Talk:Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 26, 2007.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Royalty and Nobility (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject British Royalty (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Women's History (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Horse racing (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horse racing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Horse racing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Article name: the definitive title for this article[edit]

The title of this article should be "Queen Elizabeth, consort of George VI, King of Great Britain". Support please? With references from: "Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother"; and "Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon" (talk) 17:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I would oppose and I am sure the others will disagree with you too. First of all, that title is invented. It would also be againt conventions and against consistency in the Category:British royal consorts. It would be unnecessarily long as well. I don't think there is any need to explain more. Surtsicna (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
We've been here before (quite a few times) and the consensus was that this is the most appropriate title. Deb (talk) 12:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
If that is the case, the article on "Diana, Princess of Wales" should be renamed.

Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon was never a name she bore, unless you insist on using her birth name where the Honourable is dropped. At marriage she was The Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. There doesn't seem to be any consistency on Wikipedia. Just the lowest possible style used for any particular person, even if it is 100% incorrect. Marxists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.243.255.184 (talk) 11:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The Lady could be added to the article as she was born the Hon. Elizabeth -- and then became Lady Elizabeth. Plenty of articles have that. They are named one thing but titles are inserted within the article. In the peerage she is refered to as Lady Elizabeth. As for Diana, she was Lady Diana before she married as well being the daughter of an Earl. The title "Diana, Princess of Wales" was her style after her divorce. She wasn't born a Princess. -- Lady Meg (talk) 07:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree also. Her title before she died, which is the most recent title, was Elizabeth, The Queen Mother. or even just Queen Elizabeth would be more appropriate. To use Elizabeth- Bowes Lyon seems demeaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruhcunningham (talkcontribs) 22:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I think, 'Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother' would be more appropriare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.200.231 (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Kittybrewster 15:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the title of the article should be Elizabeth, The Queen Mother, which was her most recent title. Kate Middleton's article has been renamed to Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, which is her most recent title. So, I believe this should be updated. PrincessFaith (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

We're now discussing this issue in 2 places simultaneously - see Article name below. We ought to merge these discussions into the one place. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

queen elizabeth, the queen mother could mean any queen's mother .srry i dont know how to reply — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.181.34.119 (talk) 02:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Upon death, a consort's name ALWAYS reverts back to their pre-married name. Look at every single other dead consort's name on this very site... and every other encyclopedia the world has to offer. You can even go to this site's Queen consort page. It's all right there: "Because queens consort lack an ordinal with which to distinguish between them, many historical texts and encyclopedias refer to deceased consorts by their pre-marital or maiden name or title, not by their marital royal title." The title of this page should be Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. Cebr1979 (talk) 03:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments to change the article name to "Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon". Every other queen consort is listed by her name prior to marriage. Why do we hold her to a different standard? Because she was alive in modern times, so therefore subject to how *we* knew her? 200 years from now, she will be no more relevant that Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, aka Queen Charlotte. JasonBux (talk) 04:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)JasonBux

Precedence after marriage[edit]

I've read a few times recently that after her marriage, the Duchess of York was the fourth lady of the land after the Queen (Mary), Queen Alexandra and Princess Mary. While this fits the general principle of precedence - that only the wife of the eldest son ranks above the daughters - it does not seem to be how it is done today. Every table of precendence I have seen recently ranks the Countess of Wessex above the Princess Royal. Any thoughts? Was this practised changed at any time or is it simply a personal decision of the monarch. GBS thewiki (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC).

In my 1970s Kelly's Handbook, the order of precedence for ladies puts Princess Anne before the wives of Sovereign's younger sons. So, if today they rank above her, then that is a recent change. DrKiernan (talk) 13:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

British Dominions[edit]

User:DrKiernan inisists on keeping the term "British Dominions" in the lead. This is incorrect, as, by the time of George VI's reign, the word "British" had been dropped and "Dominion" was used by itself. Even before George VI came to the trhone, the 1927 Balfour Declaration uses the word "Dominion" about three dozen times and only once places "British" before it, in the King's title. Similarly, the 1931 Statute of Westminster uses only "Dominion". For historical accuracy, "British Dominions" should be kept out of the sentence in question, too. If "Dominions" alone doesn't suffice, "Dominions of the Commonwealth", or something like that will do. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll assume that, instead of explaining himself here, DrKiernan's addition of two links into the article was his way of communicating that the inclusion of the term "British Dominions" in George VI's title is proof enough that the term can be accurately applied to the countries of the Commonwealth, other than the United Kingdom, in the time of George VI's reign. That seems like WP:OR, given that the title didn't actually reflect the geo-political reality; Ireland was still in the sovereign's title long after Ireland ceased to be a monarchy. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Royal tours[edit]

In what capactiy or capacities did King George VI tour North America in 1939? Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

User:DrKiernan seems adamant that the state visit to France by King George VI and Queen Elizabeth was not on behalf of the United Kingdom, nor was their State Visit to the United States on behalf of Canada. If there's some question as to which country they visited France for, I'd be intrigued to see which it was other than the United Kingdom. And, as for Canada, the sources affirm that it was as King and Queen of Canada that the royal couple visited the US:

  • "Secondly, they would arrive as sovereigns of Canada."[p. 603] "[S]ignificantly, the Canadian factor was highlighted, it being emphasized they were 'here not as the King and Queen of England but as the King and Queen of Canada'."[p. 611][1]
  • "It was the King of Canada who was crossing the border, not just the British king..."[p. 60] "The King of Canada and the British Empire was visiting a neighbour..."[p. 65] "...[T]o assert Canadian autonomy by making clear that it was the King of Canada who was visiting the American President."[p. 66][2]
  • "Lascelles kept remarking that they had tried to get the people in England to see that this was a visit from Canada to the U.S..."p. 247 "It is a complete victory of what I have fought for - in the way of recognition of Canada's status, on the basis of equality in external as well as internal affairs to that of the United Kingdom itself. It is not without significance that His Majesty says: 'I have decided not to invite a minister from the United Kingdom to attend me on this occasion.'"p. 414

Obviously, British officials tried to piggy-back their own diplomatic affairs onto the US visit by the King and Queen, but the royal couple were still there specifically as the sovereigns of Canada. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You're wrong, which anyone looking at your own sources can verify:

  • "The vist of King George VI...was the first by a British monarch...Extending a state visit to Canada" (p.599) " "the visit enabled Britain to strengthen Anglo-American solidarity...the Foreign Office as it contemplated launching the visit...the visit might significantly improve the prospect of American support for Britain...represented a liability as much as opportunity for war-threatened Britain" (p.600), etc. etc.
  • "The King of Canada and the British Empire was visiting a neighbour [my emphasis]...A British Commonwealth king was in the United States for the first time...For the British Government it was a chance to cultivate solidarity with transatlantic cousins" (p.65) "A garden party at the British embassy...the President welcomed the King and Queen of Great Britain, of our neighbour Canada, and of all the far-flung British Commonwealth...In response the King said From my other Dominions, from the United Kingdom and from all my empire I carry to you expressions of the utmost cordiality" etc. etc.
  • Instead of selectively misquoting the source, why not complete it?: "... but they would not look at it that way. They were looking at it as a visit direct from England." (p 247)

