Talk:Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother

Ali G and "respec" anecdote

This really needs to come out. Its legitimacy is properly challenged; it in any case adds no useful information but does detract from the claim of the article to be taken seriously. It is out of line with the other anecdotes that show the QM's frivolous side -- it is way over the top and certainly doesn't demonstrate a "dry and often sardonic wit" as stated. Not credible. Masalai 16:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• It comes from comments by Princes William and Harry. See BBC News Astrotrain 17:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The Palace claimed she said it, so it clearly did. All denials amount to treason. Ben Finn 23:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Not Elizabeth I?

Why is she not Queen [name] [Roman numeral], as in Queen Elizabeth I or something? Is "Queen Elizabeth I" correct?

Because she was the Queen Consort to George VI, not the Queen in her own right.

Elizabeth I was Queen in her own right in the 1500s .

Due to a quirk in the Monarchy, only the "true monarch" (The next in line after the last monarch) may have a regal name. Thus the husband or wife of the monarch is known as the [Title] Consort. Due to another quirk, the consort to the King may be styled Queen [Name], whereas the consort to the Queen is Prince [Name], such as Prince Phillip, husband of Elizabeth II. Aericanwizard 18:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not quite right. The husband of a queen regnant gains no rank from marriage (husbands generally do not take their wive's rank). The Duke of Edinburgh was plain old HRH The Duke of Edinburgh for the first 5 years of Queen Elizabeth's reign, until she raised him to the rank of Prince by issuing Letters Patent to that effect in 1957. Bbombbardier 11:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Article name

Please put this back where it belongs -- she is NOT the queen mother now that she's dead, and her "permanent" title is queen consort to George VI, but her article goes under her own name, just like all the earlier queens consort (see, for example Elizabeth Woodville). -- isis 17:52 Dec 22, 2002 (UTC)

Well done, Isis! For once we are in complete agreement. Deb

Yay! It was bound to happen sooner or later, and I'll consider this a present for my birthday on Tuesday. -- isis 17:58 Dec 22, 2002 (UTC)

To 213.253.40.217: In principle, you were right to move the text of this article. However, in performing a cut and paste move, you lose the edit history of the article. If you sign up a user you can move a page and retain its history.

I've moved it properly now, so the history is intact once more. --Camembert

---

It is patently ABSURD (indeed laughable if it wasn't so plainly stupid) to call this page 'Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon'. It should clearly be 'Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother or one of a number of alternatives, but NOT Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon:

• That is the title 99.99% of Wikipedia users will know her as, and wikipedia policy is to use the form of name most commonly and unambiguously used;
• Her death makes no difference to the title, because there is no other person in the forseeable future likely to become queen mother. Queen Elizabeth II obviously won't become so, while Diana by her divorce (not to mention her death) never can be queen consort, which means when William V inherits the throne, she could not be queen mother. (Though poor Diana was so ignorant of history she once said that when William became king, she would be called 'King Mother'. Not without a sex change she couldn't!) The next candidate for 'queen mother' is the person whom William marries, should he as king die before her and their child become monarch, and in that case you are talking fifty to sixty years in the future, if at all!
• If not called Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, then this page should either be called 'Queen Elizabeth, consort of George VI', or 'Elizabeth Windsor'. But Bowes-Lyon is her maiden name, which she did not use for eighty years, and which ceased to be used by anyone in the 1920s. In fact, there is probably not a single person living who ever called her 'Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon' which makes Wikipedia look patently absurd in using a name which no living person ever did!
• If, not withstanding it is out of date by eighty years and will be unrecognised by 99.99% of Wikipedia users (only royal watchers and historians like myself would immediately recognise who it referred to), we use 'Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon', will we also rename the site on Pope Paul VI 'Giovanni Montini', Pope John XXIII 'Angelo Roncalli', Pope John Paul I 'Albino Luciani', exiled King Constantine II of Greece 'Constantine Gluckberg'? Or what about renaming Elton John's page 'Reg Dwight'?

Wikipedia needs a common sense approach. Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon is probably the least sensible way of referring to a one time consort to a king, who lived for fifty years with a different monarchical title by which she was known to millions. Or is Queen Alexandra referred to by a maiden name she last used in 1863? If so, what do you suggest people looking up her site do? Go off to the library (or in my case, sort through hundreds of books at home) to find what Alexandra's maiden name was, to enable them to use the Wikipedia reference on Alexandra? And by the way, if we won't call late queen consorts and former queen mothers by their title, why do we have a page on the last crown prince of Italy which calls him 'Victor Emmanuel (IV)'? It seems that on this issue, Wikipedia is not following its own rules, which call for the use of the clearest, most unambiguous and recognised title to be used. (I notice also that Queen Isabella, another former royal consort, is referred to as Queen Isabella, not by her surname, or do you suggest we dig through the archives, find her lost forgotten maiden name, and rename it? Similarly we have a page referring to 'Queen Anne Marie of Greece' even though she is no longer consort to a reigning monarch, and could just as easily be called 'Anne Marie Gluckberg'.) Clearly this 'rule' you refer to isn't a hard and fast rule, just used by some people in defiance of logic.

Make up your mind: do you want a Wikipedia that is usuable by people who want to check facts using names, titles and identities they are familiar with, or a Wikipedia deliberately obscuring people by using the most unused, they most out of date form of name, that was superceded by one or more (or in the Queen Mother's case three) titles (Duchess of York, Queen Elizabeth, Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother? JTD 22:18 Dec 22, 2002 (UTC)

So what do you think we should do with Anne Boleyn Jane Seymour, Catherine Howard and Catherine Parr ? Queen Mother redirects here so I see no problem Mintguy, also look at [1] for google search for Queen Mother site:Wikipedia.org

I've never been really satisfied with this page title since it isn't at all a common one. But we do have a specific naming convention for kings and queens where we don't use the word "king" or "queen" but instead use the form [{first regal name} {ordinal} of {kingdom name}]. But that convention breaks badly for situations like the Queen Mum. IMO her maiden name isn't at all appropriate but I don't really care for the Queen Mother title either because it is not a name at all -- only a title. Any other suggestions? What was her married name? --mav

I agree. 'The Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon' is an absurd title of an encyclopaedia article about Her Late Majesty. If we are to be anti-monarchist and ignore Her later honours and titles, we ought to at least be logical and use her name at birth, which had the courtesy prefix of 'Honourable' and not 'Lady', as her father had not yet succeeded to the Earldom. Whilst we're at it, we may as well change Her Majesty The Queen's Wikipedia article title to Her name of birth as well, which was 'Princess Elizabeth of York'. And Glenn Gould's Wikipedia article title would logically be 'Glenn Gold' since his family changed their surname later. What rubbish.Lord Charlton 08:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Mav. It doesn't quite work like that for the Royals. King George V replaced the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha with Windsor during the First World War. So you might argue for Elizabeth Windsor, but that is less likely to be used because then you would confuse the present Queen with the Queen Mother, and at least 2 other historical Elizabeth Windsor's. In the UK most people know that Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon was the maiden name of the Queen Mother, and this is the most logical place to put the article. Mintguy

