Talk:Queen mother/Archive 1

Diana, Princess of Wales
"Diana, Princess of Wales suggested to Andrew Morton, a journalist with whom she secretly worked on the book Diana: Her True Story that when her son, Prince William of Wales became king, she would be known as King Mother." Was this to be in the event that the succession skipped Charles and she had never been crowned Queen (consort)? In that case, it's not as silly as it otherwise seems. Hugh7 09:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. When Charles ended his reign and William would (apparently) take over, then Diana would receive the title of Queen Mother.  I added NPOV and Citation tags to the section as I believe the ENTIRE section is simply conjecture.  Jmlk17 03:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Generic term?
Isn't 'Queen Mother' the generic term for the mother of a queen?* If so, I do not think it would right to 'hog' this page for one specific person.


 * no. Indeed Princess Diana was so illinformed on British constitutional offices that she thought as mother of a king, she would be King Mother (don't laugh!!! That niave sod actually thought that!!!) STÓD/ÉÍRE

(my Pocket Oxford Dictionary says: "queen mother n. dowager who is mother of the sovereign.")--branko

'Queen mother' is the mother of a Queen, although the 'Queen Mother' (with caps) is a specific person, I think??

'' 'Queen Mother' means the mother of a reigning queen, as opposed to the mother of a queen consort. So there may be another British one in the future, even ignoring other countries.''

Neither of these is correct. The Queen Mother is the mother of any reigning monarch, and is only used if she has held the title of Queen herself at one time. The Queen Mother who has just died will go down in history as Queen Elizabeth, consort of King George VI. Deb

I moved Queen Noor to the non-British list. If she truly is called "Queen Mother" in Jordan she'd be another exception to the general definition of being a Queen (she was) who is mother of a king or queen (she isn't: her husband was succeeded by HM King Abdullah II, a son by his first wife, not by Noor). -- Someone else 19:06 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)

Because Jordan like other states follow different rules on inheritance of the throne, and also have multiple-divorced monarchs, it may be that a decision was made to give her the title as she was step-mother to the new king. I don't know if step-mothers are normally included, but in this case she is, perhaps as a special honour, given that she almost qualified, being a dowager queen and step-mother of the monarch. STÓD/ÉÍRE 19:50 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)
 * Hussein was careful in two respects: only to have one wife at a time, and to retitle ex-wives formerly titled as "Queens" as "Princesses". So there was only one Queen of Jordan at a time...  Now that you've confirmed she's QM, I'll add a mention to Nur's listing about her being another exception. -- Someone else 19:57 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)

re the change someone made to the reference to Diana's imbecilic claim. It was not merely "incorrect". It was an illogical and ludicrous comment that showed Diana, God bless her, really hadn't a notion about British constitutional law. It is merely incorrect to think you are George Bush. But is more than merely incorrect to think your title would be King Mother, it shows a monumental ignorance of even the basics of constitutional law that was incredible in someone who was the ex-wife of the first in line to the throne and mother of the second and the third. This woman could have had the Prime Minister at the end of the telephone if she wanted. She had aides who knew the constitutional system inside and out. Whomever she wanted to talk to would have dropped everything if she had called. In the circumstances to be so monumentally ignorant about the basics of royal titles is astonishing. Trying to censor her ignorance by labelling it merely 'incorrect' is unambiguously POV. Calling herself 'Princess Diana' when no such title existed is perhaps incorrect. Thinking that as of right she should have been an HRH when in reality her HRH came purely by virtue of her marriage and lapsed once she was no longer married to a HRH, can perhaps be called 'incorrect'. But thinking you are going to be something called a 'King Mother' is a lot more than merely 'incorrect' and the language was carefully chosen to explain how incorrect it was. A less polite person might have called it imbecillic. FearÉIREANN 02:29, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Thank you for explaining this. If believing in the title 'King Mother' were a common error, I could see why it belongs on this page. As you explain it isn't, it isn't needed here. If you want to talk about Diana's ignorance, I'm sure you can find an approprite page for it. Matthew Woodcraft