You have no sources stating that the King's visit to the United States was "on behalf of Canada". DrKiernan (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm wrong about what (though, you've at least elevated me from liar to wrong)? The part where I said the British officials used the visit of the King of Canada to promote British affairs? And, yes, some in Britain were aghast at Canada asserting it's sovereignty, and through the King, no less. But so what? The visit was still of the King of Canada to the US, to foster Canadian-US relations, the Canadian prime minister, not the British one, or any other British minister, being the monarch's minister in attendance, second in protocol after the sovereign and his consort. That much is also affirmed by reliable sources. You're trying to turn things backwards, as though the state visit was on behalf of the British government and Canada was the secondary player tacked on just to appease the little colonials. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
You're wrong that the visit was "on behalf of Canada". DrKiernan (talk) 17:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh? In light of the above evidence, which country was it on behalf of, then? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Just a minor point the King said From Canada, which we have just left and whither we shall return, I bring you to-day the warm greeting of a neighbour and a trusted friend. From my other Dominions, from the United Kingdom and from all my empire I carry to you expressions of the utmost cordiality and good will. ...' MilborneOne (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yet again, DrKiernan makes an edit to the article instead of participating in discussion: this edit, we're left to assume, means he thinks the tour was on behalf of the United Kingdom. The sources provided above do mention that the British embassy was included in the US tour, but they claim otherwise on which country the king was representing. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 11:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Pot calling kettle black[3]. You are the one selecting sources for your own POV. The sources are perfectly clear:
  • Reynolds, p. 153: "The primary purpose of the tour—the first visit by a reigning British monarch to North America—was to serve social and imperial purposes and to introduce George VI, who had become king in 1936 following the sensational abdication of his brother."
  • First sentence of Bell: "The visit of King George VI and Queen Elizabeth to the USA in June 1939, the first by a British monarch, seemed to symbolize, at a time of escalating danger, the solidarity of the English-speaking peoples." [4]
  • First sentence of Reynolds' journal article: "Late on June 7, 1939, a reigning British sovereign set foot on American soil for the first time."[5]
  • First sentence of Rhodes: "The first visit to the United States of a British king and queen (7-11 June 1939) has customarily been regarded as a quaint but insignificant event."[6]
Claiming that George VI was not the British monarch is plainly ludicrous. And the claim that he was the first British monarch to visit North America is obviously supported by the four sources given. David Reynolds (English historian) uses the exact phrase "the first visit by a reigning British monarch to North America" in his book.
You should be examining your own behavior rather than focussing on mine. DrKiernan (talk) 12:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for rejoining the conversation, but I'm afraid I don't know who you're responding to: I never said George VI wasn't the British monarch, nor did I select sources just to suit my POV; I've been all along adhering exactly to what the sources say. I read the words you highlighted above even before you highlighted them; what it seems, though, is that you refuse to recognise the existence of the words I highlighted at the head of this thread.
If we take the sources all together, it becomes evident that, yes, the British Foreign Office resisted the idea of the King visiting the US as sovereign of another country and it did involve itself in the US tour, there being a wish to drum up support for Britain in the US: two functions were indeed held at the British Embassy in Washington and Mackenzie King's diary affirms that, to Mackenzie King's surprise, a meeting between the President, the King, and the British Ambassador took place there on one occasion. Mackenzie King also reveals that in discussions between he, the King, and Roosevelt, Britain's worries about the looming war was one of the topics of conversation.
However, the same sources also together affirm that George VI toured Canada and visited the United States as the King of Canada: Governor General the Lord Tweedsmuir and Prime Minister Mackenzie King wished from the outset for the entire trip to be a demonstration of the changes that came with the Statute of Westminster, namely Canada's increased sovereignty; Mackenzie King was the King's minister in attendance through the US tour and followed immediately behind the King and Queen in precedence, there was not one single British official in the royal party; during the trip through the United States, save for being excluded from a brief meeting after a function at the British Embassy, it was only Mackenzie King, the King, and Roosevelt who were ever together to discuss international affairs; and the King spoke as a visitor from Canada in his speeches. It's explicitly said multiple times in more than one source that George VI was in the US as King of Canada, not King of the United Kingdom.
We must remember too that the British Foreign Office doesn't dictate where the monarch goes and which country he or she represents, and we also shouldn't let the loose employment of the phrase "British monarch" cloud the truth.
I'll concede here on the lead; though I would like the sentence therein that talks about Elizabeth accompanying her husband on diplomatic tours to be more clear about which countries these trips were on behalf of, it at least doesn't put forward any inaccurate claims. However, saying later on in the article that George VI was the first British monarch to tour North America is a misleading assertion built only on a selective reading of the sources. That part should return to the way it was for ages. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I never left the conversation. Of course I read your quotes. Look at the second quote that you have yourself written: it states explicitly that he was in the United States as "the British king" and "King...of the British Empire" as well as "King of Canada".
The fact that Mackenzie King was present is irrelevant. For example, a few months ago the Queen visited the United Nations on behalf of all her realms and the Commonwealth. Was she attended by a New Zealand minister, or a Tuvuluan one, or a Saint Lucian one? No. Was she even attended by a British minister; I certainly didn't see one there. The Queen can act on behalf of a realm at any time: it is consultation with ministers of that realm that is required, not their physical presence. The fact that he came to the United States from Canada and then returned there is not relevant to whether he visited as the "King of Canada". He came to Canada from England and then returned there, but we do not claim that he came to Canada as the "King of England".
I know of no sources that state the trips were on behalf of any particular state, and none have been provided. It is a misleading assertion built on a misunderstanding of the sources to say that George was in the United States as King of Canada, and so that cannot be put back into the article. DrKiernan (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
And I stated that we have to be careful about the loose usage of the term "British king" or "British monarch"; frequently the term is used in error. Further, while some sources say George VI was in the US as the British monarch, other sources explicitly state he was not, and the latter statement is supported by ancillary details in the same and other sources: the Canadian prime minister as attending minister rather than a British minister; the content of the King's speeches; and so on as I already just outlined.
Putting aside the involvement of the British Foreign Office and the British Embassy, when we have reliable sources that without any confusion state George VI was in the US as King of Canada and not King of the UK, it is not only inaccurate but a blatant breach of NPOV to state he was in the US only as the British king. Further, as we know for certain that the King was not paying a foreign state visit to his own country of Canada, the claim that George VI toured North America as King of the United Kingdom is an absolute falsehood.
As I said, the sentence should return to the way it was: George VI was the first King of Canada to tour North America, though something about the inclusion of British foreign affairs could certainly be added. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