Technically, her "married name" was "Princess Albert" until he became king and then "Queen George," but I don't think anyone wants to use those. And a widowed queen consort is a "queen dowager," regardless of whether she is a queen mother or not, but we generally use the highest title (that is, Edward VIII of the United Kingdom instead of "Duke of Windsor," which is what he was afterward), and queen consort is higher than queen dowager. Just because most people alive today don't remember her maiden name doesn't mean that isn't what she'll be called 50 or more years from now, and we're writing for the ages, aren't we? -- isis 23:08 Dec 22, 2002 (UTC)

The reason why we use those names mentioned by Mintguy in that form was because they entered into public consciousness that way. So people remember Anne Boleyn in that form, Mary Queen of Scots in another. Mary of Teck is remembered today in that form; 100 years ago, is was as 'May'. Plus in the case of Henry VIII's wives, the surnames were used to distinguish the different Catherines (though at the time, they were distinguished by whether they were Catherine or Katherine!). 100 years ago, an entry on the Earl of Beaconsfield would have been acceptable; today you would use his pre-peerage name of Disraeli. Today we talk about 'Bill' Clinton. Future generations who view him as a historical figure might use William Jefferson Clinton. Today, Diana means Princess Diana; fifty years ago, Diana meant Diana Mosley. Mention Princess of Wales and we think of Diana. 120 years ago it was Princess Alexandra. In twenty years time it may be Prince William's wife. In the 1500s, the 'Dowager Princess of Wales' meant Catherine of Aragon; nowadays, no-one would recognise that title.

So every dictionary and encyclopedia involves a balance between title, name and contemporary resonance. Queen Mother to us means Queen Elizabeth, to the 1940s it would mean Queen Mary, in the 1920s in meant Queen Alexandra. Albert Windsor in the 1920s meant Prince Albert. Today, no-one would recognise that name. We know him as King George VI. But whereas in the 1920s, Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon meant the bride of Prince Albert, today, given that she is known to contemporary readers of Wikipedia as Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, few readers (except those who if they know her details are unlikely to need to consult Wikipedia, and remember Isis, more than just British people read Wikipedia!) will recognise her as Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, and very few will recognise her as the 'Duchess of York' (we think of Sarah Ferguson in that title). So the terminology used (as I know myself from trying to write a book which refers to many people with royal titles) needs to use forms of reference that have clear meanings to comtemporary readers. In 2002, 100% would know who Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother is. Maybe 1% might recognise Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. In fifteen years time, Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother will simply be a historical character, whose reference can be based on name, not comtemporary form of recognition.

It is complicated but there has to be a different approach between those historical characters who can be recognised by a standardised structure (coupled with historic identification, eg, Mary Queen of Scots) and contemporary or relatively contemporary figures who are known by a contemporary title/name/reference. As such figures move from comtemporary to historical, so their references, analyses and even names can be changed to reflect their evolving image. Wikipedia, as an evolving, constantly changing publication, so we don't have to have an entry set in stone; it can evolve as historical perspectives and public memory evolve. It makes sense to have a distinction in form of entry between characters with a contemporary definition to modern readers, and those who don't, or won't have in 10, 15 or 50 years time. QE the QM is one of these figures. So is someone like 'Mother Teresa', 'Bill Clinton', 'Princess Grace', etc.

By the way, as the wife of the second son of George V, Elizabeth was indeed 'Princess Albert', just as Sarah, Duchess of York was 'Princess Andrew' and Sophie Rhys Jones is 'Princess Edward.' However it isn't correct that she was 'Queen George'. She was crowned as Queen Elizabeth in her own name, as the consort of King George VI. The phrase 'princess <name of husband> doesn't apply to the monarch or the heir to the throne. Hence Diana, Princess of Wales was 'Princess Diana', not 'Princess Charles'. (By the way, technically the 'Princess Diana' page should be called 'Diana, Princess of Wales' as she ceased to be a princess in her own right when she ceased to be married to Prince Charles. Plus also, 'Diana, Princess of Wales' is widely identified with Diana. But I suppose as Princess Diana is the most common used name, it is OK, but in time, when Diana ceases to be viewed as a contemporary figure and becomes a historical one, we'll have to use the technically correct term. JTD 01:06 Dec 23, 2002 (UTC)

Diana was never "Princess Diana". Queen consorts are indeed "Queen Hername", but this does not apply to anyone else. Diana was "HRH The Princess of Wales" when she was married and "Diana, Princess of Wales" when she was divorced. "Princess Diana" was an incorrect name used only by the ignorant media.

If your concern is readers' being able to find her entry, you're making a big to-do over nothing -- the redirect takes care of that. I misunderstood your concern and thought we were debating what was factually correct and within Wikipedian guidelines for style, and that's "Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon." A primary reason people use an encyclopedia is to find out what the "official/real/proper/acceptable" name is of someone they know only by a nickname, like "Johnny Appleseed," so they can use that in formal writing, such as a term paper or publication. -- isis 09:41 Dec 23, 2002 (UTC)

By the way, I've updated Maiden name to reflect the political incorrectness of that term. People have been bitching at me since the 1970s for using it, but in the interests of explaining things, I still do, but I'm setting you all a bad example in doing so. "Married name" is still okay, as far as I know. -- isis 10:34 Dec 23, 2002 (UTC)

I'm still with you, Isis. The point someone's attempting to make above is very strange - ALL the queen consorts on wikipedia are known by their "maiden" names, including Alexandra of Denmark. And that is how they are normally referred to in British history books. --Deb

And many of the other women, too (like Elizabeth Hardwick, Mary Anne Evans and Dorothy L. Sayers), which is logical, because the name they were born with is their name, but a husband's name is merely his wife's title, "Mistress Joe Blow." And in a case like this one, with "Queen Elizabeth"s so thick on the ground (and not just in Britain), it makes a lot of sense to go with the name "Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon" that may be unique and is certainly more specific. But I suspect the reason we're having trouble figuring out what the point of this discussion is is that it was started by someone who wants an excuse to hold forth at great length and, therefore, doesn't want to come to any conclusion, so we're working at cross purposes with them. -- isis 16:36 Dec 23, 2002 (UTC)

Why does the article start with The Lady Elizabeth Bowles-Lyon??? Shouldn't it start with her correct title after death, which is Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth? It just doesn't make sense for me, since other consorts' articles start with their titles after marriage. ie HRH The Countess of Wessex, or HRH The Duchess of Kent.

