Talk:King's Official Birthday

Yes, but why??

All of these different dates are facinating, of course, why why do they celebrate it as a different day? What's the history? The reason? Why don't they just celebrate the Queen or King's birthday?

• I'm just an simple American, but from what I gather, it was moved to June for hope of good weather... -- CaptainAmerica

Well being a Brit I know that they moved it to saturday so that they don't spare a day of work. Tourskin 07:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

well... people used to tell me they celebrated queen victoria's birthday but she was born on may 24th wasn't shAustralian Jezza 07:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)e??? lol

Yes. 24 May, QV's birthday, became Empire Day, later changed to "Commonwealth Day". When I was a kid in the '50s and '60's, this was the day on which everyone lit bonfires and fireworks, but it's now an obsolete celebration. -- JackofOz 09:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

From http://www.royal.gov.uk/ "Although The Queen was born on 21 April, it has long been the tradition to celebrate the Sovereign's birthday publicly on a day in the summer, when good weather is more likely" Markb (talk) 13:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

So, add this information to the article. — President Lethe (talk) 05:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Still no clearer as to why there has to be a separate Birthday.... Twizzlemas (talk) 11:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It should have become clear by now: There's a better chance of having fine weather in June than in the other months when the various monarchs had their actual birthdays, so celebrations for official purposes are taking place on a date referred to as Queen's (or King's) Official Birthday, detached from the actual anniversary of the birth. SchnitteUK (talk) 13:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Western Australia

I've heard the Queen's Birthday rule for WA as "The Monday closest to the 31st of September", which is obviously wrong, but I did think it was still "the Monday closest...". Can anyone provide a decent reference for the current information provided about it being 'the last Monday of September until 2006 when it becomes the first Monday in October'? That sounds wrong. Krisjohn 06:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• I just contacted the government department responsible and there is no rule, it's manually determined each year, a few years ahead. I have updated the main article. Krisjohn 06:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

One reason why the holiday survives, despite the lack of enthusiasm for the subject, is the lack of other public holidays and celebrations in Australia's winter months (as distinct from the Northern Hemisphere where Christmas and New Year's Day fall in the middle of winter).

I removed it as I felt it was a bit speculative and POV. Andjam 12:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Especially considering that in Australia there was a referendum to keep the Queen. Wasn't there?Tourskin 07:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

yes wasn't the one in 1998 or 1999?? lol i can't remember lolAustralian Jezza 07:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

See 1999 Australian republic referendum. -- JackofOz 08:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Title

Shouldn't the title be "Sovereign's Official Birthday", seeing as this article describes a holiday that will exist regardless of whether the current British sovereign, and hence the holiday, is a Queen or a King? JDS2005 04:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Queen's Official Birthday is the common name of the day so that should be reflected in the title, and most other articles on WP say "Queen's..." as opposed to "Sovereign's..." Brian | (Talk) 05:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Well no because the official name in australia, i think many other countries is Queen's Birthday (Public) Holiday.... so we can't change what the official name isAustralian Jezza 07:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Assuming Prince Charles becomes king, and assuming Australia will still celebrate such a holiday, it will then be called the King's Birthday. But we can't rename the holiday on the basis of 2 assumptions neither of which may eventuate. See also God Save the Queen, which would also become "God Save the King", as it did in the past whenever there was a king on the throne. We couldn't rename that article "God Save the Monarch". Sometime's it's "queen", sometimes it's "king". At the moment it's "queen". No change required. -- JackofOz 09:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It's quite common for things in the UK and the other Commonwealth realms to incorporate a reference to the present monarch, which will be adjusted for the gender of the present Sovereign. Senior barristers are Queen's/King's Counsel; an important court in the UK is Queen's/King's Bench; the government is Her/His Majesty's Government; and of course the anthem is "God Save the Queen/King". There's no reason why a similar change shouldn't occur with the Queen's/King's Official Birthday. SchnitteUK (talk) 13:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

it is nice to know things! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.36.13 (talk) 06:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

"sakata" reference in article?

Any idea why the word "sakata" appears in this article? Quote: "Edward VII (who reigned 1901–1910, and whose birthday was in November) moved the ceremony to summer sakata in the hope of good weather." —Preceding unsigned comment added by HeatherReMix (talk • contribs) 22:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Date in Australia

An I.P. has a couple of times put the date of the holiday for all of Australia in September, as it is in Western Australia. I've found on an official AU Department of Commerce site these references which gives June dates for the holiday in regions other than WA: for New South Wales, Northern Territory,Queensland,South Australia, and Victoria. For Western Australia, the date is indeed in late September. The article before the I.P. changed it indicated that except in WA, Australia celebrated the Queen's birthday holiday in June, and that in WA it was celebrated in September. This appears to be correct, so I am going to restore the article to that version. Please do not revert without discussing the reversion here. Susfele (talk) 00:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Name of the event