As I said: the identity of the attending minister is irrelevant, and there are no sources saying he was there solely to represent Canadian interests. In fact, the sources state that one of the reasons for the trip was to gather transatlantic support in Britain's interest. Furthermore, the very speech you mention was, as found in Bell (page 611), written by the British embassy. The single quote you have above "not as King of England" is not Bell's opinion: it is a quote from a Gaumont news broadcast that Bell is using in his argument that the King was presented that way as the "acceptable face of the British Empire" not because he really was there solely as King of Canada.
The article does not state that he was there solely as the British king nor does it claim that George VI toured North America as King of the United Kingdom; in fact, it specifically says that one of the aims was "to affirm Canada's status as a self-governing kingdom".
If agreement is not forthcoming, I suggest the removal of "Elizabeth's husband became the first reigning British monarch to tour North America." It can be replaced with the simpler "Elizabeth and her husband toured North America." or the more widely applicable "Elizabeth's husband was the first reigning King-Emperor to tour a Dominion and to visit the United States." DrKiernan (talk) 18:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
The article says "Elizabeth's husband became the first reigning British monarch to tour North America." That does indeed communicate to readers that George VI was representing Britain in North America, touring the continent as King of the United Kingdom.
That the King was touring his North American realm as sovereign of that realm, and not representing one country (the UK) to another country (Canada), is the first fact that makes the aforementioned sentence inaccurate. Further, I don't know where I said the presence of the Canadian prime minister as the King's minister in attendance was proof the King was in the US solely to represent Canadian interests. I said it was secondary evidence that supports the fact put forward by the sources that the King was in the US officially as King of Canada, not as King of the United Kingdom. Bell's opinion about Canada being the "acceptable face" of an empire Canada was by 1939 no longer a part of is inconsequential to the fact that the King was in the US formally as King of Canada; Gaumont reported at the time, without opinionating, that the King was in the US as King of Canada, not King of the United Kingdom; historians assert it was the "King of Canada who was visiting the American President"; the Prime Minister of Canada considered the visit to be one from Canada to the US; the US government gave the Prime Minister of Canada, and not the most senior British official around (the ambassador), place of precedence directly behind the King and Queen. Yes (and this is about the fourth time I've acknowledged this), British interests were indeed a part of the US visit, and the King did mention his other realms in speeches. That, however, doesn't mean that the trip into the US was some kind of joint Canadian-British state visit, as you seem to be implying.
So, all that said, I absolutely agree that the sentence "Elizabeth's husband became the first reigning British monarch to tour North America" should be removed. I maintain that what was said previously and for a long time was just fine: "Elizabeth's husband became the first reigning King of Canada to tour North America", though I would now tweak the following sentence to read: "...a trip designed not only by the Canadians to affirm their country's status as a separate kingdom independent from Britain, but also by the British to bolster trans-Atlantic support in the event of war." Or some such thing. However, if that's absolutely not to be, I could tolerate your proposed "Elizabeth and her husband toured North America" followed by my reworking of the following sentence. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Suggesting that the trip was designed by the Canadians for one purpose and by the British for entirely another is not appropriate and completely ignores the American contribution to the design. The trip to the US was the Americans' idea in the first place. You continue to mention incidental details such as precedence and presence that have no bearing on the matter at hand. It is undue weight to place so much emphasis on Canada's independence, when so many sources do not even mention it, e.g. Official Roosevelt siteOfficial George VI site. Especially so in an article about Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, when her purpose on the trip was to smile and wave and be nice to North Americans, not to discuss the Statute of Westminster or Anglo-American military co-operation. DrKiernan (talk) 08:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
On the contrary, it's totally inappropriate of you to put all emphasis on the British aspect of the North American tour when, in fact, it was extremely minimal in the Canadian part and secondary in the US part. Indeed, the details of the tour aren't pertinent to this article, but they are necessary to show that you were wrong to change "King of Canada" to "British monarch." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
According to the balance of scholarly opinion it was not minimal: it was key. Most reliable sources do not place emphasis on the Canadian aspect, and many ignore it completely. Wikipedia should reflect the balance of scholarly opinion not the personal opinions of its editors. DrKiernan (talk) 14:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
It was key only to the British; it's irrelevant if modern British and American historians wish to focus on what was key only to the British. British interests were not key in any way to the Canadians and they were an attachment to an official visit to the US by the King of Canada. It is for those reasons that you are way off base to say George VI was the first British monarch to tour North America. The fact that Canada is in North America and George VI didn't tour Canada as the British king alone makes your claim wrong. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The claim is supported by numerous reliable sources. In addition to the six I've given above, I've examined three of the sources listed at the bottom of the article. Bradford says "the first reigning British monarchs to set foot in the New World" (p. 287) and Howarth says "The visit was the first ever paid by a reigning sovereign to one of the self-governing dominions." (p 93) and "the first visit ever paid by a reigning British monarch to the United States." (p 94). Lawrence says "The welcome bestowed by Americans on the first British sovereign to visit the country was characteristically warm and exuberant." These would support the alternative phrases that I've suggested above. There is no mention in any of these sources that the visit to the United States was one of the King of Canada, or that the visit was for Canada's benefit with the Brits tacked on as an afterthought. At best, these are fringe views. Potentially, they are unsubstantiated; I can not find sources for them. So, given that they do not represent the balance of scholarly opinion, they should not be in the article. Rather than continuing to use this talk page as a soapbox for your personal ideas and theories, I think you need to maintain focus on drafting a sourced and balanced alternative sentence that everyone can agree on as reasonable. DrKiernan (talk) 20:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The claim that he toured North America as the Canadian monarch is also supported by numerous reliable sources. In addition to what I've provided above, there's also this book which states: "...The British take Washington again," proclaimed one headline - but George VI reminded them repeatedly that he was Canada's king as well as Britain's. To emphasize this, his first stop at the New York World's Fair was the Canadian pavilion." I'm afraid it's not within your authority to state what sources are proper and which are fringe, nor are you able to dismiss outright the very prominent Canadian aspect of the tour (especially in Canada itself), just to suit your POV.
I said already that your alternate sentence was acceptable. You only disagreed with my proposed change to the following sentence on the fair enough grounds that it ignored the input of the US into the organisation of the King's visit there. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
This visit was made before Denning's judgment that the Crown was severable - so the person called the "King of the United Kingdom, etc." was not the king of many kingdoms. It is in the same sense that he was not King of England and King of Scotland, or King of London for that matter. The King would represent the entire Empire on his visits, whether to a member state or to a foreign one. When visiting Canada he would not be representing the U.K. and when visiting the U.S. he would be representing all member states. TFD (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