The article should start with either "The Honourable Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon" as that was her style at birth, or "Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother" as that was her style at death. It does not make sense to use "The Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon" as this was a style she gained when her father became the Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne. Toryboy 10.30 Aug 23, 2006 (UTC)

"Stayed at Buckingham during the Blitz"

While it was claimed by British propaganda that the Queen Mum stayed in Buckingham Palace during the Blitz, I recall reading in the orbituaries after her death that that was not strictly true. Didn't she actually spend most of her nights elsewhere? --Robert Merkel

She and King George spent their working days in Buckingham Palace and their nights in Windsor Castle, which is a couple of miles outside London, so that they could be with their two daughters who spent the war there. It wasn't said they 'stayed' in BP; it was said they stayed in London, which they did for 16 hours every day. (And as Windsor was only a relatively short car journey away and was hit by bombs aimed at London that missed their target, most people would have regarded Windsor as a form of London suburb. )

The security services did not want the princesses to stay in London, and George and Elizabeth as parents didn't want to be separated too long from their daughters. Nor did the security people want them to stay overnight in London, in case of an assassination or kidnap attempt. (Having the photographed in BP was partially intended to deceive the Germans in case they wanted to attack them.) In any case, BP was largely unhabitable. Most of its windows were boarded up having been blown out. It had not many staff left; most were serving in the war. The heating system wasn't working, and damage to the roof meant there was water seeping in all over the place. (The Queen Mum used to joke of trying to hold a conversation with a diplomat, to the sound of water plopping into buckets and kettles, while the diplomat shivered in the cold.) In contrast, Windsor was still (just about) habitable, even though the current Queen's main memory of it is the cold and darkness, as all its windows were boarded up too, and they were confined to the oldest part of the Castle (which had massive thick if damp walls, which were believed likely to withstand even a direct hit from a bomb), though little furniture and a dodgy electricity system. So yes, Elizabeth and George for all intents and purposes spent most of the time in London, nearly being killed on two occasions by bombs (one of which they could see coming directly up the Mall towards the Palace; they were only just able to get away from the front of the palace in time before the bomb exploded, killing staff and policemen. ). And even when not physically in the centre of London, they were on its outskirts in Windsor most nights, to be with their daughters and on the instructions of their security staff. JTD 02:37 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)

Treacle and Holes

I've taken some of the treacle out of the description of her foibles. Obviously, the Queen Mum has some fans on the Wikipedia. I am not. However, I have tried to just keep to the facts and let the readers interpret them as they choose.

This entry does lack a fair bit of meat. What were her personal political views, if any? What was her relationship with the king like? Did she undertake any charitable work? --61.9.128.171

After Munich

Their public support of him at the palace on his return from Munich was constitutionally controversial.

Um why? wouldn't it have been equally controversial if they hadn't supported the Government?

PMelvilleAustin 00:40, Oct 16, 2003 (UTC)

Naming again

I have moved this article to what seems to be the best compromise between the various conflicting Wikipedia policies on naming people. Adam 10:06, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And yes I will fix the double redirects. Adam 10:10, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Where was the discussion to move this? This is in direct violation of number 7 of Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles)#Other_Royals. Now that she is dead, we do not have the option to pick the title she died with. She is no longer the Queen Mother. There have been many and she is just one of them. --Jiang 10:17, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There are reams of discussion above. Wikipedia has two contradictory policies. One general one, that people should be called by the most common form of their name, and another one specific to queen consorts. The application of the specific policy in this case produces the absurd result of calling her by a name which ceased to be her name in 1923, and which almost no-one recognises. My view is that the more general policy ought to take priority. So far as most people now living are concerned she is the Queen Mother. Her death hasn't altered that. Adam 10:40, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There is no contradition because the use common names policy explicitly excludes royal titles: Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. The principal exception is in the case of naming royalty and people with titles. For details of the naming conventions in those cases, see the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) page.

The comments made against using Elizabeth Bowles-Lyon above was superceded by the naming conventions since they were formulated after those statements were posted - and by the same person who made them. Argue against the specific policy at the appropriate page. This page should not be moved until the policy has been changed.--Jiang

Calling a well-known public figure by a name which was not her name for most of her life and which no-one except historians recognises is absurd. A policy that produces absurd results is ipso facto a bad policy. Therefore this is a bad policy, at least as it applies to this case. On the process issue, I agree in theory, but my experience is that arguing policies in the abstract here is fruitless. Adam 10:55, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This move is dumb. Please move it back and discuss changing naming conventions at the appropriate place first. Rmhermen 12:25, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)

Why is it dumb? Go and ask five people if they know who Elizabeth Bowes-Lyons was. Adam 12:46, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Those people are dumb. We're here to educate them. Let them be slapped in the face with a redirect or disambiguation page. Do not strengthen their ignorance. --Jiang

It is jarring to find this article at "Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon",and those who put it there are the ones who need educating.Hardly any reference work puts her at this name.I suggest Elizabeth,Queen Mother of Great Britain (1900-2002) as the most logical "permanent" title.--L.E./12.144.5.2/le@put.com

How is is "jarring"? Putting years of birth and death is unprecendented. Again, this is an issue of naming conventions and should not be discussd here. --Jiang 05:47, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's not a name anyone would expect to find this person under.Using birth years to sort namesakes IS "precedented" on Wikipedia,see Elizabeth Smart (born 1987) and related discussion on that article's talk page.--L.E/12.144.5.2/le@put.com

That's irrelevant because we have redirects. Elizabeth Smart is the sole exception, and that was because some people thought the other labels were POV. Why is your title more "logical"? What about "Elizabeth, Queen consort to George VI of Great Britain" (not that I support this either)? --Jiang 05:00, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

She was Queen Mother far longer than she was Queen Consort.Of course both are far more common ways of referring to or thinking of her than her maiden name.--L.E./12.144.5.2/le@put.com

I've just read through all the arguments and I still don't understand. Every other queen consort seems to be <name> of <realm>. I do understand why she can't be "Elizabeth of the United Kingdom", that would be ambiguous. So why not just be specific, and throw in her middle names? "Queen Elizabeth Angela Marguerite of the United Kingdom". That's consistent with the naming scheme, but adds the extra detail required to make the name unique.

Ben Arnold 04:03, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

The format you have explained is for Queen regnants, not Queen consorts. There have been multiple Queen Elizabeths. Reigning monarchs are distinguished by numerals and consorts are not. That's partly why we use maiden names. --Jiang 06:31, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Counterexamples: Alexandra of Denmark, Anne-Marie of Greece, Sofía of Spain, mind you there are examples of both forms and the later two of those I think are still alive Ben Arnold 09:06, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

We don't revert to maiden names until they've actually died. "Alexandra of Denmark" is the maiden name. The article isn't at "Alexandra of the United Kingdom". --Jiang 09:16, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Ah that makes sense. I'm on the same page now. Thanks for the help. Ben Arnold 07:56, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Britannica (the 'pedia)

Cantus, Britannica is not always right nor is it always superior. Our version is superior to that a Britannica's. Please stop copying the intro from britannica. --Jiang 04:43, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Britannica is correct, you just don't like their format (which IMHO is superior). --Cantus 04:53, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

No one else seems to agree with you (as at least 5 people have been reverting or complaining about your changes over the past 24 hours) so I suggest you stop attempting to alter the articles. Wikipedia is not Britannica. Proteus (Talk) 09:34, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Today, more than two years after her death at the grand age of 101, Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon is still referred by many people in Great Britain as the Queen Mother or, affectionately , the Queen Mum, not as Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon or so. Even the media refers to her as the "late Queen Mother"- which means that she is still the Queen Mother for us all, although she is dead since 2002. And it suggests that she will always be our Queen Mother until Prince William marries!!!!!!!!

