes-Lyon relatives were Albemarle, Simon 19th Earl, Michael 18th Earl, and Sir Simon. So, same guy right? QW3RTYP13.14 (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Commonwealth presidents

I'd be interested to know my fellow Wikipedians thoughts on if we should continue to list the presidents of Commonwealth republics with the prime ministers of the Realms, or if they should be listed with the other Republican heads of state. Richiepip (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's a problem, as it is somewhat implicit that they are republics that were once kingdoms of the Windsors. I think of classifying republican heads of state in 3 categories (former empires, former kingdoms and without a monarchic past) HealthKnight1993 (talk) 22:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Forget what I said. I abandoned this idea HealthKnight1993 (talk) 17:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Flag icons on Members of non-reigning royal houses

In my opinion, flag icons on Members of non-reigning royal houses is a good idea. It will help illustrate what country there from, and will make it more readable. (Also this is unrelated but i really want more comments on the Talk page of User:4me689/the most important deaths of each year (2000 - present).)4me689 (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I am not mad that you added the flags back, in fact, I do agree with you that they should be included, however, when I have added them to articles in past they have been removed with WP:MOSICON being cited. I will not remove them again but an editor may. Richiepip (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Where should King and Queen of Malaysia, Sultan of Brunei and King of Tonga be put?

These three are Commonwealth heads of states and foreign monarches, where should these three be put?--Billytanghh (talk) 17:56, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, in foreign royalty section, where they belong. It will be really weird to put them in commonwealth considering others listed in the section are prime ministers and presidents. I am also not oppose to add small note next to their names indicating that they are also head of states of commonwealth for clarification, if needed. Lulusword (talk) 19:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

You are thinking too complicated I think. 2003:DA:CF15:DF05:C17D:3211:A656:A2B4 (talk) 12:10, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Unnecessary segregation of non-reigning royal houses

I reverted the recent edit where the sub-section for non-reigning royal houses is separated into three sub-sections: non-reigning national royal houses, members of German royal houses, and non-national royal houses. I find the classifications particularly arbitrary and the segregation unnecessary and have removed them. None of them are currently reigning so for such a minor part of this list page, I don't think it's extremely necessary to separate them into three sub-groups. EDIT: It has been reverted back to a single list by Peter Ormond (thanks!). HolaQuetzalcoatl (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Attendance of reigning royals of disputed or limited recognition

The Holy Khan and Sovereign Prince of Hohenstaufen of the Sovereign See is set to attend the funeral, confirmed by the imperial court. The status of the Sovereign See is disputed, it’s recognized by a fraction of the states. His attendance is was noted, but is recently deleted from the page 89.205.132.242 (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Can you provide a source where it stated that they will come? Lulusword (talk) 16:14, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

It was mentioned on their insta stories earlier this week, with a link to the article on their website:

http://www.legionoftheforce.org/diplomatic-updates/the-imperial-family-will-attend-the-funeral-of-hm-queen-elizabeth-ii 46.244.59.201 (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

It appears that this organization is at best an unusual religious organization/microstate of sorts. At worst, it appears to be the blog of some role-replaying Dutch man. This organization does not appear to be newsworthy/noteworthy and should not be listed as a guest to the funeral. Also, no independent source have even mentioned this entity as far as I'm aware. Leiwang7 (talk) Leiwang7 (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I've studied both royal pretenders and micronations, and this is the first I've heard of this individual or his claim. I know the IP above claimed that the claims status is 'recognised by a fraction of the states' - I think that fraction might be 0%. I don't think this individual is going to be at the funeral. GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I think it is fake.84.167.95.47 (talk) 14:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Relationship of foreign European royals to Queen - mentioned in article or not?

Should the relationships of other European royals to the late monarch be mentioned in this article? Was done in case of her late husband's funeral (see Death and funeral of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh) Aumnamahashiva (talk) 17:55, 17 September 2022 (UTC) Yes it would be helpful and was done in the past.84.167.95.47 (talk) 12:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Thailand?

I could not find anyone from Thailand, neither the king nor members of the royal house nor other dignitaries of the country. In the section about not-invited dignitaries Thailand isn't mentioned either, or did I overlook something? So, what about Thailand? Altaripensis2 (talk) 20:40, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

There are countries that have not yet informed about their delegations and have been invited (or there is no known express non-invitation). We will have to wait. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I see, thanks!--Altaripensis2 (talk) 09:19, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Separation of Commonwealth Realm representatives and dignitaries from the wider commonwealth

I feel it would be worth separating the representatives from Commonwealth realms from the wider commonwealth dignitaries. The Queen was Head of State of 14 other countries and I believe it’s important to separate those representatives from others where the Queen was not. Thoughts? TobiasRagg2001 (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Attempting to fix the issue and you may help as well. Mitsuyashi (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

It is now hard to find a person on the page. Suggestion: one big sortable table would make it easier to find a guest by country, name or function, e.g.

group	flag	country	fuction	name
Royal family		United Kingdom	King	Charles III
Commonwealth		Australia	Prime minister	Anthony Albanese
Commonwealth		Canada	Prime minister	Justin Trudeau
Commonwealth		Canada	Governor General	Mary Simon
Foreign royalty		the Netherlands	King	Willem-Alexander
etc.	etc.	etc.	etc.	etc.

Uwappa (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

FWIW - Charles III, the British prime minister & other British dignitaries aren't guest in their own country, which is where the funeral is being held. GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

The current version is acceptable. We don't need any further changes. The United Kingdom, Australia, Canada & New Zealand were the only countries that were Commonwealth realms, her entire reign. GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

This list is getting very complicated. Can't we just make an alphabetical table for all national representatives? Peter Ormond 💬 17:12, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not complicated. The UK/CAN/AUS/NZ should have their own sections. The 11 other Commonwealth realms, are being represented by only 1 or 2 dignitaries. Clumping them all under "Commonwealth realms" or even worst "Commonwealth of Nations", would be totally confusing. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

It would either have to be one long list of names listed alphabetically with no sub-headings, or it would have to be something similar to what has been written on the current version of the article in order to deal with the complex nature of how the monarchy is politically viewed across the world. Mitsuyashi (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Giving UK, Can, Aus & NZ there own sections is best. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

UK, Can, Aus, NZ should have separate sections.

May we please allow the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia & New Zealand have their own separate sections? These are the 'four' countries, that were Commonwealth realms during Elizabeth II's entire reign. Besides, they're also the four who are being represented by a big number of dignitaries. The 11 other realms are being represented by no more the two or three people, each. GoodDay (talk) 17:14, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

It is not a big problem for me so I will leave it as it is. My only worry is whether the realms should be ordered alphabetically rather than having the United Kingdom at the top, since she was the Queen of her realms independent of each other. Mitsuyashi (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

They're ordered by the age of the realms (UK-1801, Canada-1867, Australia-1901 & New Zealand-1907), not to mention that the funeral itself is taking place in the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

@Peter Ormond: will you please stop lumping the UK, Canada, Australia & New Zealand under the heading "Commonwealth realms". These realms should have their own separate sections. They (again) were the realms that lasted her entire reign & also are the realms with 'more then' two dignitaries. GoodDay (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Are they not "Commonwealth realms"? UK, Canada, Australia & New Zealand retain their own separate sub-sections within the overall realms grouping. Peter Ormond 💬 18:59, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Let those four realms have their separate sections. The following section says "Other Commonwealth realms" (thus showing UK/CAN/AUS/NZ are also realms). The funeral is being held in the UK, not all the realms. She's not going to be buried 15 times, once in each realm. I realise that 'some' may not like it, but the page is UK-centric for obvious reasons. Giving Canada, Australia & New Zealand their own sections, along with the United Kingdom, is a darn good compromise. GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Now, what's wrong in "Wider Commonwealth"? Peter Ormond 💬 19:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