A commoner?[edit]

So what she was a commoner legally? British legal standards make it pretty hard for a woman not to be a commoner, and she was still nobility. I wish I could read the source, but it isn't properly cited. I am not disputing that she was legally a commoner, but I think that it is misleading. a) any British peer would not consider marrying the daughter of an Earl as beneath his station. b)even a non royal peeress would have been unusual. c) the trend was not simply not marrying other royals but specifically German Princes and Princesses(although Mary of Teck was technically a British Princess and a German Duchess). Anyway this needs looking into. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see your point. Under British laws, she was legally a commoner, even if she would be considered noble in most other countries. Atchom 02:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I think the IP means that her being a commoner was nothing special, and thus not worth noting (and misleading to foreigners). Actually, according to Commoners in the United Kingdom, Albert himself seems to have been a commoner until becoming Duke of York in 1920. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Article name[edit]

I know that this issue has been bought up before, but the article's title is simply ridiculous. Every other British princess by marriage has an article named according to her highest style, i.e. Sophie, Countess of Wessex or Princess Michael of Kent or Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall. I fail to see why the Queen Mother, having been the Queen consort, and Queen mother for almost half a century, should suffer the indignity of having an article named after her name at birth, which she, or anybody else, hardly ever used, since she became a Lady when she was four years old. Atchom 03:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It's the same format as all the other dead queen consorts: Mary of Teck, Alexandra of Denmark, etc. DrKiernan (talk) 07:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
No it isn't. Kittybrewster 15:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Amendments shown in italics. DrKiernan (talk) 16:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
How is Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon the same as Mary of Teck? Granted they are both dead Queen Consorts. But the name by which she was commonly known was Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother. Kittybrewster 17:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I merely meant that all the British queen consorts are at their maiden names without prefixes. Nothing more. DrKiernan (talk) 12:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Policy states that article titles should be whatever the subject is most commonly known as (there are some nuances, but that's the gist). Mary of Teck is most commonly known as "Mary of Teck" (at least now, I don't know what she was styled in life, but that isn't important). The subject of this article is most commonly known as "The Queen Mother" or "Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother". I would recommend the latter as the article title, since the former is obviously ambiguous. --Tango (talk) 12:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, if it is changed I think I would prefer the official form of the name rather than the common one. Also, I think you would have to do a requested move to gauge wider consensus. DrKiernan (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of any personal preference, I think Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother would be more appropriate. I quite agree that wider concensus would indeed be required. But I don't see why a rename could not be proposed. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
"Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother" is the official form, as far as I know (well, it should have HRH at the beginning, but we don't usually include that in article titles). --Tango (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
It's given in the article, and at the official website and in the London Gazette, without a comma and with a capital T. I think this is the official form, but a comma and lower case t is the common form. DrKiernan (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
That's news to me, but it does appear to be correct. That should be the article title, then. --Tango (talk) 21:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I am in agreement, this page should be moved to Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, or similar. It would be more appropriate. Anyone keen to open a RM? Brian | (Talk) 03:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I don't disagree, but can anyone explain to me why queens consort, once they die, revert to their maiden names on Wikipedia? It's not as if they're no longer married or anything (unless their husband predeceased them); they're simply no longer alive. At face value, it seems rather disrespectful to suddenly rob them of the status and title they held in life. But I'm sure there have been previous discussions about it. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 04:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The guideline is here: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility)#Consorts_of_sovereigns. It says the most commonly used name should be used as the article title and then gives a few examples of what that should be. This article is actually given as one of the examples, but we can change that if we agree to move this article. I'll start the RM. --Tango (talk) 12:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Tango. Well, that convention certainly needs some tweaking. Deceased consorts are referred to by a name by which they are commonly known ... - yet, the so-called Mary of Teck is still to this day best known as "Queen Mary", and the so-called Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon stopped using that name 79 years before she died. So much for "name by which they are commonly known". But here isn't the place for that little chat. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 14:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
It's a standing convention amongst historians to handle disambiguation that long predates Wikipedia or even the internet. Queen consorts don't have numbers and a lot of names are shared - just look at Henry VIII's wives alone where the six between them had just three forenames (ignoring spelling variations). Referring to the mother of Elizabeth I as "Anne Boleyn" is very succinct and clear; referring to her as "Queen Anne" or even "Queen Anne of England" much less so as there was one queen regnant of England call Anne, four other Queen consorts of England called that, and without "of England" there are a lot of other Queen consorts as well. Putting additional information in brackets wasn't particularly viable for book titles or lectures or lists - even then "Queen Anne (wife/Queen of Henry VIII)" isn't unique whilst sticking dates all over the place doesn't enlighten all but the expert - so the tendency was to use the maiden name as the easiest recognisable form.
(It was also the case that often the most significant fact about a particular Queen consort was precisely where she had come from and what, if any, alliance had been formed by her marriage so again many maiden names conveyed information far better than any other system.)
However times change and more modern consorts have a profile far beyond historians. It may well be the case that in a century or two this article's subject profile will have declined and that by then she is generally referred to as "Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon" when she is referred to at all but for now that hasn't set in. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that comprehensive explanation, Timrollpickering. I'll take this up in the appropriate place. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 14:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much for explaining that. It is very useful to know. I agree with you that it doesn't apply in this case, though. --Tango (talk) 16:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