A strange logic, that she will only ...be our Queen Mother until Prince William marries.... But how would you then classify her? Perhaps as Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, one of several Queen Mothers and Queens consort already listed in wikipedia under their pre-marital name. And if the media is your source, perhaps you will rewrite the list of presidents of the United States of America, inserting Thomas E Dewey between Truman and Eisenhower. --garryq 14:48, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon will -two years after her death now- still be our Queen Mother, because Queen Elizabeth II., her eldest daughter and the current queen, will never abdicate until her own death. If Queen Elizabeth II. would do so, she would be the King Mother (mother of King Charles III.- if Prince Charles is to become king in the lifespan of his own mother...)and not the Queen Mother! Queen Mary, the grandmother of the current queen, and the late Queen Mother´s mother-in-law, was indeed the mother of two kings, but used to be called Queen Mary, the Dowager Queen and not Queen Mother until her death in 1953. And if the current Queen dies, there will still be no new Queen Mother, because if Prince Charles is to marry Camilla (and then to become king), then Camilla would be referred as "Duchess of Cornwall" or so, but not as Queen Camilla and also as King Mother or Queen Mother. Camilla indeed is NOT the mother of Prince William (the mother of Prince William, Diana, the Princess of Wales, died in 1997)! If Prince William is to marry and to become king, his future wife will then be queen. If Prince William (then King William V.) would not survive his wife, she will be the next Queen Mother (or King Mother if their eldest child-the heir to the throne- is a boy). Then the late Queen Mother will be referred as Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon (1900-2002), Queen Consort from 1936-1952 and Queen Mother from 1952-2002. Mother of Queen Elizabeth II. (1926-20..).

There's no such thing as a "King Mother". A Queen Mother is a Queen who is the mother of the current Sovereign, not the mother of a Queen. Also, if the Prince of Wales was married to Camilla Parker-Bowles and became King, she'd be Queen automatically, barring special legislation that created the concept of morganatic marriage in the UK, which seems unlikely. Proteus (Talk) 09:01, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

... also, Prince William of Wales, were he to keep the name as his accession name, would be William V... James F. (talk) 00:59, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Therefore Camilla would automatically be a queen, but it is very unlikely that the Britons would appreciate it to refer her as queen, because it would evoke poignant memories of the late Princess of Wales, who would have been Queen Diana then and if Prince Charles -as king- would have died before Diana, she would certainly have been Britain`s next Queen Mother. Thus the next Queen Mother will be the future wife of Prince William. The deceased mother of the current Queen will still be referred as our Queen Mother until Queen Elizabeth II. dies. Ok, I´ll accept the fact that a Queen Mother is the mother of the current souvereign and not the mother of a queen. I always thought that a Queen Mother must be the mother of a queen, which is indeed incorrect. To me it seemed so because of the extraordinary longevity of the late Queen Mum ;-)

Delicate Question

I don't want to pick on the Queen Mum, the issue of her and her husband being at least accused of being Nazi sympathizers and why isn't touched on. I don't know enough about it to add.

Again, I know a lot of what she and Good King George did during The War and after was very good. But shouldn't the issue be covered? As objectively as possible, but covered.--iFaqeer 01:57, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, if you can find such accusations. I've never heard of her being a Nazi sympathizer though (and the accusations against George VI seem pretty weak. Just because somebody once said something nice about Hitler doesn't make them a "Nazi sympathizer." At any rate, I've moved the article to Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, due to our convention that queen-consorts do not have lesser title preceding their names. For instance, we do not have Queen Mary at Princess Mary of Teck. john k 20:10, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand me. I am not accusing her of being a "Nazi sympathizer"; I am just saying that we are omitting some of the actions and attitudes she and her husband took that led some people to make that charge. A lot of the history of WWII and related issues is often weighted towards hagiography and demonisation. And what the Queen and her husband did during and after the War are, in my humble opinion, definitely examples of how monarchs should behave; a wonderful example of heroism. But what happened before the War was much more complex. And we almost don't mention it at all. I would just like the picture to be more complete.--iFaqeer 10:11, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

She is also widely known to have expressed racist views in private, but I see no mention of that. I recall this was obliquely referred to in her BBC radio obituary which said she had 'old-fashioned attitudes'. Ben Finn 23:28, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wedding on TV or Radio?

He married Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, the youngest daughter of the Earl and Countess of Strathmore on April 26, 1923 in Westminster Abbey. The newly-formed BBC wished to record and broadcast the event, but the Archbishop of Canterbury, vetoed the idea as "men in public houses may watch the ceremony with their hats on". Lady Elizabeth was styled Her Royal Highness The Duchess of York after their marriage.

Shouldn't it be listen? The BBC would have been broadcasting it on radio. Regular TV sevice didn't begin until 1936.

Question

Does anyone know what grade the Queen Mother was granted in the Order of Canada. I cannot seem to find her on the Honour Rolls on the Canadian Governor General's website. Thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NVM, the CBC said that she was a Companion (C.C.) since 2000 and held it until her passing. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All the honourary members of the Order of Canada are Companions, in recognition of their contribution to the World. Its is supposed to be : Members = make a difference locally, Officers make a difference in Canada and Companions make a difference to the entire world. The Queen Mother was given the CC in recognition for her steadfastness during World War II Dowew 20:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

However, it was only an honorary (note spelling please!) award which is (a) why she isn't mentioned on the Governor General's website and (b) why there was no mention of her OC among her honours at her funeral. Masalai 11:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

renaming

concerning renaming, I looked up what Buckingham Palace says about her name, and she is known as "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother", so maybe renaming the article to Elizabeth, Queen Mother, or something of the sorts will be in order. also a google search brings more queen mums than you´ll ever find Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon or whatever.. Antares911 09:34, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with this move. The current Wikipedia naming conventions (names and titles) (item 9 of "Other Royals") states: "Past Royal Consorts are referred to by their pre-marital name or pre-marital title, not by their consort name, as without an ordinal (which they lack) it is difficult to distinguish various consorts; eg, as there have been many queen consorts called Catherine, use Catherine of Aragon not Queen Catherine." While I agree that the current naming conventions could use improvement at the very least, until the policy is changed we should continue to follow what is written. Thus, I think we should, at least for the time being, move this article back to Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. 青い(Aoi) 6 July 2005 06:55 (UTC)

Why is this article continuously under Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother ???? - I have got an impression that it was moved there by some "rogue" user (without any consensus nor without support of agreed policy) and despite expertized requests (based on naming conventions etc) has not been returned. In my opinion, no one deceased could be given the heading now in use. Moreover, that precise wording in heading should not be given to anyone (without at least some territorial designation) as there are (and can in future be) living, breathing queen mothers in several other countries than UK. 217.140.193.123 09:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

edits

A couple of changes. It is incorrect to start a historical biography for a royal consort using just one of a person's names when they have gone through a series of changes in title. It is also linguistically ineligent to start an article by using the word queen and then in the same sentence repeat the word when describing her later titles like queen consort and queen mother. It is standard biographical language to use a royal consort's maiden name and then use the sentence to explain their move from title to title, with each title highlighted.

