Talk:Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother

The quote from the soldier...
the quote from the soldier she treated should be removed from this page. The page cannot be modified for avoiding vandalism, yet the language used by the soldier she treated is injurious itself. Some magazines or journals may use this language, but I see no point in using it on Wikipedia (I wanted to remove that part, but unfortunately there's the lock on it to avoid "vandalism"). Surely the soldier used the same horrific words to give a different meaning and to give a better meaning and praise the queen, but even just such injurious and violent language should not be allowed here especially when not relevant and not really explaining historical facts (which still I would avoid explaining if so violent). Hopefully someone decides to remove the quote of the soldier she treated.

This is the part that uses offensive, violent and graphicly violent language to "praise"(???) the queen which I hope can be removed from the entire page: "One of the soldiers she treated wrote in her autograph book that she was to be "Hung, drawn, & quartered ... Hung in diamonds, drawn in a coach and four, and quartered in the best house in the land."[16]". 5.168.135.139 (talk) 08:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)


 * You are completely misreading the tone of what the soldier wrote. I don't know your cultural background but to British and North American ears, the soldier's quote is almost comically sweet and extravagant. There's nothing remotely offensive in the context of the soldier's culture or Elizabeth's. Pascalulu88 (talk) 23:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2023
Add "consort" after "Queen" in the opening line.

[Reasoning: She was Queen by right of her husband, King George VI. She was not "Queen regnant," as was her daughter, Elizabeth II.] 2600:1008:B164:12EF:EA1B:11FD:93F2:1A07 (talk) 01:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 18:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The word "Queen" alone does not imply that she was a queen regnant. A queen can be queen regnant or queen consort but the title is "The Queen". The opening sentence makes it clear that she is the latter by stating that she was Queen of the UK as the wife of George VI. Keivan.f  Talk 19:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Infobox image (3)
Given the number of actual photographs that exist of the subject, I don't know why we are using a painted portrait of her as the main infobox image (it is simply not done for any other monarchs or consorts of whom photos do exist). I have selected a few suitable candidates from the Commons which I am going to list below. Everyone is welcome to take a look at them and examine license details, etc.; or even add to the list. Depending on the level of participation, I might turn this into an RfC to get a broader consensus. Keivan.f Talk 19:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I prefer the painted portrait. It's in colour and it's realistic, so I see no advantage in using a black and white or false colour photograph. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We don't have a policy that dictates the use of colour photographs. Personally, I believe no matter how realistic the painted portrait looks, it's still a painting and is not as accurate as a photograph when it comes to showing facial features. Let's see what others might think. Keivan.f  Talk 13:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Since she was queen consort between 1936 and 1952, and her and her husband excelled at inspiring the citizens throughout World War II, perhaps an image of her during those years may be appropriate as a lead image. Will be interested in reading comments from others on this topic. Then again, the present image is very noble and well done, and portrays her during her many years of being honored by her country. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think an image during her time as consort would be more appropriate as lead image. However the current lead image is clearer than the alternatives provided so would lean towards keeping what we already have. Mn1548 (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

How long ...
... may I ask, are we going to keep calling her "The Queen Mother", as if she was one still, as if that were part of her name, and as if there have never been others? Looks ridiculous. Respectful? Just askin'. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It is "Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother", so until such time as she is displaced in sources by a different Queen Mother. But in actuality she will always be a "Queen Mother" by usage even though she is no longer the mother of a reigning sovereign. Just sayin'. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Unclear Citations
There are numerous citations to Shawcross's book in the article, but none of them state whether they are citing the 2009 book or 2012 book. A featured article nowadays should not be of this level of quality (I do not have access to the books so I cannot fix them by myself). ネイ (talk) 03:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't mind if you remove the Further reading section. DrKay (talk) 05:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It is fine for me as long as it is clear which book the citation comes from. Since the 2012 book is moved to Further Reading section, this implies that all citations are citing the 2009 book. Thank you. ネイ (talk) 09:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)