What a ridiculous move! I object to the reasoning used by the closing admin. This article was always at Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, even when she was still alive, so there is all the more reason for it to remain there. Deb (talk) 11:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia was not very developed when she died and it was only subsequently that a real effort was put to sort out the mess of Royal article names (we used to have nonsense like an article at "Charles Windsor"). Plus the software doesn't actually show page moves from before 2006 so it's hard to now check what the article names were in the early days. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I know because I was heavily involved in the discussion as to where the article should be. Those who understand the subject eventually won that debate over the "common name" faction who do not understand the reasoning behind it. The royal naming convention was established early, after long and reasoned discussion; it is only recently that it has become a "mess" and that consistency has been sacrificed at the altar of common nameism. Deb (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, there is a pretty strong consensus among the Wikipedia community that articles should be named after what the subject is commonly known as. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry to say that is because of ignorance - particularly among non-British people who don't understand the context. "The Queen Mother" is what Queen Elizabeth was called late in life, following her husband's death. In future years, she will never be known by this title, she will be known either as "Queen Elizabeth, the consort of King George VI", for disambiguation purposes, or, more likely, as "Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon", the name she was born with (not "Lady Elizabeth"). We anticipated this before her death by selecting a name that would have lasting meaning. Now this useful title, and the wikipedia conventions on royal article naming, have been overturned for no reason except that people (the same people who referred to the last Princess of Wales as "Princess Diana") can't get their heads round it. Deb (talk) 11:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid you are mistaken on one key point, and I think accusing others of "ignorance" may tend to mislead. Making a comparison here to "Princess Diana" is wrong because that was, of course, never her actual title. "Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother" is different, as it was her actual formal title, as confirmed by royal proclamations. Your substantive argument may have some merit, and although I doubt very much she will be known in the future as "Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon". My point here is that it is not ignorance of the type that leads to the wrong title "Princess Diana" that is at work here, and it is unkind of you to say that. If you're right, the I'm afraid Queen Elizabeth II must be one of those people who "can't get their heads round it".--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
We are not talking about what her official title was just before she died, we are talking about the best title for the article - which was, and remains, Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. In ten years from now, there will be many people using wikipedia who have not the slightest idea who you mean by "Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother". It is an essentially ambiguous title. Her historical importance, if she has one, will be as queen consort. When she was Queen Mother, she was well-regarded mainly because of the memory of her conduct during World War II, in which she partnered her husband as an inspiration to ordinary people. As Queen Mother, her status was purely that of ex-queen. Queen consorts are normally known to historians by their maiden names or similar appropriate titles like the ones mentioned during the discussion, for the very good reason of avoiding ambiguity. The ignorance (in the sense of "not knowing") of people who will be looking up this article in the future needs to be addressed by the article title, in just the same way as the issue of entirely erroneous titles such as "Princess Diana" has been dealt with. Deb (talk) 17:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Ten years from now people won't know who the queen mum is? Seriously? Well maybe, I suppose, if the present queen abdicates and becomes a queen mum herself, but we can deal with that if it ever happens. Otherwise I reckon QEQM will still be better known as the queen mum for the best part of a century, and after that maybe as Queen Elizabeth (George VI's consort). I don't see any reason to suppose she'll ever revert to being better known as Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. --Kotniski (talk) 17:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
From these comments, I get the impression you know very little about her. Deb (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
To echo Jimbo's earlier note to you, this kind of comment does little to help achieve resolution. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
And it's accusing the official biography of being ignorant. I suppose the author knew very little about her! Timrollpickering (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
In very simple terms (but not sure it's been mentioned yet), she was Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon for 23 years, and was then Duchess of York for 13 years, and was then Queen (consort) for 16 years but was then Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother for 50 years. I'm not arguing that simple maths should form the basis of any Wikipedia naming convention. But this does help explain why she is known by this name to everyone in the UK (probably in the World) who has ever heard of her? Am not sure what the next 10 years would really do to change that. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
It's equally simple, Martin. Her death and the subsequent period will have the result of setting her in her historical context. It's clear from the comments above that many of those who favour the present article title know of her only as an elderly lady in a big hat who drank gin (allegedly) and went to the races a lot. That's why they find it difficult to think of her as anything but "the Queen Mother" - of which she was only one of many. It's a pity that wikipedia is seeking to appeal to the lowest common denominator here, instead of setting the standard. Deb (talk) 17:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Not sure how long "the subsequent period" is. But whenever it ends, I'm sure wikipedia will be around to reassess. And largely thanks to Wikipedia, I know more of her as a young lady, as a Duchess and as a Queen. And yet I'd still always refer to her as Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother. I didn't realise that I formed part of "the lowest common denominator". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
The relevant policy says "[Wikipedia] uses the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources" (emphasis mine). It does not say we use the name we think might be the most frequently used at some indeterminate point in the future. Don't forget, Wikipedia is dynamic. We can change the name in the future if we need to. --Tango (talk) 19:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
It would be very interesting to discover how many of those who participated in the renaming debate were aware, at the time, that the title "Queen Mother" does not mean "mother of the Queen". Deb (talk) 11:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
That article tells us all that it can only mean this or "mother of the King". In this particular case, we have a Queen not a King, and so it does indeed mean "mother of the Queen". Are you saying that that article is wrong? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
The "queen" that appears twice in her title refers to herself and not her daughter. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
It's not enough to simply be the mother of a monarch to be the Queen Mother; she must have been Queen herself. For example, Queen Victoria's mother had never been a queen and she was therefore not the Queen Mother, but the Queen's Mother - small difference in spelling, big difference in status. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 13:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Um, yes fully understood. "Queen Mother" means 'mother of a King or Queen who was also a Queen herself'. But I'm not sure how not knowing this would radically affect how people decided that this common name should be used. A misunderstood common name is still a common name. I don't think you would educate people out of such a mis-conception by using the title "Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon"? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Anyway, the article has no comma or anything like that, plus "the" is spelled with capital T, why? The article should either be named "Elizabeth, the Queen Mother" or "Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother". Alexcoldcasefan (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
It's what's known as the Royal T. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved per consensus that Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother is the common name. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


In my experience, no-one uses her maiden name except when talking about her life prior to marriage. She was known at the end of her life and is still known now as "The Queen Mother" or, when a less ambiguous name is required (as it is here), "Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother" (or sometimes "Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother", but the official style is without the comma and with the capital T). Therefore, that should be the name we use as the article title.}}

Elizabeth Bowes-LyonQueen Elizabeth The Queen Mother — As discussed above, both general policy and the specific naming convention guideline (here) say the most commonly used name should be used as the article title.