"Wider Commonwealth" is acceptable, if it's not including the realms where Charles III is head of state. GoodDay (talk) 19:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

It is not a big problem for me so I will leave you two to work it out (unless you put the issue out for a vote) but I think that grouping the countries under "Commonwealth realms" is good organization. Mitsuyashi (talk) 19:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Disagree (per explanations), but perhaps an RFC may be required on this topic. GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Separating Commonwealth Realms from other Commonwealth nations makes a certain amount of sense, but what is the rationale for separating Canada, Australia, and New Zealand from the other Commonwealth Realms? GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Canada, Australia & New Zealand (along with the United Kingdom), were the only countries that were Commonwealth realms, her entire reign. Also, they've more then 'two' dignitaries each. GoodDay (talk) 21:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

It notice that you are the only respondent who feels we should have separate sections for each country. Therefore it might be best if I go ahead and merge the sections. Mitsuyashi (talk) 01:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I still oppose. But I guess you'll keep on changing it, regardless. GoodDay (talk) 05:12, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

It appears as though every 'few' hours, an editor is going to keep putting all the realms under 'one' section heading called "Commonwealth realms". GoodDay (talk) 04:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• Strong oppose to New Zealand NZ is a country with a tiny population. The largest countries of the realm are 1. UK, 2. Canada, 3. Australia, 4. is NOT New Zealand, 4. Papua New Guinea. I support a separate section for UK, Canada, Australia. Not New Zealand. I am ok with UK, Canada, Australia, Papua New Guinea. If NZ is included, Papua New Guinea, which is has a Black population (albeit not African), should be included. I am also ok with no separate sections, as recommended by GoodDay. CandyStalnak (talk) 04:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

It's got nothing to do with 'white' or 'black' countries. Papua New Guinea didn't become a Commonwealth realm, until 1975. UK/CAN/AUS/NZ were Commonwealth realms, during Elizabeth II's entire reign. GoodDay (talk) 09:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

• Restore New Zealand with its own section. It's one of the four Commonwealth realms, that existed during Elizabeth II's entire reign & sent more then 'two' dignitaries. GoodDay (talk) 09:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Very specious criteria to say NZ qualifies because it had the Queen her entire reign. PNG had the Queen it's entire time as a country and 100% the Queen whilst NZ was under other Kings. PNG should then be there because it's 100% under the Queen until her death. CandyStalnak (talk) 16:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

You've no consensus for the changes you want to make, so stop attempting to force them. PNG didn't become a sovereign state/commonwealth realm, until 1975. GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Proof that including NZ is colonialism and racism . There are comments to include NZ because it was a country since 1947 and under the Queen's reign during her entire reign. That criteria is imperialism because the British Empire did not breakup until after World War II, much of it under QEII. The fact remains that NZ is a small country with fewer people than Chicago. NZ should not have a separate heading. Wikipedia is not a vote. CandyStalnak (talk) 16:51, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

New Zealand became a country in 1907 & will you please stop denying New Zealand its own section. You've no consensus for the changes you want & therefore, your continuing to push it on the page, is borderline disruption. Best thing for you to do? is open a RFC on the matter 'here'. GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Not true. See above where Mitsuyashi and GenevieveDEon disagree with you. CandyStalnak (talk) 02:01, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

This topic isn't settled yet & there's editors besides me, who disagree with you. GoodDay (talk) 02:04, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Flag fruitsalad

Per MOS:ICON can someone explain what value the flags provide, other than decoration. Maungapohatu (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

@Maungapohatu: They serve as a quick visual guide to identify the dignitary's country.

Per MOS:FLAGCRUFT, emphasising the nationalities of the dignitaries is actually reasonable seeing as this is a list of representatives from multiple nations, and the flags are actually quite useful here. HolaQuetzalcoatl (talk) 18:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that @Maungapohatu. I agree with the fruit salad, or something less complimentary, and I feel that they detract from the article by making it messy. I believe that they are both useless and hideous. Sorry to the flag fans! DBaK (talk) 14:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I think the flags add to and help the article - otherwise it would be a boring narrative. Rhyddfrydol2 (talk) 18:39, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Macron under royalty

Royalty takes precedence over republican leaders, but since Macron is also the Co-Prince of Andorra, should he be listed under foreign royalty even though he is more widely known as the French President? HolaQuetzalcoatl (talk) 18:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I would agree that there is scope to place Emmanuel Macron under royalty due to the connections with Andorra, but the question is whether we should place him once under royalty only or twice under royalty and international in the article and whether he should be accredited to both countries in an individual entry. Mitsuyashi (talk) 19:02, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

@Anotherwikipedianuser I think it is important to note that there have been several elected monarchies in the past and present which you can read about under elective monarchy. Mitsuyashi (talk) 19:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

@Mitsuyashi I know that. It happens that Emmanuel Macron, or any other previous President of France for that matter, is not a member of a royal house, unlike other elected monarchs, such as the King of Malaysia. Not to mention the repetition, as Emmanuel Macron is the President of France, as we all know. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 19:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

P.S.: "(...) any other previous President of France (...)", except for Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte... :) Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 22:09, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

It's fairly clear that M Macron is attending as President of the Fifth Republic, not primarily as Co-Prince of Andorra. Mentioning him twice is entirely superfluous. GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Just because he doesn't do it "primarily" doesn't mean he doesn't even do it. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I have doubts that it can be a "royal", even if he is a Co-Prince. In general, Andorran Co-Princes do not have, nor have had, any connection with any royal house itself. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Considering both coprinces (also Archbishop Joan Enric Vives Sicilia, and this one attending as Andorran coprince only) assisted, and as being an Andorran myself, I consider they are our Royals and should be published together with other monarchies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexeinikolayevichromanov (talk • contribs) 15:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Multiple sources on the internet list the Co-Prince of Andorra as royalty, and one of the previous edits I did on Wikipedia did provide citations stating as such, before it was maliciously reverted by another editor claiming I was confrontational for stating facts. I am only listing the bishop as co-prince under royalty, but convention for a wedding should have Macron under royalty as well - but I will be leaving that since this is Wikipedia. Mitsuyashi (talk) 13:43, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I think it is unlikely that President Macron would even consider himself being a royal ... Rhyddfrydol2 (talk) 18:40, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Repetitive flags

For example: Should one UK, one CAN, one AUS & one NZ be enough, for those countries dignitaries? GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Update: I've limited the British flag to the prime minister. The Canadian, Australian & New Zealand flags, I've limited to the governors-general & prime ministers. GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Turkish President

I see the Turkish President has been put back on the list of International leaders after being removed. Is there independent evidence to say he is attending now? Last I saw his Foreign Sec was attending in his place. TobiasRagg2001 (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Relevance of Josip Tito reference in Introduction

I’m aware that a higher number of heads of state/government are at Her Majesty’s funeral than were at Tito’s however (correct me if I’m mistaken) but Mandela’s funeral had more HoS/G than we are expecting tomorrow. I think if this is included there needs to be more clarification. There isn’t a verified list of the most attended state funerals (again correct me if I’m wrong) TobiasRagg2001 (talk) 22:54, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I've made a note regarding that Tito's funeral had a higher percent of world leaders attendance, since at that time there were less countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordi2023 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The United Kingdom is considered equal to the other Commonwealth realms