 * Queen Mother is considered an honourary title in some kingdoms and it was sometimes given to stepmothers of kings. For example, Katarina Kosača-Kotromanić was known as the queen mother (bs. kraljica majka) during her stepson's reign. Queen Noor can be considered queen mother. Surtsicna (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

How long has "queen mother" existed? It had to be formally used for George VI's widow, who was known as Queen Elizabeth while George VI was living, but received that emphasis on "Mother" to distinguish her from the new Queen Elizabeth (Elizabeth II). Contrast that with George V's widow, who continued as "Queen Mary" with no ambiguity. Carlm0404 (talk) 01:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

lowercase
I believe this page ought to be named in lowercase for consistency with the queen consort article; both discuss the positions in general terms with specific examples, not any individual holder of the title. Psmith 15:17, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

queen consort is descriptive and not used as a specific title. Queen Mother is a title and used as a title. For QM to be lowercased one would be required to lowercase President of the United States, President of Ireland, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, etc as they too are discussed in general terms with specific examples, not any individual holder of the title. Wikipedia policy, correctly, is not to do that. Queen Mother by implication must also be uppercased. FearÉIREANN 18:58, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Had Diana, Princess of Wales divorced after having becoming Queen what would her style have been then and would she have been granted a unique right and accorded the title of HM The Queen Mother? The reason I ask is because she would have served as Queen Consort for a time and would also have been the mother of the reigning King. I'm assuming her post marital style would have been Diana, Queen of England or Diana, Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland but she would have also held other styles such as Diana, Queen of Canada and Diana, Queen of Papua New Guinea or even Diana, Queen of Australia.

Though I can't produce a reference for this, I have seen stated that the title was specifically invented for Elizabeth, wife of George VI, as her daughter the present Queen has the same name.

That is incorrect. The title Queen Mother was suggested as a possible alternative by Queen Victoria's mother the Duchess of Kent. As she had not served as Queen Consort in her own right, she was not permitted to do so. However the title has been used to refer to Queen Alexandra, Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth.

A Title?
If this is in fact a title, then it must befall automatically or be awarded. For example, Prince Charles, despite his birth, did not assume the title of Prince of Wales until his mother awarded it when he was about 9 or 10. (The investiture happened some years later.) Likewise, Princess Anne was not automatically called the Princess Royal upon the death of her great-aunt, the previous Princess Royal.

I have not read the reference to the Duchess of Kent (Victoria's mother) claiming the title Queen Mother. I, too, was under the impression that the name was used for Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother in order to distinguish her from her daughter, Queen Elizabeth II.

There is, in the article, a list of Queens who, it is claimed, used the titlle Queen Mother. As none of these queens is English, then, if this is indeed the case, every one of them used a non-English variant of the name. Whatever they called themselves, it was not Queen Mother. So the titles in their original languages ought to be shown.

Were these titles in fact Queen Mother in the English sense, implying wife of a deceased reigning monarch whose child has ascended the throne (if in fact this is the correct definition)? Or is the title actually closer in meaning to "King's mother" or "Reigning Queen's mother"? (I make the distinction here because the wife of a King is titled "Queen" but the husband of a reigning Queen is not titled "King". eg Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg (Victoria's husband) and Prince Philip of Greece (Elizabeth II's husband). In this case both were princes in their own right.)

If the "title" Queen Mother exists in England, then what I want to know is this- who, if anybody, before the mother of the present queen, actually used the title? If the title exists, then there were three claimants to it, within the 20th century. Queen Alexandra upon the death of her husband Edward VII and the succession of George V, Queen Mary upon the death of her husband George V and accession of her son Edward VIII and subsequent accession of George VI and Queen Elizabeth upon the death of her husband George VI and accession of her daughter Elizabeth II. The fly in the ointment here is that Queen Mary was alive at the time that her son George VI died. Had she been the Queen Mother (which by present definition, she was) then Queen Elizabeth could not be the Queen Mother.