In my experience, no-one uses her maiden name except when talking about her life prior to marriage. She was known at the end of her life and is still known now as "The Queen Mother" or, when a less ambiguous name is required (as it is here), "Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother" (or sometimes "Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother", but the official style is without the comma and with the capital T). Therefore, that should be the name we use as the article title. Tango (talk) 12:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Support as nominator. --Tango (talk) 12:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. There can be no clearer case of COMMON NAME. Kittybrewster 13:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support There may be a convention that consorts from earlier eras are referred to by their pre marriage name/title, but at the moment this hasn't yet caught on amongst the public at large in regards the Queen Mother and recent biographies are not using her maiden name. Back-up preferences for using the comma and lower case "the" in no particular order of preference. If we're stuck with the maiden name then at least change it to Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon as that was her actual title before marriage. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support seems odd to use her maiden name. This is the best alternate. Hot Stop (c) 13:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - as per Kittybrewster et al. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 14:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME - I suspect the proportion of people who have heard of the Queen Mother that could tell you who "Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon" was is rather small.--Pontificalibus (talk) 14:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - on the basis that it is the name she is commonly known as; I suspect a large proportion of people would not associate the surname with her. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 15:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - most commonly, if not exclusively, known as. (The wider question of Queen consorts reverting to maiden name, after death, remains.) Martinevans123 (talk) 17:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose It would be Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother or Queen Elizabeth (The Queen Mother) 65.94.45.160 (talk) 20:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I get from that, that you support the move in principle but are taking a stand about the punctuation. True? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Can you give a reason? The official style is without a comma. You can see it in the London Gazette here. (I didn't know that until someone pointed it out to me on this page yesterday, but it does seem to be true!) --Tango (talk) 21:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per many above, but with reservations. I suspect the reason other Queen Consorts have reverted to former name is the fact that they were often from other royal families: The Queen Mother is the first consort in literally centuries to come from a British noble family, and is therefore an exception to rule. One point - may this not encourage the moving of, for example, Elizabeth II to Queen Elizabeth II - there is no other article on British Royals that I know of that begins with their title and then repeats it, cf. Albert, Prince Consort; Charles, Prince of Wales; Anne, Princess Royal; Anne, Queen of Great Britain; Would Elizabeth, The Queen Mother not be the correct title in line with that style? --New Progressive (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
    Elizabeth II is often referred to as "Elizabeth II". I don't think I've ever heard someone say "Elizabeth The Queen Mother". It's either "The Queen Mother" or "Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother". We shouldn't use a term nobody else uses as the article title. --Tango (talk) 23:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
    By the same measure, nobody refers to Princess Anne, as Anne, Princess Royal, or Prince Albert as Albert, Prince Consort, so really what I'm pointing towards here is consistency. --New Progressive (talk) 23:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
    You make a good point. I'm not sure I support that standard, but I don't really feel like overthrowing the whole naming convention, so I wouldn't object if the consensus is to drop the "Queen" bit. --Tango (talk) 11:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support A clear example of commonn name in use, thus this should be renamed. I do note what Newprogressive says however, and would agree Elizabeth, The Queen Mother might be better. However, I support this move and any rename is better than none! Brian | (Talk) 05:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose She is better known as a World War II-era Queen consort, not a Queen mother. Dimadick (talk) 10:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
How can that possibly be, given that there will always now be more people alive who knew her after her reign than during it? Or do you mean "known as" in published works? i.e. she was less notable after her reign. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
What would you recommend as a title, then? During her husband's reign, she was HM Queen Elizabeth, which is a highly ambiguous style and doesn't lend itself to a useful article title. We can go with her maiden name, which hardly anyone knows her as since she wasn't very notable at all before marriage, or we can go with her style after her husband died, which makes more sense to me. --Tango (talk) 11:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose I'm all in favor of ignoring silly conventions (such as rules like "always using the maiden name for dead queens consort") if they lead to unrecognizable titles or titles which have something wrong with them. However, in this case I get 135000 ghits for "Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon" and 165000 for "Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother", so I don't think the present title is really all that uncommon. "Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon" is as correct as "Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother". Both the current and suggested titles are unique, natural, recognizable, and reasonably concise. However, the current title is also consistent with other British queens consort, and so meets all five of the WP:AT criteria. Whereas the suggested target is not consistent, and so meets one less at four. I think it would be awkward to make it consistent, since Queen Caroline and Queen Mary are ambiguous. I see no need to develop a new scheme for disambiguating when the current article titles Caroline of Brunswick, Caroline of Ansbach, Mary of Modena, Mary of Teck, etc. already meet all the necessary criteria. So, on balance I weakly prefer the maiden name, even though I admit that there is nothing wrong with the suggested title. DrKiernan (talk) 13:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Rather reluctant support; in the long term she's going to be more notable as George VI's consort, so we should title her article something like "Queen Elizabeth (consort to George VI)"; however for a long time from now she's still going to be known much better as the Queen Mum, so I guess we can make this concession to recentism. (But I would certainly include the "Queen" at the start as well - I'm sure she's far more often called QEQM than just EQM.)--Kotniski (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
You are probably right, but she certainly wasn't known as Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon when she was Queen. So would at least be a step in your expected non-recent right direction?. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, hence my support.--Kotniski (talk) 10:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
My lack of giving any reasoning was mentioned below, and I apologize for it. I support per obvious application of both WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NCROY. I understand some of the difficulties here, but almost any move would be better than the current name, which is mysterious to most people and doesn't conform to standard Wikipedia practice.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The current title isn't at all ambiguous, and Her Late Majesty's maiden name is familiar to anyone interested in British royalty. While the proposed title may not be very ambiguous, it's a dangerous precedent to set regarding queens consort. Mary of Teck isn't ambiguous. Queen Mary most definitely is, but that's what George V's wife is commonly known as (in the UK, at least). Tevildo (talk) 21:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
    However, "Queen Mary of the United Kingdom" would be unambiguous, I believe (there were Queen Marys of England and Queen Marys of Scotland, but no others of the United Kingdom that I am aware of). --Tango (talk) 22:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
    Didn't Wikipedia ought to have a greater concern for the so-called "general reader", who has little or no interest (yet) in British royalty? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
    Yes, I think so. Hence I would also be in favour of changing "Mary of Teck" to "Queen Mary" with a disambiguator. (Though preferably not "of the United Kingdom" - that would make her sound like a queen regnant.)--Kotniski (talk) 10:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
    "Of the United Kingdom" would be consistent with other (albeit living) Queen consorts, such as Queen Sofía of Spain. --Tango (talk) 11:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
    I've always thought that was a bad way of naming queens consort. You will look in vain for any official document that ever referred to Ms Bowes-Lyon as "Queen of" anywhere. She was just "Queen Elizabeth", wife of King George VI of the UK etc etc. It's even clearer when considering the Commonwealth Realms. George VI was not often referred to as "King of Australia" etc, but his wife was NEVER called "Queen of Australia", nor should she have been. As we have no option than to disambiguate one Queen consort from another of the same name in another country, I'd like to see a format like "Queen Mary (UK)". But here isn't the place to linger over that proposal. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 02:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Srnec (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
    This is not a vote. Please explain why you are opposed. --Tango (talk) 23:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
    You didn't ask Jimbo to explain. I'm just following his precedent. Srnec (talk) 01:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
    He was supporting my proposal, so it's fairly safe to assume he was doing so because he agreed with my reasoning. There isn't an equivalent assumption for someone opposing. If you agree with someone else that has opposed, please specify who. --Tango (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
    In any event, I've supplied my reasoning up above. I ask for no special treatment. (And should observe that, as far as I know, Tango doesn't even like me, so I doubt if he was giving me special treatment anyway! :-) )--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose as we should stick to the current naming style for past 'queen consorts'. GoodDay (talk) 04:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Let's leave things as they are. What's next? move Mary of Teck, Alexandra of Denmark, Albert, Prince Consort, etc etc? Heck, why stop with past consorts? Is Edward VIII of the United Kingdom, gonna be moved to Edward, Duke of Windsor? GoodDay (talk) 04:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Mary of Teck and Alexandra of Denmark are both their most common names. Hot Stop (c) 04:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Additional Ancestry[edit]