It also is wrong to use The Queen Mother . . . in opening paragraphs when referring to times she wasn't the Queen Mother but was Duchess of York or Queen consort. Each paragraph or section which refers to her in a different era should use the contemporary title for that time. So she should be EBL at the start, the Duchess in the period 1923-1936, Queen Elizabeth from 1936 to 1952 and the Queen Mother afterwards.

Also, the claim that the QM refused to speak to Wallace Simpson at the Duke of Windsor's funeral is BS. She was photographed helping her when the Duchess, who was showing signs of senility, became confused. FearÉIREANN\^(talk) 2 July 2005 16:27 (UTC)

I remember reading somewhere that they sent Christmas cards to each other? And the Duchess did stay at Buckingham Palace during the Duke of Windsor's funeral, so she was hardly made to feel unwelcome. Astrotrain 20:08, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page1011.asp

In response to Silverhorse and whoever is moving the page to HM QE the QM. YOU CAN'T HAVE 'HER MAJESTY' IN THE TITLE OF THE ARTICLE!!!!!! I used to think QE the QM before too before I learned about the convention on naming royal consorts. In addition, given that Her Late Majesty has passed on, she no longer is the Queen Mother. She technically reverted to the highest title she had in life, which was 'Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth', since the Consort of the Monarch, always takes precedence over the Widow of a Monarch/Mother of Current Monarch. However, given that royal consorts do not have ordinals, it is confusing to use Queen Elizabeth, as there have been mother Queens Consort whose name are Elizabeth, ie. Elizabeth Woodville, Elizabeth of York. Similar with other names, ie. Catherine of Aragon, Catherine Parr. Therefore it has been the convention to use maiden names after one's death. You can write that her title at death (in bold) somewhere close to the begining, but not at the opening line or the actual title of article. Okay, the very second that Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon died she no longer was 'The Queen Mother', just like the very second George VI died he no longer was 'The King'. Now Buckingham Palace can refer to her as Queen Mother as a matter of curtesy, and thats fine, but Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother is not her correct title anymore. When one dies, they revert to their highest title, ie. when The Duke of Windsor died, he reverted to being Edward VIII. Similary, Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother reverted to the highest position she attained, which is Queen Consort, which ranks above Queens Dowager or Mother. User:Eddo

Inconsistencies in Naming: Is there something wrong here?

I've been following the debate about the name of this article for some time now, with great interest. In the end, I'll accept whatever the consensus is (if there ever is one), although my strong personal preference would be "Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother". But if the "powers that be" decide it's to be "Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon", "Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon" it is.

So, given that, how come the article on the Duchess of Windsor is titled "Duchess of Windsor"? Why isn't she listed under her maiden name "Bessie Wallis Warfield"? She never even became Queen (thank God), yet this reviled Nazi-sympathiser who caused nothing but a whole lot of trouble gets called by her most recent and well-known title "Duchess of Windsor", while Queen Elizabeth, who really was a Queen Consort, gets called only "Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon", a title that a lot of educated, well-informed people would not even recognise because it is so, so, so out of date. If anything, the situations should be reversed, but in the interests of encyclopaedic fairness, consistency and usability, they should either BOTH be listed under their maiden names, or BOTH be listed under their most well-known title. What's good for the goose is good the gander, I say (and take that any way you like). Cheers JackofOz 07:46, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

There's two things to say here. One, perhaps it SHOULD be move. Two, there was only ever one Duchess of Windsor, and there is unlikely to ever be one again; it was a position created solely for her. There will be another Queen Mother, possibly one even named Elizabeth. --Golbez 07:55, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

It is a classic example of some pages being at placed at locations they should not be in but it not being noticed. Wallis should be at her pre-marital name: she, like Camilla, is complicated because of divorces, because their maiden name is not the same their pre-royal marital name. Probably both should be in (Wallis now, Camilla on her death) under the pre-marital name they became famous under, which was Wallis Simpson and Camilla Parker Bowles rather than Bessie Wallis Warfield or, God help us, Bessie Wallis Warfield Spencer Simpson, and Camilla Shand. Royalty who became royal brides were public figures from birth — Catherine of Aragon's birth was the subject of mass celebrations in Spain. Portuguese people knew Catherine of Braganza from birth. So both were known universally by maiden name, then went to marital royal title. But Wallis only became a public figure as Wallis Simpson, and Camilla apart from a brief bit of minor fame as on of the Prince of Wales's early girlfriends, only really became prominent as Camilla Parker Bowles. Wallis and Camilla in effect had two lives; as commoners and as royals. On reversion from death title the normal commoner naming rule should apply, ie, most common name which would suggest WS ahead of BWW, CPB ahead of CS. The Queen Mother had no previous marital names, so the royal reversion rule is easy, as it is with Catherine of Aragon and Catherine of Braganza. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that Wallis should (or even can) be moved: after all, she was not queen consort. her marriage was with an ex-monarch, who was Peer (guy with a substantial title) during the marriage. To such, our NC allots "consort name" here. In these grounds, Wallis should be Wallis, Duchess of Windsor. I do not believe we are disrespectful to deceased queen consorts, as it is quite flattering to have a very bare name (such as Alexandra of Denmark), moreover usually with a country's name, and thus an assumption that all should "know" her without any title or longer explanation. Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon is a bit less-than-successful application of the same rule. 217.140.193.123 18:49, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Wallis was married to a man who was an ex-king. I think in the circumstances to apply the consort rule to her. Historically women who married ex-kings are often treated as former consorts in naming procedures even if they weren't technically royal consorts. They were more than merely wives of peers and indeed more than wives of mere princes. Historical royal naming techniques don't have a special rule for people like Wallis; there are so few of them in any case. Usually they are treated like consorts for reversion rule purposes once deceased. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Intro paragraph

The introduction of "Lady Elizabeth Angela Marguerite Bowes-Lyon, LG, LT, etc, etc" doesn't make much sense. She was never known as Lady Elizabeth, LG, etc. I think a more appropriate introduction would be either simply "Lady Elizabeth Angela Marguerite Bowes-Lyon" or "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, LG, LT, etc." (the latter is my personal preference). --Matjlav^(talk) 23:20, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I've moved the honours down to the point where her final title, QE the QM is mentioned in the first paragraph. The article is about the woman, not the title. She was Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother was simply the name and title she had been 1952 and 2002. She had numerous names over her lifetime. It is normal for deceased consorts to be written under the their personal maiden name rather than there marital name, hence Blanche of Castile, Mary of Modena, Catherine of Aragon, etc. Marie de Medici was Queen Mother of France, yet, as is the norm, is referred to not as Queen Mother in the article title and opening paragraph but under her maiden name. That is how deceased consorts are covered. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Honors

As a holder of the Order of Canada she would have automatically received the Canadian Queen Elizabeth II Golden Jubilee Medal in 2002. Should this be listed in her honors section ? Dowew 20:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

It was only an honorary OC, which is why it was not listed among her honours at her funeral. Masalai 14:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Images

Why are there so many pictures on this page? There's a photo of her crown directly below an infographic containing the same photo. There are also two pictures of her funeral, not to mention a photo of Noel Coward. I'd like to get rid of a couple of these images, as they're really cluttering up the page now. Any objections? --djrobgordon 06:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Criticism section

The criticisms - if sourced - should be allowed to speak for themselves. However at some point in the last few months someone seems to have gone through deleting the less palatable ones (e.g. her Royal Highness's racist language) and toning down the others by adding unsourced speculation as to why her actions & attitudes were forgivable/acceptable. I've reverted some of the deletions/changes from memory. If unsourced criticms are (rightly) not permitted, nor should unsourced excuses be. Ben Finn 23:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The criticisms' sources, however, do need qualification. It seems that their only source Kitty Kelley's The Royals. See "Kitty Kelley: Colonoscopist to the stars" (http://www.slate.com/id/2106746/).

