Talk:Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother/Archive 4

Requested move 11 March 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 07:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother → Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon – This article should use the consort's actual name, as does the Wikipedia article for the consort of Edward VII, George V, and Charles III, also the title of "Queen Mother" isn't current with her being decesed, therefore if a title shot be used it should be the consort title matching the first one used in the article's lead. Mn1548 (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose move. This has been discussed multiple times before. Her common name remains "the Queen Mother".  O.N.R.  (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Arguably a definitive name if there ever was one. --Killuminator (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per my comments in the previous RM. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * opppose per common name—blindlynx 16:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per common name. While I support this in principle for consistency with other deceased consorts, Elizabeth is by far more commonly called the Queen Mother than by her maiden surname. And the example of Charles III’s consort cited for consistency is incorrect, as the article is Camilla, Queen Consort not Camilla Shand or even Camilla Parker Bowles, but of course that is beside the point. Estar8806 (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Consistency is nice, but having an article title be the most common name is much more important. Though I will say that I still think there should be a comma in the title, so Move to Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support/ alternative proposal seriously what is „Queen Mother“!? Definitely not a name or surname! Then why people are searching common „name“! It’s title folk, means has purpose or Tenure, de facto until her daughter the Queen was alive as per definition „A queen mother is a former queen, often a queen dowager, who is the mother of the reigning monarch“! She is definitely not the mother of reigning Charles III!! Until 2008 the article was named and strongly supported by wiki community as „Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon“ and later changed for time being! In case Kate and Meghan, their names/ article titles were changed after their marriage without following „common“ criteria! Search Prince of wales online and you’ll see which face is still common!::Article name like “Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon“ will be quite weird, as all consorts were titled known by their respective royal/ ducal house and Elizabeth and Camilla are not from any royal house so as per Camilla, the article name here would be Elizabeth, Queen Consort (Note: she is not „the“ Queen consort but Queen consort sure) more appropriate! Peace —2A0A:A546:50E6:0:AC15:77B5:F40:C712 (talk) 22:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:TITLECON and WP:CONSORTS. The common name argument is not enough as WP:COMMONNAME is not the only policy that governs page titles. Elizabeth was not the only Queen Mother in British history and to suggest that all references discussing a queen mother exclusively refer to her is wrong. For all it's worth, Queen Alexandra and Queen Mary were also queen mothers, but per WP:CONSORTS for deceased consorts we go with the maiden name. Otherwise both "Alexandra of Denmark" and "Mary of Teck" should be moved to Queen Alexandra and Queen Mary, Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz should be moved to Queen Charlotte, Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen should be moved to Queen Adelaide, etc. because those are the supposed common names. It's just better to keep all pages consistent and stop this selective approach. Keivan.f  Talk 06:11, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That doesn't really matter that there are others. There are multiple Madonna's also but the article was moved away from the mother of Jesus to the pop star because it was by far more common. 50 years from now that may move back as no one will know who the old pop star was. Same with The Queen Mother. Right now it's easily as the article is today. 50 years from now that may change and we will change with it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:14, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, too soon to know her COMMONNAME. https://www.royal.uk/life-and-work-queen-elizabeth-queen-mother still names her Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, no comma, the status quo.  Wikipedia should not lead the way.  Forget NCROY, its attempt to force consistency where there is none is just absurd.  The Queen Mother’s birth name is not how she was, or is, known.  She may well become known as Elizabeth, queen consort of George VI.  Time will tell.  The time may be soon following the coronation of Charles III.  She may dead for a long time, 20 years, but her name derived from The Queen, who only recently died, and the transition will not be complete until the next coronation. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There's no consistency there. The website of the Royal Collection Trust refers to her as Queen Elizabeth of the United Kingdom, same way it refers to Mary as Queen Mary of the United Kingdom, to Alexandra as Queen Alexandra of the United Kingdom, to Charlotte as Queen Charlotte of the United Kingdom, and to Caroline as Queen Caroline of Great Britain. No difference between the consorts whatsoever. While we are on the subject of Royal Family website; that same website refers to Charlotte as Queen Charlotte. So, are we gonna give preference to what a primary source says in that instant as well, or is it that it only matters in the case of Elizabeth? Keivan.f  Talk 10:55, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose - while not against it, we have to consider other consort pages that still uses their consort names due to WP:COMMONNAME (i.e. Empress Elisabeth of Austria --> Elizabeth of Bavaria / Albert, Prince Consort --> Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha / Carlota of Mexico --> Charlotte of Belgium / Henrik, Prince Consort of Denmark --> Henri de Laborde de Monpezat / Marie of Romania --> Marie of Edinburgh, etc.), I think if a majority of these pages will go by their maiden names then I'll support this. :) Pawpaw442 (talk) 06:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note that only in the case of Elisabeth of Austria the prefix "Empress" is attached to the name. I don't see Queen/Empress used for any of the other deceased consorts. Keivan.f  Talk 10:55, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose again (perennial). The present title is the common name, unless you want to go with "Queen Mum". Randy Kryn (talk) 14:57, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Literally no one calls her "Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon". 