My understanding of this situation is that Queen Mary was generally referred to, in the reign of her sons, as Queen Mary. Formally, she was the Dowager Queen. Elizabeth (Queen Mother) would also have been a Dowager Queen. This is not an hereditary title and there is no reason why there cannot be any number of dowager queens simultaneously. However, it was necessary to distinguish between Queen Mary, the Dowager Queen; Queen Elizabeth, the Dowager Queen and Queen Elizabeth. So Queen Elizabeth (wife of the late George VI) was called the Queen Mother. The title was probably subject to a Royal Decree like the decrees which made Charles the Prince of Wales and Anne the Princess Royal.

This article reads, to me, like unsubstantiated extension of a single fact- that the Mother of the present Queen of England was known as the Queen Mother. If any other part of this article is factual, then the things that need citing are:-
 * 1) the decree, statement or news report of such a statement that made Queen Elizabeth II's mother the Queen Mother.
 * 2) evidence that the title existed or was in common parlance in England before that date (which is the implication of this article).
 * 3) evidence as to whether the title is simply honorary like "Dowager Queen" or whether it must be awarded.
 * 4) evidence that the Duchess of Kent (Victoria's mother) actually claimed the title "Queen Mother". My suspicion is that she did not claim the title of Queen Mother but did claim the title of "Dowager Queen". This was a title which did indeed exist and would make sense of the un-cited information on this page.
 * 5) evidence as to what all the listed so-called "Queen Mothers" from non-English-speaking countries were actually called and precisely what the term implied in the language of the people who called them by that name.

NOTE: I have never read of this title applied to any English Queen except Elizabeth, Queen Consort of George VI upon the accession of her daughter.

--Amandajm 05:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with Amandajm. This article needs substantiated. Bobopaedia 22:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

--Is this a joke?-- "There is no masculine equivalent to the term. If Albert, Prince Consort had survived Queen Victoria, instead of the other way around, he would not have been called "Prince Father" or a like title with respect to his reigning son Edward VII; he could not, of course, have been called 'Queen Mother'." I suppose the last sentence (after the semicolon) is a joke; and not in good taste, in my opinion. So I'm going to delete these words. Th.


 * Queen mother is a rank that can also be a title. I don't see official decrees for queens dowager because that is implied through a queen being widowed. Similarly, a queen mother is a queen dowager who is the mother of the reigning monarch, regardless of whether she uses an official title or not. Charles 00:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Queen mother is not a title. It is used as a style. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

1577
The article mentions 1577 but there is no reference given for this date. If 1577 was the date of the original usage where was it used? 76.105.150.19 06:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Queen Brandissima


 * Ther wa sno queen mother in England in 1577.--85.226.42.150 (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Capitalisation of Queen
"Queen" is used to refer to a specific Queen, whereas "queen" is used for the general concept † DBD 13:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There can be the Queen, but not a Queen. That case would be a queen. Also when speaking of a position that is not in the form of a formal, proper title there is no capitalization. Saying the Queen dowager of is stylistically awful and doesn't follow the conventions for written English. One could say, for instance, the Queen of the United Kingdom, but the King of the United Kingdom's queen . Charles 15:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

DQM
A queen mother whose sovereignly child predeceases them is referred to as dowager queen mother because they are a queen mother whose position has lapsed due to another's death – like a dowager queen or a dowager peeress, whose previous titles lapse due to their husband's death (although not always directly) † DBD 13:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * When a titled lady becomes a dowager she remains so until her death or remarriage. A queen mother is already a queen dowager. "Dowager queen mother" literally means a dowager queen dowager who was/is the sovereign's mother? Does a queen dowager whose queen consort daughter-in-law becomes widowed become a dowager queen dowager? No... Charles 15:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Overwhelming historical evidence shows that the proper plural is "Queen mothers".
I have thoroughly scoured Google and Google Books results, and it is now clear that "Queen Mothers" is far more likely to be correct than "Queens Mother" - 53,000+ hits for "Queen Mothers" compared to 724 hits for "Queens Mother" (some of which referred to mothers who live in the NY borough of Queens). See:


 * The Literary Digest History of the World War, p. 289, "Two Queen mothers on whom President Wilson called while in Europe in 1918..."
 * Henry B. Wheatley, Peter Cunningham, London Past and Present: Its History, Associations, and Traditions, p. 271, "They passed that building which of old Queen Mothers were designed to hold"
 * Elna K. Solvang, A Woman's Place is in the House, p. 85, "Information about the deeds of the kings — and possibly the deeds of the queen mothers — is said to be found in the Annals of the Kings".
 * Jenny Wormald, Mary, Queen of Scots: Politics, Passion and a Kingdom Lost, p. 50, "it is therefore something of an irony that she had to wait for twelve years, until 1554, and stage a successful coup, before obtaining the place which earlier queen mothers had immediately enjoyed".
 * Leo G. Perdue, Proverbs, p. 269, "Queen mothers, while possessing great influence because they bore and reared the male heir apparent to the throne, rarely ever came to sit on the thrones..."
 * Sydney Wayne Jackman, A Stranger in the Hague: The Letters of Queen Sophie of the Netherlands, p. 155, "Queen Mothers seem to be wicked everywhere, but this one is now in a most dreadful situation".
 * Catherine Coquery-Vidrovitch, African Women: A Modern History, p. 37, "The important role played by queen mothers or their equivalents, whether in a matrilineal or patrilineal society, ..."
 * Elisabeth Meier Tetlow, Women, Crime, and Punishment in Ancient Law and Society, p. 151, "Although there were no defined political roles for queen mothers... Queen mothers had treasurers and stewards of their possessions.
 * Carol Ann Newsom, Sharon H. Ringe, Women's Bible Commentary, p. 120, "For Judah's twenty kings, eleven queen mothers are named".
 * Deborah Levine Gera, Warrior Women: The Anonymous Tractatus de Mulieribus, p. 14, "This last group of women are not only the widows of kings, and (in some instances) independent rulers, but queen mothers, parents of the reigning or future king".
 * Barbara N. Ramusack, The Indian Princes and Their States, p. 179, "Numerous less well known queen mothers served as regents."
 * Imbert de Saint-Amand, The Court of the Empress Josephine, p. 304, "Then there are the apartments of the queen mothers... In the bedroom of the queen mothers an altar was raised where the Vicar of Christ said mass".
 * Heinz Duchhardt, Richard A. Jackson, David J. Sturdy, European Monarchy: Its Evolution and Practice from Roman Antiquity to Modern Times, p. 5, "...the queens or queen-mothers in France were far more than just the consorts or mothers of kings".

Per the above, Wikipedia convention dictates that we must follow the most widely accepted construction, which I am affecting now. Cheers! bd2412 T 07:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm sorry, I thought I could sit by and watch this, but I can't – queens mother, queens consort, queens regnant, queens dowager are all the proper plural forms!
 * In each case, the second word is an adjective describing the former, a noun – like polished cabinets or cabinets polished
 * Common usage is simply not enough to establish correct/proper usage – ain't and gonna are both extremely common, but they aren't proper! Who is used for any case of the word, whereas who is the nominative form, whom otherwise – again, common usage explicitly contrary to proper usage.
 * Is it really permissible/required for the 'paedia to follow common usage over correct or proper usage? Because if so, I'll have to challenge that policy, because quite honestly it blows – we're supposed to be a source of information – people trust Wikipaedia, and we shouldn't be teaching them improper grammar! † DBD 11:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm commenting years later on this just because I think that DBD's argument by analogy to "queen regnant" etc. is seriously flawed and a good example of why not to try to do original research. In my own personal opinion (which by the way should not count for squat in determining our usage on Wikipedia) queens mother is a ridiculous and affected form that could only be made by someone with no understanding of English grammar. The words "regnant", "consort", and "dowager" all come from French and are postposed in certain contexts when used as adjectives following the French fashion. "Mother", by contrast, is an English word and cannot even be used as an adjective, let alone a postposed one. The only sensible way to interpret "Queen Mother" is as a noun preceded by a noun adjunct, and in such compounds, the plural is marked regularly on the noun and not on the adjunct. Thus "Queen Mothers" is not only acceptable but the only grammatical form. 130.71.254.49 (talk) 08:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Prince Philip
If Queen Elizabeth II were to sadly pass away at some point before Prince Philip, could Philip be considered a prince dowager/"prince father?"

