Disputatio:Elizabeth II (regina Britanniarum)

Elizabeth II (regina Britanniarum) fuit pagina mensis Iunii 2012.

τForsitan dubias num Elisabetha maritum in matrimoniam duxisset, potiusquam Philippus eam. Ita scripsi quod regina regnans est, et eae (si vere intellexi) est pars ducens. Doops 06:19 iun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Titulus et Titularium

IacobusReyes nomen paginae his verbis mutavit: "Elizabeth II moved to Elizabeth II Regni Uniti: Made to conform to the naming standards of sovereign rulers in the english wikipedia" et alteram verbis "Index Regum Britanniae moved to Index Regum Regni Uniti: Regnum Unitum est nomen officialis.. non Britannia"

Haud scio an necesse sit moribus Vicipaediae Anglicae semper adhaeri, et praeterea cum sit "Regnum Unitum" nomen sollemne, nusquam inter titularia Latina invenies. Me iudice "Regina Brittaniae" sufficiet. --Iustinus 02:54 sep 11, 2005 (UTC)

De nomine

cur Elizabeth? estne vox Latina Isabella?--Xaverius 09:01, 16 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Regina semper Latine 'Elizabetha' in fontibus melioribus nominatur, nec aliter erat Elizabetha prima regnante. Confer hanc paginam hancve. Doops 16:18, 17 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Sed in nummis videmus ELIZABETH II DEI GRATIA BRITT (i.e. Britanniarum) REGINA F(idei) D(efensor). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:18, 17 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Equidem censeo 'Elisabeth' esse scribendum, cf. Ev. sec. Lucam 1,36 et passim. Littera Z non in usu erat Romanorum nisi ut verba Graeca scriberent. Sed Graece eam Ελισάβετ non Ελιζάβετ scriptam legimus. Licet libri, licet nummi Britannici recentiores reginam suam Elizabeth sive Elizabetham vocent linguae Anglicae mori indulgentes, nos autem antiquorum sequamur exemplum remque hanc Elisabeth II (regina Britannorum) inscribamus!--Ceylon 21:30, 8 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

As I pointed out at Disputatio:Tanzania, it is false to say that the letter z was only used by the Romans in transcribing Greek words. In any case it would take heroic argument (which Agnus heroically attempted) to make the point relevant to us, since somehow we have to deal with the 1500 years of history and languages that followed the Romans, and I don't see why we should use fewer resources than they did.

But the endless variation in converting forenames into Latin is a real problem. We try to go by previous published versions -- hence the citation of coins etc. in cases such as this. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:13, 11 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Just to be argumentative (well, and because "Elizabeth" seems like a bad latinization), is Elizabeth II really her Latin name… or do the coins just have her English name and then the Latin phrase/motto? 71.141.101.92 13:49, 5 Augusti 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's plenty of discussion about coin legends etc. when new coins are first circulated, so, if that were true, you should be able to find a mention of it in print in 1953. It would have been an astonishing innovation, and traditionalists would certainly have had opinions about it.

The Latin is not a motto, it's a series of official titles grammatically linked to the monarch's name. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:43, 5 Augusti 2011 (UTC)

Not long after her accession, she issued a proclamation stating exactly what her Latin name and titles would be. A record of discussion of this, including quotations from writings by and about her and her predecessors, is in Vicipaedia's archives. See under "Problem solved: 'United Kingdom' = Britanniae" at Disputatio:Britanniarum_Regnum. IacobusAmor 15:13, 5 Augusti 2011 (UTC)

Okay I can see now where this came from (here). Although I have to say this idea of calling the UK Britanniae in the plural almost seems like a bad joke. It reminds one of Gambia saying it desired to be called The Gambia from now on, or the famous Danish boy named Christophpher by his mom. It hurts, but what can you do? --Ceylon 20:28, 10 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

That's my conclusion too. It would be quixotic for us to ignore the way Latin is actually used today, where it is used. The cases in which we have to swallow nonsense are fewer, probably, than in the English wikipedia. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:13, 11 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

I was wrong in the remark above, as the footnotes to Britanniae show. Sorry.--Ceylon 11:42, 8 Martii 2008 (UTC)

No problem. It is an odd usage, certainly, but those footnote references (which Harrissimo gathered) made me wonder if perhaps George III's advisers had Ptolemy in mind when they (re-?)invented the term -- see my recent note at Disputatio usoris:Harrissimo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:10, 8 Martii 2008 (UTC)