Talk:Royal Family Order of Elizabeth II#Lead image

One wonders if the honour was ever bestowed on Sarah, Duchess of York? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Are there classes to the Order as there was to King George V's Order? If there are, does anyone know what determines the 'class' of a particular member, say the Duchess of Cornwall or Princess Royal is in? 74.69.11.229 (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

:Yes, the two sizes of the order are illustrated on page 35 of Risk, James; Pownall, Henry; Stanley, David; Tamplin, John (2001). Royal Service (Volume II). Lingfield, Surrey: Third Millennium. The size 1 badge is from Princess Margaret, it previously belonged to Queen Mary. The size 2 badge was from Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester. The latter is the badge illustrated on the top right of this wiki page.

:[https://i.pinimg.com/originals/55/49/71/554971b87998ffcdf8332e3df44c5456.jpg]https://i.pinimg.com/originals/55/49/71/554971b87998ffcdf8332e3df44c5456.jpg is the size one badge DWStudham (talk) 14:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to {{plural:2|one external link|2 external links}} on Royal Family Order of Queen Elizabeth II. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=700773897 my edit]. If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070806122649/http://www.royal.gov.uk:80/output/Page5143.asp to http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page5143.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070608211254/http://regiments.org:80/biography/royals/1961dian.htm to http://www.regiments.org/biography/royals/1961dian.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified {{plural:2|one external link|2 external links}} on Royal Family Order of Queen Elizabeth II. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=718867230 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131011021918/http://www.royal.gov.uk:80/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/TheDuchessofGloucester/Honours.aspx to http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/TheDuchessofGloucester/Honours.aspx
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140102194633/http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/TheCountessofWessex/Honoursandappointments.aspx to http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/TheCountessofWessex/Honoursandappointments.aspx

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

{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Diamond Jubilee of Queen Elizabeth II which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I have, yet again, got into an editing war, this time about whether the conferees should be styled as they were at the time that the order was presented to them or how they are now (or became later, or, even, how they are best known). For instance, in 1952, 'Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon' was 'The Princess Margaret', having not yet married; likewise, Princess Alexandra did not gain the extra designation 'The Hon. Lady Ogilvy' until 1988, having had the 'plainer' 'The Hon. Mrs Ogilvy' between her 1963 wedding and then.

Rather than just stand by idly while policy is enforced in the manner that it has been, I figure that the *democratic* way of handling this is to open it for discussion here. ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

:There's nothing wrong with simply using article titles or common names. DrKay (talk) 17:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

::I disagree, which is why I have raised it on this page to see what other people think. ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 21:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

• IMO the list should use the individuals' best known or common names, which are likely to be the titles of their articles. Using their names as of conferral is more likely to cause confusion, as well as ambiguity among individuals who might have held the same title at different times (I don't know if that's the case for any of the listed recipients). I'm not sure that the current version is treating this consistently. However, it seems that this dispute really focuses on the use of honorifics, which the manual of style dictates we should not. ZeroAlpha87, you seem to be confused between titles (such as "Queen" and "Princess") which are part of a person's name, and honorifics (like "Her Royal Highness" and "The Honourable") which are not part of the name and should not be added. There's not really anything to debate on that point: policy says no honorifics. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

:I'd say that there needs to be a uniform approach - either they're all "then" styles or they're all "now"/"later" styles. Across those articles (Edward VII - Elizabeth II) there's too much variation. The policy does say not to use honorifics so it looks like ZeroAlpha87 got confused or just didn't know but I don't think that was the point of their argument. In reverting it DrKay's done away with the changes that I reckon are fair enough - if only the unnecessary honorifics had been removed instead of a direct revert we probably wouldn't be having this discussion! 92.30.78.108 (talk) 14:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

right

This image looks much better than the present one; it is an actual representation (although its blurry and hard to see). And look at George VI's and Royal Family Order of George V. If we were to crop those images, the Order would also look a little bit grainy. What's the issue with replacing it when the current one isn't even an actual image and looks like it was made with a toaster (no hate). Rexophile (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

:Per MOS:IMAGE, the lead image "should look like what they are meant to illustrate, regardless of whether they are authentic", i.e. whether they are artworks or photographs. The current image is more representative because the ribbon is the correct color and it has higher resolution. DrKay (talk) 17:48, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

::I might just hop on Inkscape and make a better replacement. Rexophile (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2025 (UTC)