The monarchies of the commonwealth realms are independent of each other and simply in a personal union, therefore the countries of the commonwealth realms should be listed in alphabetical order rather than the UK being at the top. Mitsuyashi (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not such a great leap to conclude that the UK is the core of the Commonwealth, nothing of this magnitude would exist without the UK, and that it's the UK who "runs the show", basically. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 02:59, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Being the oldest realm, I think the UK should be at the top. That being said, Canada should take precedence over Australia and New Zealand. HolaQuetzalcoatl (talk) 03:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@HolaQuetzalcoatl: I'm in for putting Canada next to the UK. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 03:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Obviously nobody has noticed the above discussion & it's getting tiresome, seeing the UK, Canada, Australia & New Zealand put under the "Commonwealth realms" section, when they deserve each their 'own' sections. So why bother anymore, with it. GoodDay (talk) 04:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I still oppose @Mitsuyashi:'s version, which he implemented a few hours ago. But if we're going to list the only realms that existed during Elizabeth II's entire reign, under "Commonwealth realms"? The UK must be listed first. It's the oldest of the realms & it's where the royal family resides & are first & most associated with. Also, the state funeral is being held in the United Kingdom. After the UK? put the next realms-in-question, in order of their coming into existence, Canada, Australia & New Zealand. GoodDay (talk) 05:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@GoodDay: I support that solution: UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand with own main sections. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 07:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

It should be changed back to that format, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 07:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@GoodDay: I too support UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand being under their own sections TobiasRagg2001 (talk) 08:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• Strong oppose for NZ It is a small country. Including NZ smacks of racism. The big countries with mostly White populations have a section but not the Black and non-White countries. Easy to fix. Take out NZ as a separate country heading. CandyStalnak (talk) 06:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Recommend that you 'stop' with the racism accusations. GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with @GoodDay: - this has nothing to do with racism - not everything is! Rhyddfrydol2 (talk) 18:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

House of Romania

No non-reigning royal house has sent four members to Westminster Abbey. Princess Elena of Romania and Alexander Nixon were not present at the funeral itself. --Enredados (talk) 12:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

How about list of peers and her ladies-in-waiting?

Lord Elton was there as was Earl of Airlie. Earl Spencer. 109.245.175.167 (talk) 13:11, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

List of countries EII was head of state of?

I think it's relevant in the introduction to list the countries that Elizabeth II was head of state of. This was reverted (without summary); I've reinstated it. What do others think?

Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom and 14 other Commonwealth realms: Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, The Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu

Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually there were 30+ countries. See List of sovereign states headed by Elizabeth II Mike Rohsopht (talk) 13:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Good point, this should be mentioned in the introduction. Should this now rather long list be included in full? If not, there should be a clear link, it's relevant to the article. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 14:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

On reflection, I don't think any more than the 15 count, as she was Queen of some places in her capacity as Queen of somewhere else. I don't think places she was formerly Queen of need mentioning.

In her capacity as Queen of the United Kingdom (including the British overseas territories), she was also monarch of three Crown Dependencies—the Channel Island of Guernsey and Jersey (as the Duke of Normandy), and the Isle of Man (as the Lord of Mann)—and, in her capacity as Queen of New Zealand, she was monarch of two associated states—the Cook Islands and Niue.

Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Has the number of countries who attended been verified?

Have number of countries who attended been verified? And if so, is this the largest collection of Heads of State / Government for a state funeral? TobiasRagg2001 (talk) 16:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@TobiasRagg2001: An IP editor counted 185 countries, but I don't think so... We have to check with the list of the 193 UN members, plus 2 observers (Palestine and Vatican City), plus Kosovo. The Iraqi Kurdistan doesn't count. Right now, I'm too busy to do the math, if someone can do it first, that would be great. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk)

Assuming that all countries present are on the article, I have done the math on how many countries attended. The UN has 193 member states and two observer states (Palestine and Vatican City). The UK recognizes Kosovo, so Kosovo counts. The Iraqi Kurdistan doesn't count. Counting countries that did not attend for whatever reason:

• Europe (2): Belarus and Russia
• Americas (4): Bolivia, Nicaragua, Suriname and Venezuela
• Africa (9): Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Mauritania and São Tomé and Príncipe
• Asia (8): Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Myanmar, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Yemen
• Oceania (5): Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau and Vanuatu
• TOTAL (28)

So we have 193 - 28 + 2 + 1 = 168 countries attending.

In percentage, 85.7% of these 196 countries attended (168/196).

I also counted 19 monarchs, 55 presidents and 25 prime ministers.

I am going to update the article based on this. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Updated with Iraq's presence. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 09:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I find it odd that Botswana, Kiribati, Nauru and Vanuatu sent no-one (not even their High Commissioner) given that all four are in the Commonwealth which was very dear to the heart of the late Queen. Rhyddfrydol2 (talk) 19:14, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

@Rhyddfrydol2: Really odd, indeed. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• An update with regard to Nauru - I have been in touch with the honorary consul listed in the London Diplomatic List. He resigned from that position in July, and has confirmed that no-one from Nauru was present at the funeral. Rhyddfrydol2 (talk) 13:11, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Show Camilla as "Queen consort", please.

Is there any overwhelming reason why we can't show Camilla as "Queen consort" in the Royal family section? GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Earl Spencer

I tried to make him visible as well as his wife because they were confirmed but some kind of mistake happened. Please help. 84.167.95.47 (talk) 20:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Botswana?

Were there any VIPs from Botswana in attendance who can be included with this article? It seems odd that they're missing, since Botswana is a Commonwealth nation. I know the President Masisi couldn't attend, because he was in New York for the UNGA. Scanlan (talk) 02:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Captain Mark Phillips

One of my friends says he saw Captain Mark Phillips (the former son-in-law of the Queen) in the congregation? I can find no source to confirm or deny this. Can anyone help? Rhyddfrydol2 (talk) 19:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I thought about him as well but haven't seen or read anythingg. Hope somebody can help?84.167.95.47 (talk) 19:18, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

According to the Daily Mail - Captain Phillips was not present Rhyddfrydol2 (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

There is now a claim he attended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.238.80.224 (talk) 13:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

People, go search “Queen Birchall” on Getty Images (click Editorial below). There are several images of the nave at the Queen’s committal. The person I think is Mark Phillips is seated on the left middle, triangulated by a column, a red uniform, and a brown suit. Three rows in front is I think Andrew Parker Bowles. Thoughts? QW3RTYP13.14 (talk) 00:34, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

United Arab Emirates

This is another of those Royalty or not questions. The Vice-President of the UAE (representing the President) may be a royal, but he was there representing a President - and the United Arab Emirates is technically a republic - should their representation not be included in the non-Commonwealth Heads of State section, and not the Reigning royal houses section? Rhyddfrydol2 (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

@Rhyddfrydol2: Yes, it's tricky, the UAE's form of government is described as "Federal Islamic parliamentary elective semi-constitutional monarchy", and there's an unwritten rule that the President is the Emir of Abu Dhabi, and the Vice-President/Prime Minister is the Emir of Dubai. Now, the emirs of each UAE's seven emirates are uncontestedly members of royal houses, unlike the bishops of Urgell and the presidents of France, in the case of Andorra. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

@Anotherwikipedianuser: - perhaps a compromise would be to list the Vice President of the UAE, as the Emir of Dubai (representing the President of UAE)? Rhyddfrydol2 (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

@Rhyddfrydol2: As I commented the other day, talking about the President of the UAE and the Emir of Dubai doesn't sound good to me. Either we use President & Vice-President or we use Emir of Abu Dhabi & Emir of Dubai, that is my opinion. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

@Anotherwikipedianuser: - I accept you cannot mix President and Emir. The Emir of Dubai/Vice President of UAE is listed under royalty. Therefore, he should be shown as the Emir of Dubai. If he was there as Vice-President of UAE he should be shown in overseas heads of state (and not in the overseas royals section). Rhyddfrydol2 (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

@Rhyddfrydol2: So following that logic, the Emir of Dubai attended the funeral, representing the Emir of Abu Dhabi. Do you agree with that? If yes, the change will be made. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 21:35, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

hi - I think that is a good result. Rhyddfrydol2 (talk) 21:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia makes startling claim about Nauru. Needs citation.