I suppose he'll do the Mary of Teck thing and consider himself Prince and Duke of Edinburgh, but has there been precedence for this situation before?--Tim Thomason 20:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If the Queen dies before Prince Philip, there would be no reason whatsoever to change titles or styles for him.Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Ingiburga
A user has removed her fom the article claiming that the ref given does not support her being included here as de facto queen mother. I have the book and have now added the page number and restored the section. Will be glad to add additional sources for her de facto status if necessary, such as Norwegian professor Grethe Authén Blom who has published extensive research and accounts on Ingiburga (which Demitz according to his bibliography bases his findings on). SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Correction: the ref page # was already in there! SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Does the cited reference support that she was queen mother? This addition was made by a user who did not succeed in making such changes in Swedish wikipedia because Swedish editors new it was incorrect. There are hundreds of thousands of women who were mother of kings withouth having the formal title of queen mother. That it a title. She was not even de facto queen mother, only de facto mother of a king. If you are de facto queen mother because you are the mother of a king, then please add all women in this situation. If we intend to use that for all mother of kings who were not queen mothers, then there would be many more to add. She was of course given all respect as mother of a king, but newer was she treated as "queen mother", a title which did not exist in people's minds in Sweden. I am from Sweden, and no source anywhere support that she was queen mother. This title did not exist in Sweden, de facto or de jure, in reality or formally. She was simply the mother of the king. But I will leave this as it is now, as I have no wish to argue; and as it is incorrect, I am sure it will eventually be removed sooner or later anyway. --85.226.43.148 (talk) 11:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This comment was made by an editor who at 11.26 began leaving a long, 6-edit harang on my talk page about emotions and feelings, one sentence accusatory and mean, the next apologetic and sincere, full of unwarrated assumptions, and also wrote "I will refrain from making further edits on wikipedia for a while." At 11.41 she (self-ID'd as female) began a continuation of arguments here and on the Ingeborg page by alleging that an earlier editor wasn't able to get Swedish editors to agree. That discussion wasn't about a de facto queen mother, as far as I can tell and there was no clear consensus. Giving up isn't always failing. The problem here is that the user doesn't understand what de facto means. It does not mean "in fact". Here, it means "for all intents and puroposes" or "acting" or "in every way but by title". Ingiburga's status as recognized regent clearly plays into it, if this text is read objectively. Perhaps the user shouldn't write all over "I have no wish to argue" and then go an arguing and arguing on several pages? I make that comment because I wish her well. Especially during our ongoing Dramaout week, when none of us are supposed to be using these talk pages at all. Sincerely, SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Virgin Mary
This was moved here from the article text: Moved here by SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * But Mary is not only the Queen Mother but also the Queen regnant: because if She was only the former, She would not have power over Heaven and Earth, and even Hell(a Queen Mother recieves Queenly honors but not Queenly power. There is a diffirence between Power and Honour). [Added 08:41, 23 November 2009 by IP 213.217.252.223]