〜 Festucalex • talk • contribs 16:39, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed 2crzppul (talk) 02:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Didn't we just have this move request a couple months ago? As I look it was in September and October of 2022. So twice in 30 days and now again. Goodness. She was well known as Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother. You heard nothing else for 70 years. Maybe far in the future the common form could change but not now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It is already becoming more common. This Ngram shows that Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon became more common than Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother in early 2000s (i.e. right after her death). Keivan.f  Talk 05:22, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This Ngram shows something very different. If you turn off case sensitivity because "the" in "the Queen Mother" is often not capitalized, then you see that it is much more common. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That is a somewhat erroneous statement. Almost always she is only called The Queen Mother but here is added Queen Elizabeth for extra clarity. The ngram for The Queen Mother absolutely crushed Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon.ngram. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:05, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, as I stated earlier, she's not the only "Queen Mother" in British history nor is she the only queen mother around the world. And we can't be sure that all those results necessarily point to Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon as the main subject. One way or the other this page will be moved to her maiden name in the future. Because history is filled with queens and queen mothers named Elizabeth and there's no reason this one should get a preferential treatment. Keivan.f  Talk 07:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * In the future, when it's no longer close to the common name, I don't doubt it. It just may be 50 years from now. And something else. Only four others could officially use the title of Queen Mother in Britain. Before them it was an unknown term. Before Elizabeth we had Queen Mary in 1936 (who could have but wouldn't use the title), Queen Alexandra in 1910 (who could have but wouldn't use the title), and finally Queen Henrietta in 1660 (who did use the title). There was only one other Queen Elizabeth in history who could remotely fit the term, and that was before the term Queen Mother was invented. That was in 1483 and she was the mother of the King for a whole three months when her son was killed at the age of 12. It's been 350 years since the last Queen who actually preferred to use the official term Queen Mother. It's no wonder Elizabeth B-L is overwhelmingly associated with the term Queen Mother.Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother may be less common than Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, but Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother is more common . Estar8806 (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. But at this point we should consider moving Alexandra of Denmark to Queen Alexandra and Mary of Teck to Queen Mary, because the community thinks that there's no need to adhere to WP:CONSORTS and only WP:COMMONNAME matters. Keivan.f  Talk 21:42, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Not quite. The community and most Wikipedians know there are always exceptions. That's why WP:CONSORTS is a guideline... something we attempt to follow knowing there are plenty of exceptions. WP:COMMONNAME is a policy. Huge difference. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, WP:COMMONNAME is a policy, and since it takes precedence over WP:CONSORTS there's no need for us to be selective as to when it needs to be applied. Just as sources refer to Elizabeth as Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother and some people insist that this name should be used, they should also remember that said sources almost always refer to Alexandra as Queen Alexandra, to Mary as Queen Mary, and to Adelaide as Queen Adelaide. We should not have double standards. Keivan.f  Talk 01:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The "double standards" you're referring to are simply WP:CRITERIA. Queen Mary may be more common, but it is not precise, neither is Queen Alexandra nor Queen Adelaide. Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother is precise, and is more common anyway. Estar8806 (talk) 16:49, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "Mary, Queen of the United Kingdom" is more precise than Mary of Teck and closer to the commo name. Not to mention that Queen Charlotte, Queen Adelaide, and Queen Alexandra all redirect to the articles on the British queens, which indicates that they are the primary topic anyway. Keivan.f  Talk 16:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair question. WP:CONSORTS has not worked well.  Mary of Teck is a good example.  “Mary of Teck”.  As Mary of Teck she was an obscure minor royal of interest only as an eligible bride for future kings.  For over 100 years, continuing, her COMMONNAME is undeniably “Queen Mary”, but Queen Mary is most certainly not available for her as an article title.  Uncomfortably, consorts don’t seem to have enduring interest or long term significance to stimulated ongoing coverage to generate a posthumous COMMONNAME.  WP:CONSORTS was a fair try, matching academic shorthand, meeting WP:PRECISE but little else.  My current suggestion is Mary, Queen consort of George V.
 * - SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:35, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * She was consort to George V, but she was Queen consort of the United Kingdom. If anything, the page should be named Mary, Queen of the United Kingdom, similar to Mary, Queen of Hungary and Maria of Aragon, Queen of Portugal. Keivan.f  Talk 02:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Mary of Teck is a stable title. Nonetheless, Mary, Queen of Hungary was a co-monarch more comparable to Mary II of England (another Queen Mary), and Maria of Aragon, Queen of Portugal was named such as there have been several Marias of Aragon. Obviously I can tell you're not advocating moving Mary of Teck, but it was worth a mention. Estar8806 (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I will not be advocating a move for Mary of Teck alone, but a thorough review of WP:CONSORTS is necessary as the idea of having maiden names as article titles is not working and the primary examples of that are this article and the ones listed by User:Pawpaw442. Keivan.f  Talk 16:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * “Mary, Queen of the United Kingdom”, a redirect you mischievously created, is a very bad way to refer to the historic long dead queen, as it implies a Queen Regnant, not a Queen Consort. She was never a real queen, only a Queen consort. I don’t think she was even ever a Queen Regent. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "Mischievously"? What are you trying to imply here? First of all, your whole statement is factually incorrect. Consort is a noun adjunct, defining the word queen, in the same way that regnant, dowager, and regent can be used as adjuncts defining that word. A queen consort's rank differs from a queen regnant's rank but that that doesn't mean that she's not an actual queen contrary to what you're implying here. It seems that you automatically equate the word queen to queen regnant. And Mary was Queen (consort) of the United Kingdom, not queen consort of George V. One can be queen consort/regnant/dowager/regent of a country, place, tribe, etc. not of a single individual. Keivan.f  Talk 05:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the bigger question is that we dont just make redirects to make redirects. Would someone realistically type in "Mary Queen of the United Kingdom" when searching for her. I really doubt it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That is an assumption. Would someone type Sonja, Queen of Norway or Rania, Queen of Jordan, to search for those queens? Maybe yes, maybe not. Yet no one can say they are not useful. As long as the redirect is accurate and helpful there's no reason that it should not remain. Keivan.f  Talk 06:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That is wrong! If the redirect is very obscure for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. That phrase is "not" mentioned in the article, nor should it be. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The specific phrase doesn't always need to exist within an article. It can be an alternative name or alternate form of a name or even likely misspellings that redirect to the most appropriate article title per WP:R. Keivan.f  Talk 06:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Almost always if it's an alternate or alternate form, it is in the article as such. And you are grasping at straws if you think this is a misspelling. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:07, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The point is that the exact phrase does not always need to appear in the article. There's no part of the guideline that states that. Keivan.f  Talk 08:32, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course.... that's why they are guidelines. What I said is in the guidelines on creating proper redirects as "should" not "must." However you are going to have to convince the consensus of your position. Good luck with that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per the reasons given above. Consensus was already made a few months ago. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 09:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support As noted above, Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon seems to be the more commonly used name for George VI's wife. Векочел (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That is simply not correct. See here. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose. Overwhelmingly her WP:COMMONNAME. Who on earth calls her Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon (it should be Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon in any case, incidentally, but nobody called her that after her marriage either!). -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose - Per WP:COMMONNAME. She is called The Queen Mother in books, documentaries, everyday conversation, etc. DDMS123 (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Move Request, 05/21/23
I'd like Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother to be changed to Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother. It is common sense that when a noun -- or pronoun -- is being described afterwards, it would be separated by a comma. I also this it would look better aswell.

I'd like to hear some opinions about this, thanks. BillClinternet (talk) 21:12, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems the norm is to use maiden names for wives of monarchs. Empress Zita is “Zita of Bourbon-Parma”, Empress Eugenie is “Eugénia de Montijo”, and recently Empress Carlota was moved back to “Charlotte of Belgium”. This article should be named “Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon”. CMD007 (talk) 02:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * She is most known for her role as the mother of Elizabeth II. Those names that were originally changed were probably changed for clarity or to differentiate consorts from each other that had the same name but were that of another country.