Nauru is a member country of the Commonwealth. The last section is "Uninvited" and lists Nauru. Nauru doesn't have a Communist government, nor a repressive government. It cooperates with Australia. It is mind boggling if Nauru wasn't invited. Wikipedia claims this so it should have a citation.

It is plausible that Nauru is poor so they didn't want to send someone to save money. Nauru has (?) less than 25,000 people. CandyStalnak (talk) 06:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

According to the London Diplomatic List Mr Martin W.L. Weston is the Honorary Consul for the Republic of Nauru, living in Sevenoaks in Kent - do we know if he was in attendance at the funeral? Rhyddfrydol2 (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Former King Konstantine

He was deleted? 84.167.95.47 (talk) 14:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC) Oh nothing there84.167.95.47 (talk) 16:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

You mean Constantine II. GoodDay (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

References

Please send a real source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.167.95.47 (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Major error: countries and people and original research

Some countries have people listed under that country but were not part of the country's official delegation. Yet not all people who are not part of an official delegation are listed. This means that it may be original research, which is banned in Wikipedia. CandyStalnak (talk) 17:00, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Which country are you meaning? GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

RFC: Should New Zealand have its own section?

Should New Zealand have its own section? I'm asking this, because there's been arguments put forward that it shouldn't. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

• A - Yes
  
• B - No
• C - Yes but also PNG, a larger Commonwealth country in the Realm
  

Note - During this RfC, the layout-in-question has been changed (for the time being), giving only the United Kingdom its own section. GoodDay (talk) 12:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Survey

• A - Because (like the UK, Canada & Australia) it has been a sovereign state & commonwealth realm, throughout Elizabeth II's entire reign. GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Why is "throughout Elizabeth II's entire reign" a deciding factor? Since Colonialism was not ended until mostly after World War II, could this criteria become a defacto list for colonialism? CandyStalnak (talk) 18:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Please, use "Discussion" section, as we don't want to clog up the "Survey" section. GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

• A - Due to the size of its delegation. JackWilfred (talk) 19:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

That is a possible criteria. If so, should be extended to all countries with a larger delegation. Question: What citation proves they were part of the country's delegation and not just a citizen or subject that got a private invitation? CandyStalnak (talk) 19:50, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

The NZ delegation is not that big. Many people listed are NOT part of the NZ delegation but one editor keeps taking away the citation that lists the people really in the NZ delegation. There were some people that were from NZ but not part of the delegation much like there are some Americans who went but not part of the US delegation (which was 2 - Biden and wife) CandyStalnak (talk) 22:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

• A for both reasons. Whether PNG should also have a subsection is another matter, and WP:POINTed venting about PNG in the NZ thread is bordering on disruptive, as is a racism-trolling counter-RfC below.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:37, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
• A. Let's recall some advice from MOS:LAYOUT:

  Very short sections and subsections clutter an article with headings and inhibit the flow of the prose. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading.

  This argues for a yes-vote for NZ, but a no-vote if the question were raised about Jamaica, Bahamas, or Grenada which should be perhaps instead included under ===Caribbean=== and Tuvalu, Solomons, etc. regrouped under 'Oceania' or 'Pacific islands', and so on. Mathglot (talk) 12:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
• A Yes, and also yes to dignitaries of other countries equally, regardless of size. Maybe split of a separate page if it gets arduous.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, but as a subsection under Commonwealth realm section. I support the current version where UK has its own section (because obviously the funeral is in the UK) and everything else under the realm subheading, except I wish it could be in alphabetical order for easier reading, following the format of other delegations in other categories listed in the article. Experts might know which country has closer ties to the UK but average wikipedian reader wouldn't. Lulusword (talk) 13:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

Reasons for inclusion of New Zealand include 1. NZ has been independent of the UK since 1947, about 5 years before QE2, 2. NZ is a rich White nation (that's reality).

Reasons for inclusion of New Zealand with other Commonwealth realms, not separately include
1. NZ has a very small population, less than the size of a major city. Less than half the population of metropolitan Chicago. Less than the tiny country of Singapore.

2. Smacks of racism and colonialism to include NZ but exclude Papua New Guinea, a country with more than double the population of NZ. PNG's head of state was QE2 and is now Charles III. PNG has accepted QE2 every since it was a country but NZ did not as it had a King for a few years.

3. PM Ardern of the NZ predicted that NZ would eventually be a Republic. No such prediction by the PM of PNG.

Possible compromise is to include PNG and NZ. Possible decision is to have NZ combined with the rest of the others and have only the UK, Canada, and Australia as separate sections.

I am not voting but just making statements for both sides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CandyStalnak (talk • contribs) 18:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC) CandyStalnak (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Note - Papua New Guinea did not become a sovereign state/commonwealth realm, until 1975. Whether or not New Zealand chooses to 'one day' become a republic? is irrelevant. New Zealand's population & Papua New Guinea's population, are irrelevant. PS: - I won't even comment on the racism claim. GoodDay (talk) 18:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Note - When Charles III dies, I am certain there will be another argument for NZ and against PNG. If so, that would be evidence that the current reason is specious. Specious (definition) - apparently good or right though lacking real merit; superficially pleasing or plausible; having a false look of truth or genuineness CandyStalnak (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

NZ & PNG are each independent countries. If NZ wants to become a republic? it will & if PNG wants to become a republic? it will. That's something for the List of dignitaries at the state funeral of Charles III page, which (obviously) hasn't been created yet. GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

• I tried to fix the issue [3]. Isn't this version acceptable? Peter Ormond 💬 19:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I know you tried. But, it's best not make such a change, when an RFC is ongoing. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. A RFC is not a freeze. Peter Ormond's version is worth considering. What is more important? Size of population or date of the country? I believe it's size of population. Ask anyone who the major countries are and most will say USA, China, UK, etc. They will not say the oldest countries, which are probably Japan, UK, San Marino. Maybe have one major version last at least 24 hours starting now? Peter Ormond's version tommorrow, Good Day's version the next day? CandyStalnak (talk) 19:46, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I commend Peter's efforts. But, it's best not to make major changes to an area that's currently the topic of an ongoing RFC. Oh & please - It's "GoodDay", not "Good Day" :) GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

That means your version is king. No, the best interim version. A major version should be shown for at least 24 hours. That would cut down on edit wars but also be fair. CandyStalnak (talk) 20:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

It means keep the status quo, until this RFC is closed. Also, your 'somewhat' competing RFC below, should be shut down. At this point, I've no clue what exactly you're trying to do. GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Inviting @Mitsuyashi:, @GenevieveDEon:, @Anotherwikipedianuser:, @HolaQuetzalcoatl: & @TobiasRagg2001: to give your input, as you've all been involved in this topic in whole or in part. GoodDay (talk) 02:26, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I think this is a totally absurd attempt to create havoc by a disruptive user who likes to throw "racism" stones around to force his/her way. I defend reverting to the original version: separate sections for UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and then the other realms in alphabetical order. End this nonsense. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 08:41, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