I added the following sentence which was deleted by the largest contributor User:DrKiernan as trivial: The Queen Mother was also descended from Augustine Warner, Jr., an ancestor of George Washington. Comments are welcomed. Carmarg4 (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I found that fact quite interesting, but I'm not sure it would be notable without Augustine Warner, Jr. also having an article. Evenso, a little context might help - how many other descendants of Augustine Warner are there? A source might also help? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
On her first visit to the U.S. in 1957 after her coronation, QE2 visited the grave of this ancestor, which is indicative of the importance the royal family attaches to the Warner connection. Here are sources on line: The 1957 Royal Visit to Virginia. (The link needs a tweak - but click on the closest match given once at the site.) See also History - Warner Hall. And to answer your question, another Warner descendant was Robert E. Lee. Carmarg4 (talk) 21:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, that may have been something more than a diplomatic gesture dreamt up by a well-informed press secretary. It was probably more appropriate than opening the newest bottling plant for Anheuser-Busch. But no, my question was how many. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Of course the descendants are in the 10's of 1000's; but these are the notable ones. Carmarg4 (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I would have thought that, statistically speaking, a "positive result" of one in "10's of 1000's" would, in many people's view, constitute what might be termed a pure chance result? High Court judges spring to mind, for some reason. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
"I do not believe such a quality as chance exists. Every incident that happens must be a link in a chain." - Benjamin Disraeli, 1st Earl of Beaconsfield. Cheers. Carmarg4 (talk) 22:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Alas, we don't have Benjamin here to edit this article. "Good sooth, she is the queen of curds and cream". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't strongly mind the mention of her great-great grandfathers because even though it's a bit of a stretch they do feature in the ancestry table, and indicate that her family was influential and well-connected. However, I'm doubtful of the relevance of a great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather. The relationship seems very remote. DrKiernan (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
It's not even really the great-...-great grandfather relationship with Warner that is being proposed as notable. It's the nth cousin relationship with Washington. That's an even more remote relationship. It is not surprising in the slightest that The Queen Mother was related to Washington. The American gentry were generally descended from the British gentry, so there are lots of family connections. The Queen Mother and Washington will share numerous common ancestors. Warner isn't special. --Tango (talk) 22:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Scottish[edit]

Shouldn't her self identification as Scottish be reflected within the article and in her categories ? http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/obituaries/queen_mother/the_scottish_queen.stm is just one example —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.247.194 (talk) 21:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

And is or was the Bowes-Lyon family Presbyterian or Anglican? Masalai (talk) 07:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Coronation 1937.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Coronation 1937.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Elizabeth Bowes Lyon 1902.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Elizabeth Bowes Lyon 1902.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Elizabeth Bowes Lyon 1923 wedding.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Elizabeth Bowes Lyon 1923 wedding.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Damage to Buckingham Palace 1940.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Damage to Buckingham Palace 1940.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Funeral - omitted[edit]

There seems to be no direct account of her funeral at all, just a mention of her lying-in-state, her final journey to Windsor, and what happened in Australia and Canada on the day. Seems a curious omission. I came looking while trying to find mention of a poem my late aunt's friends plan to read at her funeral next week ... have tracked it down OK ... but it still seemed strange that it doesn't even say where her funeral took place. Well, perhaps it does, by stating that more than a million people were outside Westminster Abbey, but that seems a rather sideways way to say it. No time to dig out sources and expand the article today (got a funeral to organise), just wondered whether there was any reason for the omission. (No edit summaries in the last 500 have the word "funeral", so no indication of any current edit war etc). PamD 13:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I think three paragraphs and a picture are adequate coverage of her death and funerary arrangements. Anything more in this article would be undue weight, although it could be expanded in a separate article. DrKiernan (talk) 14:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Philip Alexius de Laszlo - Duchess of York (nee Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, later Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother), 1925.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Philip Alexius de Laszlo - Duchess of York (nee Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, later Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother), 1925.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Info box caption[edit]

Since there seems to be a difference of opinion on whether or not there should be a "credit" in the infobox image of this article, please refer to WP:CREDITS, Unless relevant to the subject, do not credit the image author or copyright holder in the article. I fail to see how this credit is relevant to this subject. And yes, If the artist or photographer is independently notable, though, then a wikilink to the artist's biography MAY be appropriate. The keyword is 'MAY. Which means its not a rule, its an exception, and should be used sparingly and carefully. I also fail to recognize how the artist is independently notable. Yes he has painted portraits of the Royal Family, but that is all he appears to be known for. Magnifying this problem with the credit, is that the image is the infobox image, which gives undue weight to the artist. If this image was placed somewhere in the body of the article, this probably wouldn't be an issue, but given that the image is prominently placed within the infobox, its gives undue weight to this artist over perhaps any other.--JOJ Hutton 22:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

He's better known for his work on politicians rather than royals. e.g. [7][8] It is usual to have an image caption, this one is concise and pertinent. DrKiernan (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
His "Independant Notability" is questionable. Also, this is the infobox image and should not have the artist credited. If you wish to move this image to the body of the article and replac it with the previous image, then that would be better. Otherwise infobox images shouldn't have "credits". I failed to find another biography, which credits the artist/photographer in the infobox image.--JOJ Hutton 23:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
George III of the United Kingdom, George IV of the United Kingdom, William IV of the United Kingdom, Queen Victoria, George V, Albert, Prince Consort, etc., etc. It's standard practice. DrKiernan (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
If it was standard practice then every biography would do it. They don't. The fact that a few British Royals have this done on their articles, tells me that a problem exists on this topic, and should be addressed on a larger scale. How is the artist relevant to the subject? Especially in the infobox.--JOJ Hutton 23:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Roman Vishniac, Henry Moore, Samuel Adams, Daniel Boone, Dick Turpin? These people are not British royals. DrKiernan (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Just more infobox images that should not be crediting in the caption. Its Undue weight and not relevant to the subject at all. WP:CREDITS is one of those rarely known guidelines, and it doesn't surprise me that its been abused and ignored a few times. But ignorance of a guideline doesn't mean that we should continue to tolerate its misuse.--JOJ Hutton 23:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
It is correctly applied on those articles, which are all featured-class articles and are consequently acknowledged to be the best articles on wikipedia. They have all been extensively reviewed. You have misunderstood the guideline and you are misapplying it. Even the example on the guideline page itself includes the name of the artist. DrKiernan (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Given that most of those articles achieved FA status, without info box credits, says volumes. Especially in a "anyone can edit" atmosphere. Also, WP:CREDITS, wasn't a part of policy until after all of these became FA. If a new guideline is written, all articles, even current FA articles should adhere to the new guideline. It doesn't diminish their FA status, but does give credence for guideline changes within those articles. When new guidelines are initiated, we should apply those changes when they are discovered It's a rarely known guideline, but a guideline nonetheless.JOJ Hutton 00:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any particular issue with the image caption. However, if it is truly a bone of contention, could the artist's name possibly go in a footnote? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Sometimes the artists name is hidden. But if this was an image within the body of the article, and not prominently placed in the info box, I wouldn't see a major problem with it. Given the images prominence; however, a "credit" seems inappropriate and gives too much weight for the artist.--JOJ Hutton 01:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It's clear from the discussion that WP:Credits does not apply in this case. To quote from the discussion:

I think that image credits can be acceptable if the author of the image is notable by himself. "Portrait of George Washington in military uniform, painted by Rembrandt Peale" is an acceptable caption. "Photo of the towers of the Palacio San José taken by User:Belgrano of Wikimedia Commons" is not. MBelgrano (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