 * I think a section should be included about Queen Mothers in religion. In Christianity (specifically Catholicism), the Blessed Virgin Mary is venerated as the Queen of Heaven. She is called Queen because she is the mother of Christ, who is King. Making her a Queen Mother (following Davidic King tradition). --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 01:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Ingeborg of Norway
If wikipedia should be regarded a serious encyclopedia, it is important to be correct and truthfull. Ingeborg was the mother of the king of Sweden and Norway in 1319-60. Furthermore, she was the regent the facto of Sweden in 1318-19, and the regent de jure in 1319-26. The fact that she was the mother of the king, does not make her the queen mother. The fact that she was the regent de facto, and later the regent, does not make her queen mother. She did not have the title of queen mother. But furthermore, neither was she the queen mother de facto. Political power has nothing to do with the position of queen mother. Queen mothers had no political power unless they were additionally regents. The other cases refferred to in the section exceptional cases in the article of queen mother, includes women who were granted the formal title in exceptional circumstances. This does not aply to Ingeborg. --85.226.47.128 (talk) 13:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * See article De facto and please try to learn what that means in English as well as in Swedish! It does not mean actual here, but for all intents and purposes. The main expert, Professor Authén (Norge i union på 1300-tallet ISBN 82-519-1117-6, 2 volumes, 880 pages) asserts that Ingeborg for all intents and purposes can be considered (unofficial) Queen Mother for 40 years after having been de facto - note: for all intents and purposes, but not officially - Queen Regnant of Sweden in 1318-1319. That's what these articles say, nothing more, nothing less. Please do not make any more changes to them, and please don't carry on this discussion for months and months, with the exakt same arguments copied in on several different talk pages, such as here and here! SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I have read them. I think that maybe it is you who does not quite understand what I mean. I understand that you mean that Ingeborg was de facto queen mother. I have read the article "de facto", and I am linking it myself here. The expression de facto means: for all intents and purposes. Your point is, that because Ingeborg was the de facto queen regnant in 1318-19, she was queen mother for all intents and purposes. I understand: your point is that she was queen mother in reality, because she was the ruler of Sweden in all but name. Then, I would not protest if you call her "Queen Regnant de facto". But you see, to be a queen mother for all intents and purposes does not mean that you hold any political power. You may confuse queen mother with queen regnant. If your references make this conclusion, then they conclusion is not correct. You have presented the exact same arguments every time this have been discussed, and every time you have missed the point. You have do not read what I am writing to you. So how is it possible to engage in any form of comunication? Wikipedia is used as an encyclopedia, so it must be correct. Please do not take it so personally. Of course, I will try to alter incorrect information in an encycolpedia were I find it. But as you do not read what I say to you, It is not possible for me to discuss this issue with you. If someone else take part in the discussion, then perhaps the matter can be solved. --85.226.47.128 (talk) 14:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't read me, don't read your own texts, read Authén! It is impossible to understand what you mean, and I have really tried, I promise on my honor. Do you believe Ingeborg did not "hold any political power" - you wrote that queen mother's never do unless they are regents - what does that mean here? Please do not try to explain - just read Authén and rely less on your own POV and strong drive, in this case, and more on her and other experts. I am not at all such an expert, but I know how to study them and quote them correctly, or at least i really try.
 * While I am at it I might ask you to try to stop your personal attacks on Swedish WP, such as asking anyone who is not afraid of me to try to deal with this. That's quite offensive. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I am trying my best to explain. Ingeborg was the ruler of Sweden 1318-26. The fact that she held power does not make her equal to a queen mother. Queen mothers did not have any power at all. Sometimes, the mother of a minor monarch could be a regent. This ment that she was equal to a monarch during her child's minority. You POV is: She was the ruler of Sweden = equal to a queen mother. It would be more logic to say: she was the ruler of Sweden = equal to a queen regnant. Queen mothers had no power, but queen regnants did. There is a difference between queen mothers, regents, queen consorts and queen regnants. Why not read the articles, so you may comprehend the difference? It is not a personal attack when I say I am afraid of you: you act in an agressive manner, and you were disbanded from Swedish wp once alreday because of this. Now, as you do not understand my English, this is really all I can say. --85.226.47.128 (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Ingeborg was de facto Queen Regnant 1318-19, and then by that virtue de facto Queen Mother from 1319 till her death. That's how I interpret Prof Authén. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