 * BillClinternet (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It would make sense if that was the case, however it is not. Charlotte of Belgium is best known as Carlota of Mexico in any history book, and there is no other empress with that name in Europe or Mexico. It’s a shame Wikipedia doesn’t have set policies that deal with this subject (and other subjects, such as genealogical charts… they’ve also deleted Maximilian of Mexico’s genealogy chart while leaving everyone else’s intact, blatantly seperate rules for whichever they choose.) CMD007 (talk) 10:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think for consistency to keep all deceased royal spouses the same and use maiden/birth names, like all consorts before HMTQM Jord656 (talk) 11:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that’s perverse. When people forget that “The Queen” means Elizabeth II, and the current title becomes obsolete and incorrect at face value, the best recognisable title will be Elizabeth, queen consort of George VI. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon would be the best title. The format you're suggesting is not used in any other articles about deceased consorts. It's like moving Elizabeth Woodville to "Elizabeth, queen consort of Edward IV", or Anne Boleyn to "Anne, queen consort of Henry VIII". Literally nobody refers to these women in this manner; typically it's either maiden name or "Queen [Name]". Not to mention that it's unnecessarily long. In any case, this discussion is premature. We just had an RM and the community favors the current name at this point. The issue can be revisited in a few years. Keivan.f  Talk 18:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you push consistency, over centuries, too hard. A better comparison is Mary of Teck. Recognisability gets too short shrift. The decision should be based on quality sources that were created after the person’s death. How sources refer to the Queen Mother going forwards is unknown. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * True. But consistency aside, I'm not really in favor of shoving a man's name into the article about his wife in any way or form. It is likely that sources will continue to refer to Elizabeth as the "Queen Mother" until a new queen mother comes along. We're having that situation with Camilla now being "The Queen" and replacing Elizabeth II (and I'm talking about titles here not constitutional positions; Camilla is not the sovereign and I know that). Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon will most likely be simply referred to as "Queen Elizabeth" in the distant future, just like "Queen Mary", "Queen Alexandra", etc. But there have been several queens with these names, so the next best thing would be to go with the maiden names for the purposes of disambiguation and consistency IMO. I guess we'll see what pattern emerges in the sources eventually. Keivan.f  Talk 02:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The inclusion of a man’s name to disambiguate hers is certainly not the selling point, but it may be what happens. Queen consort was her highest rank, and she had it because of her husband. For the majority of her life, she was named through being the mother of her daughter, she could be called Queen Elizabeth, mother of Elizabeth II, which I think is complete unlikely.  Although the majority of her life was as Queen Mother, I think the high point of her notability was as Queen during WWII.  Naming her by her birth name, Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon I think is not certain, it’s a style of naming queen consorts that has diminished over centuries.  I guess it has a good chance. Formal historians will probably do it.  Queen Elizabeth obviously needs disambiguation, and most possibilities introduce new problems. Queen Elizabeth (crowned 1937) might work. Camilla wasn’t styled “Queen” until her coronation, and this style delay might stick. There are yet other possibilities, but Wikipedia should wait to see what the majority of quality sources do.  Until then, stick with the current title.  While technically wrong in one sense, but in another, it was her name and is still her COMMONNAME. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually right now the term "The Queen" belongs to Camilla. Jord656 (talk) 04:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Officially, yes, it does. In common parlance though, "The Queen" can still be used to refer to Elizabeth II. After all she was "The Queen" for 70 years and it has not even been a year since she died. Keivan.f  Talk 05:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Dubious
The claim that she was the "first non-royal queen consort since Catherine Parr" can probably be substantiated but it is predicated on British monarchs being the successors of the English ones, and avoids the inconvenient marriages of Mary, Queen of Scots, to two non-royal kings consort. James II, George IV and Edward VIII also married commoners, who for various reasons did not become queen consort. DrKay (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Regarding the point about not including those who didn't become Queen consorts, I don't see how that's an issue, since it's specially referring to queen consorts, not any spouse of a person who was at one point in their lives a British monarch. 2601:249:9301:D570:9957:7674:7CF6:8DA7 (talk) 00:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

hatnote
Why does the hatnote not even mention "Elizabeth the Queen Mother" as a redirect?  RM X Y  (talk) 10:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Infobox image (2)
I would like to seek a consensus regarding using the following image for Elizabeth's infobox. I would much rather use an actual photo of her rather than a painting since photography was around. If there are no objections for the proposed image within 1 week, I will implement the image. Interstellarity (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it's better to use a colour image. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I would also like to use color photos preferably，George VI seems to have not found a suitable color official photo 2401:E180:8811:94BC:757B:D8E5:9B4E:605 (talk) 06:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Personally, I prefer to a colour image as well. But, I would also support a high quality image from 1930s or 40s which would show her around the same age her husband is being depicted at in his article. Note that the article on their daughter Elizabeth II also has a lede image that shows her in her youth. However, it is my understanding that no such photo with a good quality exists of the Queen Mother on Wikimedia Commons. Keivan.f  Talk 02:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. A B&W image from her younger years would be good if one can be obtained with the proper free-use license. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2023
I believe this part: "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]" should be removed from this page since it is just violent, graphic (altough at the end he used those words to "praise" the Queen) and even doesn't add any value or further explanation about the part of history related to the Queen Mother Elizabeth I. 5.168.135.139 (talk) 09:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTCENSORED. DrKay (talk) 10:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Per the question, I'm not sure "WP:NOTCENSORED" applies here. If we have a source for the Queen Mother's preferred shoe-size and someone put it in, it would be removed as trivial and not adding value to the article. It wouldn't be censoring to remove it. This is simply a question of worthiness in a summary bio article. It's certainly more pertinent than shoe size, but if it was missing, the article would never know it either. I assume it was placed here years ago by consensus, and that's the reason it stays... longstanding consensus... which is perfectly valid at wikipedia. I should point out that "hung" is not derogatory since it's an improper use of the word. You can be hung in diamonds, but if executed you are "hanged" not hung. I think we can forgive a wounded soldier his grammar. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)