Michael Crowley, the author, is a senior editor at the New Republic -- hardly a conservative organ and Slate, of course is no more so. Crowley says of Kelley, inter alia, that her biographies are "juicy, gossipy, salacious, titillating, delightful, and factually suspect"; "it's clear that Kelley is no meticulous historian who nails down her facts with airtight precision. To the contrary, she is the consummate gossip monger, a vehicle for all the rumor and innuendo surrounding her illustrious subjects"; "an individual Kelley story, divorced from a larger narrative about a subject, will easily fall apart." If the article is to have any credibility it should not rely on such a source for bare assertions of fact; if it mentions allegations in such a source it must also mention that the source is suspect. It is noteworthy that Kelley's book has not been published in the UK; if she were confident of being immune to liability in a libel suit surely there would be no hesitation.

Please note that I am not suggesting that the article should not report criticism. I am saying that it should be credible. Kelley is marginally so and if she is to be quoted, an honest caveat as to her integrity needs to be entered. Otherwise the article itself lacks integrity. Masalai 08:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• I already left a note on Ben Finn's userpage saying I disagreed with his edits. Although this section is not a good standard generally, I beleive removing the qualifcations give it a distinct POV of an extreme negative image of EBL that is not warranted. Most of the critisms are not really backed up by good evidence- eg her overdraft is her own business, and media reports at the time were more mocking than condeming. Astrotrain 11:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't have such an issue with the article representing Kitty Kelley as a less than ideal source - though her book is a source nonetheless, and perhaps the best we currently have on the QM's real private life given the rabid pro-QM fervour that still exists in the UK. As those who have read her book will know, Kelley spoke to numerous royal acquaintances and staff of the royal household who couldn't possibly be named or go on the record (not even in a libel court), though Kelley does say fairly clearly in many cases who the sources were without giving the name. Also if I recall rightly she does name sources who have since died and therefore have nothing to lose by being named (though equally they can't confirm what they said).

I do have an issue though with the unsourced excuses added. The fact that the QM's overdraft is her own business is irrelevant - she had the overdraft and it was criticized in the media, including in her obituaries. I don't accept what you say that they weren't really criticisms; you might be able to read the CNN article as mere chiding, but others were more critical. For example I've just added a link to the Observer obituary which is a catalogue of extravagance from start to finish.

The fact that such material presents a negative image of the QM does not make it POV. If the material is sourced then the image it presents is warranted, however contrary it may be to her traditional image in much of the UK media.

Also there has been unexplained deletion of other fully sourced criticism & dissent (e.g. the 'Queen Mum Drop Dead' campaign - surely of some note as not that many public figures attract campaigns of such vitriol). Ben Finn 12:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S. After 10 seconds of Googling I've just added another source of comment on her overdraft, this one from the New Statesman, which is bitingly critical on the subject. I should think there's quite a few more sources of similar criticism if required. Ben Finn 12:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Someone who lives as long as EBL is going to attract some amount of critism. However that does not mean we need to document every single bit of critism against her. Doing so makes the article POV, especially if many of the claims rely on one book, or single newspaper articles. The section is far too long and detailed to be in an encyclopedia. EBL may have had criticism in her time, but she was generally a popular figure, despite the odd book or newspaper article.

The New Statesman article seems to be commenting on the differences between attitudes of debt held by the Upper Classes versus Middle and Lower Classes. It is not critical of the QM personnaly. I think this section needs a POV dispute tag so others may comment. Astrotrain 12:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• If you want credible sources of criticism of the Queen Mother, check the disobliging but respectable biography by Penelope Mortimer and journalism by Christopher Hitchens on the subject. There is plenty of ambivalent commentary from intellectually respectable sources to balance the hagiography, if that is thought necessary; there is no need to resort to the egregious Kitty Kelley. Masalai 14:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy to add some Christopher Hitchens references, but I see now that the criticism section has been almost entirely cut - not only Kitty Kelley's allegations, but also various other significant and well-known matters, such as the secret incarceration of her mentally-ill nieces, mistreatment of the Duchess of Windsor, etc. - all apparently not worthy of mention. Even the ludicrous 'Reported quips' section is now rather longer than the criticism section. Clearly her quips are far more important than any distasteful suggestions of royal imperfection. I see even things like her support of appeasement earlier in the article have been toned down - so her rare failings were entirely excusable. Hey, why not just cut the criticism section altogether? Ben Finn 13:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The Princess Albert

Was Elizabeth titled "HRH The Princess Albert, Duchess of York" after her marriage? I know the title almost always used was "HRH The Duchess of York", but legally was she "The Princess Albert"? If so, was this on official documents ever? Does this mean that... ...the Duchess of Cornwall is "HRH The Princess Charles"? ...the Countess of Wessex is "HRH The Princess Edward"? ...the Duchess of Gloucester is "HRH Princess Richard"? ...the Duchess of Kent is "HRH Princess Edward?"

Also, was Elizabeth also Queen Dowager after George VI's death? Could she have styled herself as such?

• Yes, that is what it means. If you look on the Duchesss of Gloucester's page, you will see for a time, that she was titled Princess Richard of Gloucester, after her marriage and before he inherited the dukedom. Look at Princess Michael of Kent. As for the Queen Mother, she was technically the Queen Dowager, but chose rather to style herself as the Queen Mother. In 1952-1953, there were technically 3 queens in the UK: Queen Elizabeth II (as regnant queen), Queen Elizabeth (consort of George VI) and Queen Mary (consort of George V).Prsgoddess187 11:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Queen Dowager

What would happen if a monarch's paternal mother, grandmother and great-grandmother were still alive at the time of his/her accession (3 queen dowagers...) - what titles might they have? Since Queen mother (mother) and Queen Dowager (grandmother) would be taken, what would the third ("middle") queen (the grandmother) be known as?

This is very much a guess, because such a situation is hypothetical and nothing remotely like it has ever happened, to my knowledge. Or is likely to, in my opinion. But what the hell, I'm game. (Caveat: I'm making this up as I go along, so please practise forbearance)

Say King Frederick is married to Queen Gertrude, and they have an heir, Prince Richard. Frederick dies, Richard becomes king, and Gertrude becomes the Queen Dowager, but may also be known as "Queen Gertrude, the Queen Mother" if another person with title did not already exist. Let's assume there's no pre-existing Queen Mother. Or she may not like either of those titles and might prefer to be known just as Queen Gertrude.