In the article of queen mother, Ingeborg of Norway is mentioned under the section "Exceptional cases". This article is about women who did have the title of queen mother, or an eqvivalent title to that. The article is not about women who has by some been interpetated to be "queen mother de facto", whatever that may be. The exceptional cases section is about women who did have this title formally, even if it was unusual to have the title in their situation. I will now quote the examples in this article: (quote) "*Ingiburga, Duchess of Sweden, has been considered a de facto queen regnant of Sweden from 1318 though she never had time to consolidate the position or assume such a title officially before her three-year-old son Magnus (IV) was declared king in 1319. She did continue to serve intermittently on his board of regents until 1326 and for all intents and purposes was queen mother to him for over 40 years until her death in 1360.
 * Elena of Greece - wife, from 1921–1928, of the future Carol II of Romania, and mother of King Michael of Romania. In circumstances that read like a soap opera, Michael first ruled from 1927–1930, before his father was king (and again after his father abdicated). When in 1930 Carol returned to Romania and assumed the throne, he actually retrodated his reign to 1927, the year his father (King Ferdinand I) died. As Elena had not yet divorced her playboy husband at the time (that was to happen in the following year), he unwittingly granted her the retroactive title of queen. Thus, in 1940, after his abdication and the second accession of their son, she rightfully became the queen mother of Romania.
 * Similarly, Maharani Gayatri Devi of Jaipur was the third wife of her husband, the monarch, but not the mother of his successor, a son by the king's first wife. She however has been accorded the title of Rajmata, or queen mother anyway.
 * The Valide Sultan, the mother of an Ottoman Sultan, is sometimes referred to as queen mother."

(end of quote) As you can see above, Ingeborg is different from the other examples: she is the only example who did not have the title. The others did have this title; they are put under exceptional cases because they had this title under exceptional circumstances. This is not about "de facto" at all. If this was about who were "de facto queen mothers", then all women who were mothers of monarchs, such as for example Louise of Savoy, can also be regarded to be "de facto queen mothers". There is no such thing as being "queen mother for all intents and purposes"; to be a queen mother did not mean that you were to perform any particular duties in connection to that title. To be de facto something, means that you perform the tasks associated with some position, even if you do not have the formal title of that function. This is not possible in the case of queen mother, as there are no special tasks associated with the title of queen mother. If one argues that she had the social position as queen mother, all women who were mothers of kings can be included in this article, and Ingeborg does not differ from any of them. She was the mother of the king, yes. Period. She was not queen mother de facto, because there simply is no such thing. The references merely makes an interpetation of her position. This article is about women who bore the title, not about de facto. --85.226.47.128 (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's remember the definition of the phrase "queen mother": a dowager queen who is the mother of a reigning monarch. Then answer these simple questions:


 * 1) Was she a queen consort before her son's reign? If she was, there is no doubt that she was a queen mother. Was she a queen regnant (a monarch) before her son's reign? If she was, I guess we could describe her as a queen mother but we would also have to include her in the list of Swedish monarchs. If she was not a queen before her son's reign...
 * 2) Did she officially use the title of queen mother? Did she officially use a title equivalent to the title of queen mother?

In a nutshell: one cannot be a queen mother if one wasn't a queen in the first place. One can become a queen by succeeding to a crown, marrying a king or being married to a king at the moment of his accession but (as far as I know) no woman became queen of a European country by her son's accession.