An anon user has raised an point worth considering (though did so in an odd edit summary of a revert that removed valid information and didn't touch the content the point relates to): is there anywhere where the even is called the "Queen's Official Birthday"? The term is used in various countries as a common noun, but doesn't appear to be employed anywhere as a proper noun. Should the term be removed or, at least, decapitalised (except for "Queen")? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, I missed this comment. --131.111.128.77 (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The current wording will look ridiculous to any sensible person who visits this article. It's clumsy, unwieldy and blatantly obvious. Also, the thing isn't correct. The event isn't officially called the "Queen's official birthday". It's the "Sovereign's Birthday". When the queen dies, we don't "replace" the word "king" with "queen". We simply stop celebrating her birth and celebrate the new monarch's birth instead. If you want to keep the wording at least make it sensible i.e. "or king's birthday when the reigning monarch is male". --131.111.128.77 (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The current wording isn't "ridiculous" at all; it's commonplace on Wikipedia to assume that not everyone knows everything; what's to say a reader wouldn't assume there's a celebration only for the birthdays of queens, both regnant and consort?

The name of the event, however, is another matter. As I point out above, it's commonly referred to as the "Queen's official birthday", but that doesn't appear to be an official name for the day in any country. It is called "Queen's Birthday" in Australia ([1][2][3]) and New Zealand ([4]); "Sovereign's birthday" in Canada ([5]). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

There was nothing odd about my first edit summary. To say something that simple in such a clumsy and complicated way is completely superfluous and the current wording clearly is ridiculous. What it really amounts to is "the Queen's birthday isn't celebrated if the Queen's dead and there's a king". If it's really necessary to say that, there are far better ways of doing it. --131.111.128.77 (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps there are better ways of stating the fact. Deleting the fact isn't one of them, though. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with deleting an attempt to convey tautological information in a manner that isn't particularly valid or correct. I would also point out that the confusion you propose above could be avoided (and actually is avoided) by a simple statement that the event is the celebration of the birthday of the reigning monarch. --131.111.128.77 (talk) 00:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I've made various changes. Firstly the sentence about replacing the word Queen with King was absurd. I have removed it. The opening now uses the phrase "King or Queen's Birthday". I think that is clear but if it's not sufficient, please don't just replace what was there before. There are better ways, a parenthetical "depending on whether the monarch is male or female", for example.

I've also rearranged the opening. I think there were problems of clarity and sense. The following is pleonasm ("first officially marked in the United Kingdom, beginning in 1748"). I don't understand what is meant by "henceforth, the date changed throughout the British Empire and later the Commonwealth", given that the date doesn't change "throughout" the Commonwealth but is different in each country and that it is already acknowledged that it isn't celebrated in all Commonwealth realms. It seems to be expressing two ideas at once. --131.111.128.77 (talk) 01:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Some of those changes are fine. The deletion of the fact about what the event is called during the reign of a male sovereign was not, however, helpful. I explained why it's inclusion is valid. I also pointed you to WP:BRD; does it not apply to you? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I might ask the same of you, given that I have only made one revert. Yes, of course the rule applies to me. But I did not revert. Since you have accepted that there are better ways of conveying this, I incorporated the information elsewhere to account for your objection. It is now made clear in the third sentence that the Sovereign's birthday is either the King or Queen's birthday. There is no information that is not conveyed. Nothing has been removed. Nevertheless, if you think this could somehow be unclear (I can't see how) I will be more explicit. --131.111.128.77 (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It's debatable whether you reverted once or twice; this edit was a revert or not, since you did delete the sentence once again, but made some attempt at working into another part of the lead that which the deleted sentence was conveying. Regardless, one revert is one too many; the guideline is BRD, not BRRD.

Anyway, I was under the impression that we weren't to leave anything to assumption and that it was common practice for articles on subjects the names of which change depending on the gender of the monarch to have a statement in the lead that outlines the fact that the word "Queen" becomes "King" during the reign of a male monarch, or vice versa; regard Queen's Bench, Queen's Counsel, Queen's Birthday Honours. However, after some research, it turns out the practice isn't so common after all; it isn't used at Queen's Scout, Queen's Privy Council for Canada, Queen's Gold Medal for Poetry, and Queen's Venturer Award. So, though I think it's better to be safe than sorry, I'll cease insisting on the reinstatement into the lead of a clear explanation of the name change. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, WP:BRD is not a guideline, it is an essay. I haven't been engaging in a revert war and have been willing to discuss. Reverting can create bad feeling but if you genuinely believed one revert is too many, you were free to contact me and discuss rather than making the initial revert or even attempting to find some sort of sensible wording yourself. That would seem to be consistent with the alternative zero revert rule suggestion. All those articles you cite give the name in bold style as an alternative title for the subject. Elsewhere, some are less explicit, like God Save the Queen. None attempts to supply a process for forming a new article title. That was eccentric and unnecessary. --131.111.128.77 (talk) 07:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

What will happen now to the holiday?

Now that the Queen is dead, what will Charles do to the holiday? What about the Commonwealth? Will he change the date? Will this be followed in all countries that are in the Commonwealth? Is it too early to say anything? 108.160.120.110 (talk) 22:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I imagine it'll continue as the same, as the holiday doesn't occur (apparently) on the monarch's actual birthday. GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2023 (UTC)