• I support the current arrangement with all the 'other realms' including Canada, Australia and NZ, in their own single section with appropriate subsections. No good justification has been provided otherwise. However, some of the attempts to attack GoodDay's proposal are disruptive and pointy, and it would probably be good for everyone to cool off. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

• In my opinion, we need to treat each overseas realm equally - the size of the delegation, the size of the country, the length of time it has been independent - these are all irrelevant. New Zealand is more and no less an overseas realm than Grenada, St Kitts Nevis, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu or Canada. Rhyddfrydol2 (talk) 18:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
• If the result of the RFC is A? Will that mean that Canada & Australia will also have their own section, like the United Kingdom currently has? GoodDay (talk) 12:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I can understand arguments for giving only the United Kingdom its own section.
I can understand arguments for giving only the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia & New Zealand each their own sections.
I can understand arguments for giving all the Commonwealth realms each their own section, too.
What I still don't understand? is any argument for giving only the United Kingdom, Canada & Australia sections of their own, while leaving out New Zealand. GoodDay (talk) 13:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

A possible explanation is that there is no argument to have separate sections for Canada or Australia but since they have large populations and area, they are made exceptions.CandyStalnak (talk) 00:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

And so should New Zealand be made an exception, along with the UK, Canada & Australia. GoodDay (talk) 00:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Question - Which level of section are we discussing here? I don't see any problem with the grouping at this time [4]. CurryCity (talk) 05:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@CurryCity: it was originally the "United Kingdom", "Canada", "Australia" & "New Zealand" each having their own sections. What started this RFC, was one editor pushing to give "Papua New Guinea" its own section, too 'or' denying "New Zealand" a section, if PNG didn't get its own. Now, there's a push (see bottom of talkpage) to give Cook Islands & Niue their own sub-sections underneath New Zealand. GoodDay (talk) 09:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Summary of various related issues - written because the discussion has become long and to avoid TLDR

1. What is the criteria for having a separate section, like a New Zealand section? If there are separate sections, should large countries, like Canada or Australia, be allowed to have a separate section? Or countries with White populations? Or old countries, not newer ones? Or just put all of the non-UK countries into "other Commonwealth" or similar.

2. Should attendees be lumped into their country or just the official delegation be listed under the country? Private individuals would be listed separately. This would allow the reader to know who was an official delegate.

3. Should independent countries be separated out? If so, how about smaller countries? If an independent country has close ties to another country, such that smaller independent country be stuffed with the larger one? [Surprisingly, this is an important question as one user wants the NZ section to include attendees from 3 countries]

CandyStalnak (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Note: CandyStalnak has been blocked as a sock. GoodDay (talk) 00:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Note: @JackWilfred:, @SMcCandlish:, @Mathglot:, @Lulusword:, @Anotherwikipedianuser:, @Ortizesp: @GenevieveDEon:, @Rhyddfrydol2:, @Peter Ormond: and @CurryCity: I've reversed a premature closure of this RFC, by an editor (F117I5/F117I2), who had been away from Wikipedia (Sept 2015 to Oct 2022) for over 'seven' years. GoodDay (talk) 03:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I've done the same, noting that the user in question (F117IS) reported GoodDay to WP:AIV with a gratuitously invalid claim of vandalism. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:26, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

RFC - More complex that the NZ question - What criteria should determine if a Realm country has a separate section?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Editors are clearly against running this RfC, so better we close it. (non-admin closure) Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 23:32, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

---

• A Population of country determines. Larger countries get a separate section
• B Economic size of country determines. Richer countires get a separate section
• C Racial makeup of country determines with most like English getting a separate section
• D Alphabetical
• E No country gets a section except the UK
• F Only 3 countries get a section

CandyStalnak (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

• Recommend this RFC be shut down, as it's creating confusion on the general topic. We've already an ongoing RFC related to this topic. GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Nobody else is confused. The NZ RFC will leave questions unanswered, like what to do with Papua New Guinea, a country with more than double the population of NZ. Unanswered is why is NZ so important that it needs a separate section? Because it is rich? Because it is White? Because it is an old country, established in 1947? What's wrong with NZ lumped in with the other countries? CandyStalnak (talk) 21:21, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

NZ became independent in 1907. I've already explained why New Zealand requires its own 'section' & Papua New Guinea doesn't, in the above RFC. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

You might want to say it here because it is a separate RFC. The other RFC is about NZ. This RFC is about what to do about countries.CandyStalnak (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what this particular RFC is about, tbh. Anyways, it's for others to figure out. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

This is getting more and more ridiculous. Peter Ormond 💬 22:33, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

That is because the first RFC was not well thought out. The larger question is "what countries should have a separate section", not "NZ a separate section?". Unanswered by Good Day is why is a criteria of "country must have been around for QE2's entire reign" is important. If it cannot be explained why, then it may be concluded that the reason is specious. When the reason is specious, then all kinds of bad thoughts swirl, like "is the real reason racism?" CandyStalnak (talk) 22:51, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

It's "GoodDay", not "Good Day". I've explained my reason about giving New Zealand a separate section. That you don't accept that reason, isn't my problem. GoodDay (talk) 22:58, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

The only way (which I can think of) to get rid of this headache is to simply apply this version. And precedence of realms is not defined by population, but by the order of time in which they attained independence. Peter Ormond 💬 23:24, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I would agree to that version, until this whole mess gets sorted out. Who knows, maybe your version will end up being the consensus, when all the dust has cleared. GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Solved for the moment. So that version applies, at least until all the RFCs are cleared (unless they are cleared prematurely or after a rush). It is agreed by all of the current RFC commentators, Peter, Good, and me. CandyStalnak (talk) 01:31, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I support the current version where UK has its own section (because obviously the funeral is in the UK) and everything else under the realm subheading, except I wish it could be in alphabetical order for easier reading, following the format of other delegations in other categories listed in the article. Experts might know which country has closer ties to the UK but average wikipedian reader wouldn't. Lulusword (talk) 04:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

• Close this RFC - GoodDay is right, this is disruptive and frames the question in a needlessly divisive way. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
• Procedural note -- I came from WT:RFC to look at a request to close this discussion early, and having read it I'm not minded to. To my eyes, the question of what the criteria are for having a separate section is germane to the question of whether New Zealand should have its own section, so these are related RfCs that can and should be read together. When the 30 days for the first RfC have expired, one RfC closer can and should assess them both at the same time, noting that reading the first one is essential to understanding the second one.—S Marshall T/C 11:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
• Close per all of the above. This is a bunch of straw man bullshit intended to raise ire; it verges on trolling and should not be fed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:32, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
• Procedural close, as it appears to be a distraction or disruption of the pre-existing Rfc. If you got summoned directly here from a bot notice on your Talk page, as I did, the other Rfc is here; feel free to cast your vote there. Mathglot (talk) 17:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
• I vote "D" - all overseas realms are equal Rhyddfrydol2 (talk) 18:33, 24 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.

Should all citizens and subjects be listed under the country or just the delegation

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I came from WT:RFC to look at a request to close this discussion early, and unlike the previous RfC, I do agree that this one should be closed. I hereby summarily, speedily and unilaterally close and delist it.—S Marshall T/C 11:28, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

---

{{rfc}}

The New Zealand list shows members of the NZ delegation but also lists New Zealanders that came in their personal capacity and not as part of their office or the NZ delegation.