Richard's queen consort is Queen Felicity, who bears him Prince Nigel. Richard dies, leaving Felicity a widow and Nigel a king. She can't be the Queen Mother if Gertrude is already the Queen Mother. Felicity could then only be the Queen Dowager, or just plain Queen Felicity. Even if Gertrude were not already Queen Mother, it would be a bit odd to have her daughter-in-law, a generation younger, called the Queen Mother. But I suppose it's technically possible in this crazy scenario. In fact, being Nigel's mother, I imagine Felicity's wishes would outrank those of his grandmother Gertrude. So maybe the titles would change, and it's possible the title of Queen Mother could pass from Gertrude to Felicity.

Are we keeping up? (Not sure that I am). So now we have 2 widowed queens, Gertrude (who may be Queen Dowager; or Queen Gertrude the Queen Mother; or just Queen Gertrude) and Felicity (who also may be Queen Dowager; or Queen Felicity the Queen Mother; or just Queen Felicity). But they couldn't share the same title. (I wonder if it's possible to have the Queen Grandmother. Sounds a bit off).

Now, King Nigel marries a commoner named Whoopi Smith, who becomes Queen Whoopi. Then poor Nigel dies, and their only child Euphemia becomes Queen Euphemia I. Whoopi could pull rank and become whatever she wanted - Dowager Queen; Queen Whoopi the Queen Mother; or just Queen Whoopi. That may or not displace Felicity from her title. And if it did, that may or may not displace Gertrude from her title.

So you can see it's not exactly what one might call definite.

But I have a question for you. What did you mean by "paternal mother"? JackofOz 11:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Astrotrain

I agree with Ben Finn that the negative aspects of EBL's life should not be minimised or whitewashed by claiming "POV" - NPOV means we include all facts, negative and positive, and let the reader decide for themselves. PMA 03:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The point is not to minimise negative facts but honestly to indicate where they are mere allegations by an author lacking in authority. Just because something is in print doesn't mean it's fact. Masalai 17:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• The article is not a depository for all the negative stories ever written about Elizabeth. As she lived to over 100, there will be significant amounts of stories and allegations printed about her life. The article needs to give a balanced overview of her life, not reiterate claims printed in books with no sources. At the end of the day she was a generally popular figure, and to overstate negative stories is POV. Astrotrain 20:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Denial of HRH to Wallis

The article says: "...Elizabeth was responsible for the decision not to give the Duke's wife the style of Her Royal Highness." In what sense responsible? Whatever influence she may have brought to bear on George, it was ultimately his decision and his responsibility. JackofOz 10:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

And, moreover, both the Ziegler biography of Edward VIII and the Sarah Bradford biography of George VI make clear that it was indeed the King's doing. He was very clearheaded indeed about the place he wanted Edward to occupy after the abdication -- a royal dukedom so there was no legal way for him to strike any political postures; the specific stripping of HRH from his wife and heirs, if any (despite advice at the time that this was not feasible, that any wife of a prince automatically acquired her own HRH. Elizabeth undoubtedly had a great deal of influence; this decision was George's. Masalai 13:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Article title

For the title of the article, why has her 'Lady' been lopped off? Jess Cully 13:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Usually for queen consorts they are entered under their maiden name, with no titles, for example the future Queen Mary, the future Queen Alexandra and the future Queen Catherine, the 1st one :). Hope that helps. Prsgoddess187 13:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yup. We don't include styles in article titles. We include titles, so if she had been born The Countess of X then that would have been used, in the form Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, the Countess of x. In addition monarchical consorts are entered as maiden name without adornment. So Queen Mary is Mary of Teck, not Princess May of Teck, etc. It is a widely used format in biography. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 13:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Article removed from Wikipedia:Good articles

This article was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because there are no references. Some parts really need direct citation, such as 'quips' and the allegation that Churchill thought she was holding seances. Worldtraveller 22:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Images from the commons

Hi,

I have recently been adding public domain images of Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon from the National Archives of Canada to the wikipedia commons. Just though I would point this out in case anyone can find a good spot to use them in this article Dowew 03:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Date of photograph

The photograph of Queen Elizabeth with Eleanor Roosevelt was taken June 8, according to http://www.royal.gov.uk/OutPut/Page2760.asp and the original UPI caption. June 17 probably is the date it was published in ILN. Richard K. Carson 17:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Republican bias

Calling this page Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon shows that Wikipedia is controlled by Americans and other republicans. It is insulting not to use the Queen Mother's title. Furthermore, she wasn't called Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon for most of her life. Camestone 22:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Garbage. It is standard to refer to deceased queen consorts by maiden name or maiden title once they die. That is done by royalists the world over. That is why people talk about Catherine of Aragon, Blanche of Castile, Marie-José of Belgium, Mary of Teck, etc. Get your facts straight. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

This simply isn't true. Your statement is correct for mediaeval consorts, but more recent ones are almost always called "Queen X". Queen Mary, for instance, is usually referred to as such: "Mary of Teck" gets only 22,500 Google hits, whilst "Queen Mary" "George V" (to make absolutely sure they're all referring to the correct Queen Mary) gets 242,000. Now I can understand why we'd want to put her under "Mary of Teck" rather than "Queen Mary", but only because "Queen Mary" is far too ambiguous — "Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother" is hardly an ambiguous title, and even in its full form out-Googles "Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon" by a factor of four (220,000:50,500). Just "The Queen Mother" is even more dominant at 1.18 million. (And I don't care what's "standard in biography" or "standard in historical writing": this isn't a biographical website or a historical one, it's an encyclopaedia (and an encyclopaedia with a "common names" policy at that) and you certainly can't try to claim that it's "standard in encyclopaedias" when Britannica has its article at "Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, Queen".) Proteus (Talk) 17:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Honors box

Does this seem odd to anyone else? I get that Phillip succeeded as consort, but is it right to list him as successor in a box titled "Queen Consort"? I'm not really up on succession of royal titles, but it just seems odd to associate Prince Phillip with the title "Queen Consort of the United Kingdom". Essjay (Talk • Connect) 22:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The box is a succession box of Consorts of the United Kingdom - in the case of the QM, she was Queen Consort, in the Duke's case, Prince Consort - the title in the box refers to that of this page's person, not the whole sucession. Hope this helps - DBD 10:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Stop the Degradation of Titles

The use of using lesser titles when referring to royals that married into royalty is completely and utterly wrong! When a such a person dies they are, on most occasions, forever remembered by their greater title in history this way. Which is why their original titles are never put on their gravestones. Was Elizabeth the Queen Mother buried under her 'ladyship' title? I think not! No one in the Royal House, the most dedicated of royalist, would ever refer to her as "Lady Elizabeth" now that she's dead! And you all that think otherwise should do the same. This is direspect to how the person would wish to be remembered and how the people remember them. End this immediately!Andrae24R

FearEIREANN !!!