However, if there is a scholar who unambigiously claims that Ingeborg was a queen mother (de facto), I propose a compromise. In this article, we can say that there were women who acted and ranked as queens mother even though they were not queens mother (such as Ingeborg of Norway, Lady Margaret Beaufort, etc). In the article about Ingeborg, we can say that she acted and ranked as if she were a queen mother but that she wasn't actually a queen mother. The reference confirms one part and doesn't deny the other. Would that be good enough for both of you? Surtsicna (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine by me, but I think that's just another way of saying what's already there. Seems to me we have been discussing things that aren't there, never were there, and as far as I'm concerned, I never intended should be there. I repeat (for the umpteenth time) Ingeborg was first queen regnant de facto (1318) and then became queen mother de facto when her toddler became king a year later. That's how I interpret Prof. Authén. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The issue here is : it is claimed that she was queen mother de facto. How can anyone be a queen mother de facto? Perhaps the idea is: "She was the mother of the king. A mother of a king is the same thing as a queen mother. Therefore, she is queen mother de facto". But a queen mother is not the same thing as the mother of a monarch. They are a lot of mothers of kings in the history of Europe, who were not queen mothers. A queen mother is really just a title. It is not possible to be a "de facto queen mother". Especially not in Sweden, were that title never existed. That is what I mean. If Ingeborg was "queen mother de facto", then every mother of a king in the history of Europe can be regarded as "queen mother de facto". What I mean is: there is no such thing as a "queen mother de facto". I think we should simply avoid interpetations. Authén simply discusses how her social position should be interpetated and compared to, and that is of course as it should be. Sure, we can discuss if the mother of a monarch is the same thing as a queen mother. But wikipedia is about facts, not interpetations. I therefore think Ingeborg should be removed from the list. She can not be placed under the list of "exceptional cases", because she was not an exceptional case: she is just the same case as all the mothers of kings in Europe, who did not have the title of queen mother even if she was the mother of the king. This is how I see the matter. I suppose it does not hurt her being here, but I can not think it is correct. --85.226.47.128 (talk) 19:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * However, I do not protest the solution provided above: if this article is expanded, and Ingeborg, (as well as other women in her situation) is placed under a new section describing women who can be argued to have had a similar position to that of queen mother, even if they were not... well, then that is perfectly fine with me, and I would be glad to agree to that. The main thing for me is that she can not be under the same section as she is now, as that is misleading, and makes it seem as if she had a different position than other mothers of kings, who were not queen dowagers and who did not have the title of queen mothers.--85.226.47.128 (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Having been a reigning queen doesn't come into it. The qualification is that you were a queen consort. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 23 December 2016

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved Fuortu (talk) 18:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Queen mother → Queen mother (title) – Queen mother ought to redirect to Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother ( already does); she is the overwhelming WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I was inspired to make this request after noticing that redirects to Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, and having skimmed through the consensus among editors at Talk:Duke of Wellington (title). Elizabeth dominates a Google search for [//www.google.com/search?q= "Queen mother"] and |Queen_mother has consistently received thousands upon thousands more pageviews than this article does. She also happens to be the only Queen Mother on Wikipedia to actually have "Queen Mother" in her article title. Having received an impressive amount of additional views in contrast to the other Queen Mothers, I am confident that most searching for "queen mother" on Wikipedia are looking for the iconic British one (and mother of the longest-reigning queen in history). --Nev&eacute;–selbert 16:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Elizabeth did not own the historical title which has been borne by too many others for us to affix it to her in such a drastic way. We are not here to honor people, no matter how deserving. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:19, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - while it seems that several people on Wikipedia who never had the title seem to have been given it in their article because it is presented as an "equivalent" to other titles, your proposal gives the impression of breaking NPOV (Neutral Point of View) - she was not the only person in the world to have this title, and no title should be redirected to the article of a person unless it was actually only worn by only one person in history. And one cannot simply assume that most people searching for queen mother are looking for Elizabeth; you may think so, but they may have other interests than you. Those who indeed does this, may learn something new by discovering that she was indeed not the only person in history by this title. Oppose therefore, supported by the principle of neutrality.--Aciram (talk) 12:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose for several reasons, including possible systemic bias (see WP:BIAS) and WP:RECENTISM. Although in Britain she probably is the person most people think about when you refer to the Queen Mother, analogy with e.g. the Duke of Wellington may be misleading.  Firstly, as far as I am aware no other country has a dukedom of Wellington.  Secondly, he has long-term historical importance as the man who beat Napoleon, whereas memory of the Queen Mother may fade relatively quickly, if anything she may become better known as the queen during WW2. PatGallacher (talk) 16:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Neutral - I've no problems with either version. GoodDay (talk) 16:29, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose – "Queen mother" is a generic title. Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother may well be the most well-known presently but we wouldn't redirect Princess to Diana Spencer or First lady to Michelle Obama either. Not even to First lady of the United States. — JFG talk 11:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.