Be careful because there are some Americans who attended. They could be added to the list.

A possible solution is to have a further subdivision of an official delegation and "other individuals" from that country. CandyStalnak (talk) 01:38, 24 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.

Thank you for closing this RFC, which means that the status quo (section with other dignitaries) has been settled as ok to have such section. CandyStalnak (talk) 00:38, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

That's not why this RFC was shut down. GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

This RFC was closed with no opposition to listing New Zealanders who came not as part of the NZ delegation. The section heading talks about governor generals and officials. I did not close the RFC. Someone else did. It is a settled matter now. Maybe the RFC shouldn't have been closed so early but it was. CandyStalnak (talk) 02:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

This RFC was closed a malformed. GoodDay (talk) 02:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@S Marshall:, there seems to be a misunderstanding of your closing. GoodDay (talk) 02:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• Listen to what Isabelle Belato says below.—S Marshall T/C 07:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@CandyStalnak: The closure means only that it was cancelled, no consensus (or lack thereof) was reached here. I'd recommend you read WP:RFC and avoid creating new ones while you get acquainted with the more complex concepts of editing the English Wikipedia. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 02:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

First Lady?

Is it really relevant to include companions of the international guests? If so, I would like to add that the Serbian (lesbian) prime minister Ana Brnabić was accompanied by her girlfriend (de facto wife, but Serbia doesn't officially recognize same-sex unions) Milica Đurđić. However, I'm not sure if it's okay to write that Đurđić is the Frist Lady, since Brnabić is a lady too. 178.223.169.120 (talk) 21:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC) Sounds very biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.167.95.47 (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

It would depend on how she is designated in the Republic of Serbia, surely Rhyddfrydol2 (talk) 20:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Vanuatu

I sent an email to the James Harris, Honorary Consul of the Republic of Vanuatu, and on 25 September 2022 he replied: "Thank you for getting in touch with your query. I can confirm that the duty of representing Vanuatu at the State Funeral fell to me due to the non-availability of our Head of State, who was traveling to New York for the UN General Assembly meeting. Do let me know if you require any further information. Kind Regards, James Harris" Rhyddfrydol2 (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Nauru

Today I received an email from Claire Deakins, PA to the Honorary Consul for the Republic of Nauru to the UK. It reads: " Thank you for your email and interest in Nauru.

I confirm that Nauru was indeed represented at the funeral of the Queen.

Kind regards,

Claire Deakins" Unfortunately it doesn't confirm who represented Nauru - just that Nauru was represented. Rhyddfrydol2 (talk) 14:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I expect FCDO will release an attendance list by October.--Mike Rohsopht (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Rhyddfrydol2: I'm not sure why you're sending emails; these are not WP:RS because they are unpublished, private communications. They can't be cited in Wikipedia unless your correspondent points to a published source, such as their official website or an article in the media. Elizium23 (talk) 01:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Just have some RS publish it. CandyStalnak (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Echoing Elizium23's concern; please do not base anything in the article on any email you have received from anybody. At best, an email can list a reliable source for you, which you can then go read up on your own and use if applicable, but you cannot use the email content, which is entirely unreliable. Mathglot (talk) 22:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

do you not want the article to be accurate? Not everything is in citable sources - that doesn't mean the information is of no import. Rhyddfrydol2 (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

What is the official name of NZ?

There is currently imprecision and confusion in the article about New Zealand. Unlike Australia, whose official name is "Commonwealth of Australia", New Zealand's official name is "New Zealand", not "Commonwealth of New Zealand" or "Kingdom of New Zealand" or "People's Democratic Republic of New Zealand".

3 possibilities include "Realm of New Zealand" or "New Zealand". Be careful what you wish for. Cook Island and Niue are part of the "Realm of New Zealand" but is not part of "New Zealand". Cook Islands conducts some of its foreign affairs and has a separate King's representative. If Wikipedia is to be precise, possibilities include:

1. Sub-section heading: Realm of New Zealand

2. Sub-section heading: New Zealand, sub-sub-section headings: Cook Islands; Niue

3. Sub-section heading: Realm of New Zealand. sub-section headings: New Zealand; Cook Islands; Niue

4. WRONG: sub-section heading: New Zealand, then lump the Cook Island and Niue attendees under that

5. WRONG: sub-section heading: New Zealand, then lump the Cook Island, Niue, Nigeria, and Brazilian attendees under that.

I am not trying to be difficult but to make Wikipedia more accurate and precise. The worst is have Wikipedia unreliable and sloppy. CandyStalnak (talk) 19:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

What does Wikipedia say? Niue is not a member of the United Nations (UN), but UN organisations have accepted its status as a freely associated state as equivalent to independence for the purposes of international law.[16] and Since 2001, the Cook Islands has run its own foreign and defence policy.[8]

Since the "Realm of New Zealand" is an odd term, I currently favor #2. CandyStalnak (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

We also have to be careful because if we wrongly insist on putting Niue and Cook Islands representatives under New Zealand with no sub-sub heading, we could be on a path of putting the Republic of China Taiwan under the People's Republic of China. CandyStalnak (talk) 19:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Leave New Zealand's entry alone, please. These attempts to make New Zealand's entry different from Australia's & Canada's? is becoming quite concerning. GoodDay (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

That is an accusation.

There is such thing as "Realm of New Zealand". There is no such thing as "Realm of Australia" or "Realm of Canada" unless Justin were to invade America and take over.

We can also make Australia and Canada's entry the same as a fixed New Zealand entry.

Stuffing Cook Islands and Niue to New Zealand is extremely disrespectful and not reflective of real life. The Cook Islands and Niue are NOT part of New Zealand. The Cook Islands even has it's own foreign/diplomatic service. Wikipedia's articles say they are independent. Yes, free association but so in the Marshall Islands and the United States. The Marshall Islands is not part of the US. CandyStalnak (talk) 01:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

The Cook Islands & Niue are not sovereign states. They're not separate Commonwealth realms. The New Zealand monarch (Charles III) reigns over the Cook Islands & Niue. GoodDay (talk) 01:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

New Zealand does not own or govern Cook Islands or Niue. Look at the Wikipedia article, "New Zealand". The map in the infobox doesn't even show the Cook Islands or Niue as circled.

CandyStalnak (talk) 03:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia says they are sovereign states. Blame Wikipedia, not me. CandyStalnak (talk) 03:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not say they're sovereign states. GoodDay (talk) 09:10, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

That being said, I will agree to only changing New Zealand to Realm of New Zealand, if the latter is still shown as New Zealand. But will oppose Cook Islands & Niue getting their own sub-sub sections. GoodDay (talk) 01:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

What say you: @JackWilfred:, @SMcCandlish:, @Mathglot:, @Ortizesp:, @Mitsuyashi:, @GenevieveDEon: @Anotherwikipedianuser:, @TobiasRagg2001:, @Peter Ormond:, @Lulusword:, @Rhyddfrydol2:. Noting that NZ RFC above, is still in progress. GoodDay (talk) 01:41, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I would say that this sounds like something that should be addressed at Talk:New Zealand, not here. One could add a pointer to it from this discussion to direct interested parties there, and then we should wait for it to conclude. Mathglot (talk) 01:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure I fully understand the concern. 'Realm of New Zealand' is not a phrase I've ever come across and I can't see how it resolves any ambiguity over the Cook Islands and Niue (which seem to be the actual problem here). I would say the safest option is to give them sub-headings under New Zealand, but I'm not opposed to the status quo. JackWilfred (talk) 08:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, and I can't see that adding "Realm of" helps in any way.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