That seems to be to be a logical position. – ukexpat (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, because in such case the artist's name is present more for informational purposes than attributive ones. --Cybercobra (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The guideline was written to prevent users crediting themselves in captions, not to prevent the mention of notable artists. DrKiernan (talk) 08:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

That is a good policy for the body, but that defeats the purpose of the info box, which is convey only as much information than is needed. The "Credits" detract from the subject and give too much weight to the particular artist, given the image's prominence in the article. In many cases, no caption at all in the info box image, in more desirable, as the image is only in the info box in order to visually identify the subject of an article. Give too much information, and the info box begins to be cluttered.--JOJ Hutton 13:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
This isn't an issue of bias. There's nothing non-neutral about including a single mention of the artist's name. I have raised the issue at Template talk:Infobox person#Image caption. DrKiernan (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
That is how I see it, as well; I don't note any bias that favours the artist. It's just a mention of his name, and that mention is in the infobox only because his work is the one used as the infobox image. That said, it might be better to actually name the subject of the portrait as well as the artist, rather than just the artist alone. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

"In June 1939, Elizabeth and her husband toured North America"[edit]

Given that the King and Queen were six weeks touring Canada -- with Queen Elizabeth many times having been quoted that upon their arrival in Quebec she was not English or Scottish but Canadian -- and they spent only three days in the USA before returning to Canada and proceeding on to then-separate Newfoundland -- it surely is not accurate to refer to the tour as being of North America. They toured Canada and paid a short side-visit to the USA, taking the then-Prime Minister of Canada along. Surely it is therefore not accurate to describe the trip as a tour of North America. Masalai (talk) 07:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Given that they visited three different places in North America, the description seems exactly right to me. Also, we have to reflect the sources, and the sources generally do not place the focus on Canada. DrKiernan (talk) 08:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for nevertheless accepting my proposal and with ample documentation. Far more accurate now. Queen Elizabeth II has often quoted the Queen Mother's line of being Canadian and doubtless her talented in public relations grandson Prince William knows it well, having remarkably effectively won over the enthusiasm of his generation in Canada on his tour with Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge shortly after their wedding: well beyond that of two older generations back in the 1950s through 2000s, to the extent of demanding that the federal government restore "royal" to the names of the armed forces, removed way back in 1965 when "God Save the Queen" was also replaced as national anthem. Masalai (talk) 11:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

There is an engaging photo of the Queen Mother attending the Church of St Mary Magdalene in Toronto during her last visit to Canada. One wonders if it is copyright: cannot imagine that the parish would object to its appearance here and it does further illustrate her activity when touring long after being widowed. http://stmarymagdalene.ca/history.html Masalai (talk) 00:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Name in infobox[edit]

I believe she should not be called "Queen Elizabeth" in the infobox. The title is repeated several times throughout the infobox; even the name of her own daughter, a sovereign, appears as simply "Elizabeth II" in the infobox. I am not sure, though, why it was suggested that I try reading the lede. Surtsicna (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Br'er Rabbit, regarding the portrait in the infobox, I am not sure what you mean by: "50px is pretty common for infoboxes". The default width is used in infoboxes in articles about both her children, her grandchildren, her husband and her parents-in-law, to mention a few. 250px stretches the infobox unneccessarily while, with the standard width, it fits in perfectly. Surtsicna (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Public perception?[edit]

For the time being, this section seems more of a criticism than a neutral section on the public perception of the Queen Mother... odder (talk) 22:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Fergus's burial site[edit]

I've added information of the recent official recognition of Fergus's burial place (see http://www.cwgc.org/search-for-war-dead/casualty/728198/ and http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/queens-uncles-grave-1268868). While as indicated in http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=42633 this may have been to a greater of lesser extent been known previously, during the Queen Mother's lifetime he was listed among the missing on the Loos Memorial, which places in context her decision to lay her wedding bouquet on the Tomb of the Unkown Warrior - it was symbolically her brother's grave, as well as that of all the other missing. David Underdown (talk) 10:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

What are the sources that say she placed the bouquet on the tomb specifically because of her brother? DrKiernan (talk) 10:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
There is one cited in The Unknown Warrior - I don't have access to it myself (it's not mentioned in the ODNB article for instance). Pretty sure it was discussed in the media around the time of the wedding of William and KAtherine too. David Underdown (talk) 10:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Ah yes, eg http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/royal-wedding/8485728/Royal-wedding-Kate-Middletons-bridal-bouquet-placed-at-Grave-of-Unknown-Warrior.html David Underdown (talk) 11:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I can see it now in the final paragraph of chapter 24 of Hanson. The ebook doesn't seem to have page numbers. DrKiernan (talk) 11:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Appreciate we don't wasnt to go over board in this article (so maybe no need to mention the new headstone here), but I think mentioning the connection is worthwhile - given the bouquet laying is already in. David Underdown (talk) 11:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I agree (on the headstone too but we could maybe leave it in for the moment as a means of connecting the article to a current event). DrKiernan (talk) 11:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Harry Andreas[edit]

I have re-added Andreas as the fishing guide in New Zealand as the connection to the family remained strong (read his bio and the Queen's 1954 visit to his home) and it seems just as relevant as the Duchess having a cold and missing an engagement. The fishing trip itself is relevant enough to be mentioned in a major biography of The Queen Mother and is referenced in this article. Castlemate (talk) 13:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I added the fishing trip, which is cited in a major biography. Points that are only mentioned in newspaper reports are unlikely to be of lasting importance. The brief biography of Andreas (his birth and death dates and summary of his career) are not relevant to this article, which is about Queen Elizabeth not Andreas. The sources provided do not say he guided the trip; they say he accompanied the party, along with others. The newspaper reports say Mr Flynn piloted the Duchess. DrKiernan (talk) 19:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I have removed bigraphical details of Harry Andreas as you suggested and only noted that he accompanied the Royal anglers. You are correct that Mr Flynn piloted the trip and that is him in the hat to the right of The Duchess of York and Mr Andreas, a gentleman fishing companion and expert guide, to her left. Castlemate (talk) 06:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

http://www.gettyimages.ca/detail/news-photo/the-duchess-of-york-winding-in-one-of-the-twenty-fish-that-news-photo/3240268

was her name?[edit]

was "the honourable" part of her name? 186.31.13.81 (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

No it is a honorific, also have a read of The Honourable. MilborneOne (talk) 18:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Date in titles and styles[edit]

I removed the citation needed tag from date that she became the Queen Mother in the titles and styles as it was obvious from the date of death of her husband. The contracdiction tag has been re-added with the comment contradicts the sourced information given in the article. As it is a big article can somebody give me a clue where the different date is sourced, thanks. (The cite 88 http://www.cbc.ca/news/obit/queenmother/ doesnt give a date). MilborneOne (talk) 19:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)