To User: FearEIREANN: The information listed about whether or not Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother was really the child of her parents is complete FICTION AND SPECULATION!!! You are the reason people cannot trust Wikipedia as a reliable source. My edit contained complete facts not the fantasy you allow to be on this page. You're in essence just degrading the memory of the woman! What do you Irish know of monarchy anyway? Tell you what you edit the Irish pages and leave the English ones to those that speak English. If you attempt to block me I will do the same to you. And will file every complaint possible against your abuse of other members' privledges. I did not vandalize ANYTHING according to the official policy of WikipediaAndrae24R

No personal attacks, please. It is attacking someone to insinuate that their heritage prevents them from being neutral. And as for your claim that it is fiction and speculation, it is not Wikipedia's place to judge what is fact and what is fiction. We report what people say (and cite a source for them of course), and it is undoubtedly believed by a few that the Queen Mother was illegitimate. One man's fact is another man's fiction, and we resolve this by reporting both sides of the story (while of course mentioning that one side is not the most commonly believed version of events). We want facts, but is it not a fact that some conspiracy theorists have questioned the identity of the Queen Mother's parents? Johnleemk | Talk 06:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

In case it's of any interest...

These are the styles and titles as proclaimed by Garter King of Arms:

Thus it hath pleased Almighty God to take out of this transitory life unto His Divine Mercy the late Most High, Most Mighty and Most Excellent Princess Elizabeth, Queen Dowager and Queen Mother, Lady of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, Lady of the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle, Lady of the Imperial Order of the Crown of India, Grand Master and Dame Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order upon whom had been conferred the Royal Victorian Chain, Dame Grand Cross of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, Dame Grand Cross of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John, Relict of His Majesty King George the Sixth and Mother of Her Most Excellent Majesty Elizabeth The Second by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, Sovereign of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, whom may God preserve and bless with long life, health and honour and all worldly happiness.

--Oxonian2006 12:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Use of definite article

The correct courtesy title for the daughter of an Earl is Lady, not The Lady (provided that the Earl is question is not styled HRH, when the opposite would be the case). This can be checked easily in Debrett's, Burke's Peerage and Baronetage and in the HMSO publication Honours and Orders. Bbombbardier 11:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Rubbish. I suggest you go and read the publications you cite. Proteus (Talk) 11:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is the beginning of the citation for EBL in Burke's Peerage and Baronetage: QUEEN ELIZABETH THE QUEEN MOTHER (Lady Elizabeth Angela Marguerite Bowes-Lyon, LG (1936), LT (1937), GCVO (1937), CI (1931), GBE (1927), Roy Victorian Chain (1937)).

Debrett's Correct Form states that the courtesy title for the daughter of an Earl is Lady (very easy to find this on the internet). Now, where is your evidence to contradict these points? Bbombbardier 12:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Debrett's Correct Form isn't on the internet. It is, however, on the table in front of me, and it says that "The Lady" is perfectly correct usage. As I said before, please go and read what you cite. Also try reading Valentine Heywood's British Titles, which has a lengthy discussion on this issue. Proteus (Talk) 13:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you check that you are not looking at the form of address for the wife of a peer, rather than the daughter of a peer. The Department of Constitutional Affairs website replicates what used to be available on the Debrett's website and confirms that the courtesy title for the daughter of an earl is Lady. Also, Burke's Peerage and Baronetage lists EBL as Lady Elizabeth, and not The Lady Elizabeth Bbombbardier 13:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Valentine Heywood's British Titles says:

"The College of Arms, representing the Earl Marshal, I understand, holds that these prefixes [i.e. "The"], whether in full formal style or consisting of the definite article, should be applied only to actual peers and peeresses. But various Lord Chamberlains, when consulted on this point, have ruled that their use is in order not only for the eldest sons of peers who bear courtesy peerage titles, but also for all children or grandchildren of peers entitled to prefix the courtesy style of Lord or Lady to their names. This rule is followed by the Court Circular, an official publication, which you will find referring to "the Lady Herbert" (wife of a peer's eldest son) as being in attendance on the Duchess of Kent, and to "the Lady Constance Milnes-Gaskell" as attending Queen Mary.

"But the Earl Marshal - who, it is claimed, is the higher authority in questions of dignity - holds otherwise, vide the Coronation ceremonial issued by him, in which "the" is omitted for all courtesy titles. The Court Circular, it is argued, may be an official publication but it is not the official publication, because those who compile it are not the ultimate authority. "The", maintains the College of Arms, indicates the person who holds the titles, just as you say "The Lord Mayor" or "The Bishop of Norwich". The person who holds the title is the peer, not his son who is only so styled by courtesy."

Further, Burke's says:

"The practice has revived in recent years of adding a "The" to "Lady" when referring to her in the third person (also to 'Lord' where he is a duke's or marquess's younger son). It emanates from Court Circles but is deprecated by some members of the College of Arms. This is on the understandable grounds that it not only encroaches on the definite article which more properly pertains to a full peer but also implicitly places in an inferior position not just the eldest son and heir of an earl, marquess or duke since he has no 'The' to his courtesy title but a Prince or Princess who is not a child of the sovereign since they too are not accorded a 'The'."

Finally, the monarchy's website makes reference to Lady Diana Spencer, Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon and The Lady Louise Windsor.

(also, apologies for confusion between definite and indefinite article) Bbombbardier 13:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I should check I'm looking at the right section, should I? Don't you dare patronise me. I quote: "Some prefer to be styled 'The Lady'." (If you want to check it's in the right section, buy the book yourself, which might be a good starting point if you want to lecture people on its contents.) The section you quote above validates my argument. And the fact that you're trying to rely on the Royal website (which is notoriously unreliable) is hardly a point in your favour. Where you got this absurd notion that there's a difference between Royal and non-Royal titles is absolutely beyond me, as I've never heard it espoused before, so I can only assume you invented it. However, since the letters patent creating such styles for the children of princes merely says that they shall hold "the style and title enjoyed by the children of Dukes", it's easily dismissed as utter garbage, so I suppose I needn’t worry. Proteus (Talk) 08:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Possibly Proteus could come up with a less offensive way of stating his or her position. Unless or until Proteus can be more civilised I am inclined to think that the previous position must be correct. Perhaps Proteus will make a more compelling case for his or her view than merely being rude....Masalai

The Honourable Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon

Well exactly.Masalai 16:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Windsor Surname?

<<(Elizabeth Angela Marguerite Windsor; later Queen Elizabeth>> is improper. Even if we are to accept that 'Windsor' is a Royal surname, the context implies that this was her surname before she was Queen (presumably after her marriage - though this is very ambiguous). Before her marriage she was, of course 'Elizabeth Angela Marguerite Bowes-Lyon'; after marrying the Duke of York but before becoming Queen she would have been (at least to Republicans) 'Elizabeth Angela Marguerite York'. We may as well use the Bowes-Lyon version in that context, for least ambiguity - although this situation is yet another example of the awkardness and confusion that ensues following the abolition of proper styles and titles. Lord Charlton 13:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)