More New Zealand-related BS. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 10:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Correct, GoodDay, which an esteemed person, is too much into pumping up NZ beyond what it really is. CandyStalnak (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, while I disagree with GoodDay about the Commonwealth realms issue above, I am far, far more concerned with Candystalnak's disruptive (and inaccurate) hair-splitting about issues like this. I believe there should be one section for the Commonwealth realms outside the UK, with one subsection, similarly laid out in each case, for each of those realms, each called by its common name. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

New Zealand as it is is fine, it is its common name. However, as a compromise, I think prime minister of Cook Island and premier of Niue should have its own bullet point and not be indented under the prime minister of New Zealand. I also agree with everything that Genevieve said. Lulusword (talk) 13:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with GenevieieDEon and agree fully with Lulusword. But Lulusword agrees with Genevieve DEon. How can that be? Because I am NOT disruptive and inaccurate. I am for better accuracy. Some others above have pointed out that the "Realm of New Zealand" has never been heard of by that user yet GoodDay wants to organise it as a Realm of NZ without using the word NZ. This is not right. The Realm of NZ has at least 3 parts, NZ, Niue, and Cook Islands. NZ does not have 3 parts (not NZ, Cook Islands, Niue). But since "Realm of NZ" is such a rare, technical and odd term, we shouldn't use it or organise anything like it. That is why Niue and the Cook Islands should either be completely separate or a sub-sub section under NZ as a compromise. This issue is not small or tiny (witness the fights between Ireland/Irish Republic and fights about One China/Taiwan Republic of China). CandyStalnak (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I can't help but notice that there are several editors here making strong assertions about objective facts, but not a single reliable source is being cited in support of any of them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

No mention if I am one of those "several editors" so I present the following reliable sources.

1. It is improper, disrespectful, and untrue to list the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands under New Zealand and under the Prime Minister of NZ, especially without even a sub-sub section heading of the "Cook Islands" because the Cook Islands is NOT a part of NZ but an independent country. See the Constitution of the Cook Islands. https://parliament.gov.ck/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/CONSTITUTION-OF-THE-COOK-ISLANDS-JUNE-2022.pdf

2. New Zealand has an embassy level diplomatic office in the Cook Islands called a High Commission. NZ also has High Commissions in Commonwealth countries, such as Australia, UK, Canada, etc. Source: https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/countries-and-regions/australia-and-pacific/cook-islands/new-zealand-high-commission-to-the-cook-islands/

3. It is true that there is a free association between the Cook Islands and NZ but that doesn't make the Cook Islands part of NZ. Micronesia and the Marshall Islands, both independent countries, have a Compact of Free Association with the US. The free association gives Cook Islanders dual citzenship, Cook Islands and New Zealand but that doesn't make the Cook Islands part of NZ. People in Taiwan can have dual citzenship, Taiwan and the People's Republic of China.

So I am open to various suggestions but the current version of putting the Prime Minister of Niue and the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands under NZ without even a sub-sub section heading is plain wrong and disrespectful. Many other editors have supported the idea of Canada, Australia, NZ and other countries to be put under "other Commonwealth realms", which is the recent interim version and is fine with me. CandyStalnak (talk) 05:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Different categories used can be inconsistent

There may be disagreements because of the inconsistent categories used.

A, B, C, 1, 2, 3. That is logical. However, when it's A, B, 1, alpha, C, 2, 3, beta, D, E, then it's a point of contradiction and conflict. This is happening to some extent here, mostly in the NZ part but also others. That's the root cause.

For example, the UK section is spread over many areas, like Royal family is split from UK Prime Ministers and not in one UK section. Realm and non-realm Commonwealth countries are split. With NZ, the Realm of NZ is listed as NZ but actually NZ is different than Realm of NZ (Niue and the Cook Islands are not part of NZ).

There's then the official delegation and not. With NZ, some private guests are listed with the government officials but this is not the case with some other countries.

So that's the root cause of many areas of concern. CandyStalnak (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Note: Please stop opening new top-level discussions about the same topic as the one above. I've reset the section header on this section to H3 (=== ... ===) so that it becomes a subsection of #What is the official name of NZ?. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Why not this?

===New Zealand===

• Dame Cindy Kiro, Governor-General of New Zealand
  • Dame Silvia Cartwright, former Governor-General of New Zealand
• Jacinda Ardern, Prime Minister of New Zealand, and Clarke Gayford

====Cook Islands====

• Mark Brown, Prime Minister of the Cook Islands

====Niue====

• Dalton Tagelagi, Premier of Niue

The sub-sub section pays respect to NZ as having close ties to Niue and Cook Islands but also gives due respect to the 2 independent nations (in free association with NZ) by not having them lumped entirely with NZ. That would be a fair, unbiased solution. Note that Niue and the Cook Islands are not part of NZ nation, only technically part of the Realm of NZ, which several Wikipedian have never heard of and is a very technical point that is not explained in the article (and doesn't need to if there are sub-sub sections).

Note that one could even say that it should be
===Cook Islands===

not

====Cook Islands====

because there's no Wikipedia rule or law that says that the listed country must not have any free association in order to have a separate sub-section. Note that the Marshall Islands is a nation in free association with the United States. Nobody says that the Marshall Islands must always be lumped in the with US. Note that the Cook Islands has separate embassies in several countries. The "free association" part is mainly to get NZ aid and preferential immigration treatment.

CandyStalnak (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC) CandyStalnak (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Note: Please stop opening new top-level discussions about the same topic as the one above. I've reset the section header on this section to H3 (=== ... ===) so that it becomes a subsection of #What is the official name of NZ?, and adjusted its subsections accordingly. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Note: apart from the issue above, your edit added additional unintended subsections to your latest message where I'm pretty sure you merely intended to make a point about Cook and Niue as subsections and what level they should be. In order to show the section header level and not make a new section on this page, you have to escape them using nowiki's to visualize the levels. I've done this for you as I think it's what you intended, but if not, just revert edit 1113114696 of 20:44, 29 Sept. and it will go back to how it was before. Mathglot (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@Mathglot: & others. I no longer have a clue, what exactly it is, CandyStalnak is trying to accomplish. I leave it to you all, to try & figure out. GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I have no secret goal. I am just promoting discussion so that this article has a logical structure. The current version is an improvement over a few days ago. New Zealand is not a separate section, which was odd when it was. There still is the matter of why independent countries of Cook Islands and Niue are both subservient to NZ in this list when, in fact, the Prime Minister of Niue does NOT report to the Prime Minister of NZ but is completely separate. They even have their own foreign relations. True, they accept NZ's offer of military defence. Other countries have free association, like Micronesia, Marshall Islands, etc. and nobody thinks that makes them a U.S. state. CandyStalnak (talk) 00:13, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

New information discovered: https://parliament.gov.ck/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/CONSTITUTION-OF-THE-COOK-ISLANDS-JUNE-2022.pdf

It's the constitution of the Cook Islands. Conclusion: They are a separate country. End of story. Read the notes on page 3 of the link (listed as p. 165). The Cook Islands is not part of NZ. NZ cannot make any laws for the Cook Islands. Reading the Constitution leads me to now think that the Cook Island and Niue prime ministers should not be listed under NZ. CandyStalnak (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Charles III reigns over the UK & 14 other Commonwealth realms, not 16 other Commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 00:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Further research shows that Tokelau is a territory of NZ. They have not chosen the path of the Cook Islands and Niue. GoodDay, look again. This list is about dignitaries that attended. The Prime Minister of the Cook Islands and the Prime Minister of Niue were attending for Cook Islands or Niue, not NZ. If the head of Tokelau attended, then I fully agree that he should be listed under NZ. This article is NOT a Charles III article. We already have complete consensus that the term "Reign of New Zealand" is a strange idea that nobody ever previously heard about and shouldn't be in this article. CandyStalnak (talk) 00:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

You've stated that Cook Islands & Niue were sovereign states. Therefore, I would suggest you bring that argument to Charles III's bio page. Even though both are reigned over by the New Zealand monarch? you appear to be suggesting that Charles III is separately King of Cook Islands & King of Niue. GoodDay (talk) 00:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. However, WP is not a battlefield. I am not interested in editing the Charles III article. That also has no bearing on this article. Cook Islands and Niue are not part of the country of New Zealand. That is why it is insulting to put the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands under the Prime Minister of New Zealand and call his country of the Cook Islands as "New Zealand". It should not be in this article. CandyStalnak (talk) 02:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

You'll have to convince others of your arguments. As of now, I don't know what you're trying to accomplish 'here'. GoodDay (talk) 02:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Very simple. The current version is the worse possible. Very inaccurate, disrepectful, smacks of colonialism or racism, and wrong to put the Prime Minister of Niue and the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands under New Zealand. Improvements could include at least a sub-sub section header of Niue and Cook Islands. Can also separate them as they are not part of NZ (better way). CandyStalnak (talk) 21:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

First I will say that it seems weird to be having such an involved discussion about this on this article in particular.

Second, to me it seems that the main source of this issue comes from the name of the heading "Other realms". While there is a country called New Zealand there is also a separate entity, though less well known, called the Realm of New Zealand. This "realm" consists of countries sharing a monarch titled the King/Queen of New Zealand: New Zealand, the Cook Islands, Niue and Tokelau. As such, the sub-heading "New Zealand" under the heading "Other realms" creates ambiguity as to which is meant.

I think it should either: a) be left as it currently is, with the prime minister of the Cooks and Premier of Niue bulleted at the same level as the Prime Minister of New Zealand; b) the sub-heading changed to "Realm of New Zealand", with perhaps sub-sub headings to New Zealand, Cook Islands and Niue; or, c) the sub-heading "New Zealand" is kept as is, and additional sub-headings "Cook Islands" and "Niue" added. Another option would be to get rid of the "Other realms" section and just combine everything under the "Commonwealth countries" section, but I assume they are separate for a reason?

For the purposes of this article I think any one of these "solutions" would be fine, as long as we're not giving the incorrect impression the the Cook Islands and Niue are governed by or a part of the country of New Zealand.151.210.162.19 (talk) 01:37, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Sock-blocked

Note: CandyStalnak has been blocked as a sock. GoodDay (talk) 00:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Lady Saltoun

Someone told me he knows from a good source that Lady Saltoun did not attend. She has seldom travelled to London since her retirement in 2014 as she is nearing 92. 79.238.83.116 (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Faith Representatives

I know that the information about the Faith Representatives come from the official order of service but I think it needs to be reorganized in the Wiki article. On the order of service, the more senior person is to the right and sometimes to the back. Like the Archbishop of Canterbury should precede the Archbishop of York? And a Dean should precede a Sub-Dean of the same jurisdiction? I think the current “Westminster Abbey” section should go before the current “England” section. I am not completely familiar with the organization and hierarchy of all the religious groups, so I don’t want to scramble everything. QW3RTYP13.14 (talk) 22:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Duke of York and Sarah Ferguson

Although both attended the funeral, they were not together. I propose listing the family as such (followed by Beatrice and Eugenie):

• The Duke of York, son
  • Sarah, Duchess of York, former daughter-in-law

--Zimbabweed (talk) 00:21, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

No that would be the wrong way.84.167.91.50 (talk) 12:43, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Family members: Who to include & exclude

I've noticed on a few occasions, distant family members of the late queen being added, deleted, re-added, etc. Perhaps we should decide on an inclusion criteria. Example - Must be at least Elizabeth II's seventh cousin or married to Elizabeth II's seventh cousin, to be included. GoodDay (talk) 00:39, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

That seems too distant to be of meaningful note. 166.205.124.33 (talk) 16:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

RFC: Flag icons on Members of non-reigning royal houses

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was No by unanimous consensus. TompaDompa (talk) 21:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

---

Should flag icons be on the Members of non-reigning royal houses section Yes or No 4me689 (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

vote

Should flag icons be on the Members of non-reigning royal houses section Yes or No 4me689 (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes

No

1. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
2. No, because they are not reigning and therefore are not representing a nation. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
3. No, not needed at all.BogLogs (talk) 09:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
4. No, because they add no value. Indeed, I'd support removing all the flag icons from this article for the same reason. Thryduulf (talk) 12:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
5. I agree with the above, and removing them all is worth considering. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:42, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
6. No as per 5235c. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:36, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Flag Icon Discussion

I'm open this RFC cuz theres seems to be a dispute on this issue, any thoughts??? 4me689 (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

They shouldn't be using flags. GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 29 November 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.

@MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma:, this is the RFC that I'm speaking of. GoodDay (talk) 11:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Abel Smith family

Were no one present? HulkNorris (talk) 20:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC) What about this Marcia for example?HulkNorris (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC) Please answer my question.84.167.80.80 (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

It appears not. 2601:249:9301:D570:20E4:7C5C:7E1E:CBAE (talk) 04:59, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 29 May 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. No quorum. Can be reverted per WP:RMUM. (closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 03:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

---

List of dignitaries at the state funeral of Elizabeth II → List of guests at the state funeral of Elizabeth II – To be WP:CONSISTENT with other articles of similar nature (namely List of guests at the coronation of Charles III and Camilla). Further, it's sufficient to say that not every person mentioned is a "dignitary" by definition (using the Merriam-Webster definition of one who possesses exalted rank or holds a position of dignity or honor). estar8806 (talk) ★ 03:09, 29 May 2023 (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.

Post-move comment: There was not a single comment on this discussion and it was still moved? That doesn't seem right. Personally, I didn't respond because I was neutral on the topic, but regardless, there wasn't a single support comment and the page was moved? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 05:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I suggest it should be moved to its original title to be consistent with article in Category:Lists of funeral attendees. Peter Ormond 💬 23:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Queen?

in the article it has the name "Queen" on its own but even in the same section referring to 2 different people. Starts off with "Queen" referring to QE2 then "Queen" referring to Queen Camilla, should this be change to make it easier to follow? Jord656 (talk) 06:38, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

No, since they link to the individuals. I believe readers will be aware that the King wasn't accompanied (for example) by his late mother. GoodDay (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

At time of writing, it appears that the article now says "Queen consort" when referring to Camilla, which would appear to resolve this ambiguity. All mentions I could see of "the Queen" are referring to the late Queen, with even some mentions now being "the late Queen" specifically. I leave this comment mainly so anyone else coming to this talk page doesn't go back and check the article unnecessarily now. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

The Harewoods, the Fifes and the Queen's maternal cousins

What is the source of the Earl and Countess of Harewood, Duke and Duchess of Fife and his sister and brother-in-law as well as the Bowes-Lyon cousins attendance? Especially only at the committal servce at St George's. I can't find any source! Kowalmistrz (talk) 13:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Usage of 'former'

When a former office holder has the dates they've served in an office, shown. We don't need to list them as "former". Example: "Tony Blair, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (1997-2007)", rather than "Tony Blair, former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (1997-2007)". GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2024 (UTC)