Talk:Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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)

---

That's not quite right either. She raised him to the rank of a Prince of the UK etc but he was already, by birth, a Prince of Greece and Denmark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.202.219 (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It is; he had renounced all foreign titles and styles when he joined the Royal Navy as Lt Philip Mountbatten PrinceOfCanada (talk) 03:06, 24 June 2008 (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

Yes, those are wrong, too, if you want to be very correct. "Queen Elizabeth (Consort to George V)" might be the absolute perfect title for the entry.FlaviaR (talk) 07:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

It really seems illogical to call her by her maiden name. Some of the comparisons have also been illogical- we don't call Popes by their former names because they are reigning monarchs, not consorts (Vatican City is technically an elective monarchy). Queen Alexandra's former name is used, and properly so- it is Alexandra of Denmark, but since she's been dead the better part of a century and no living person ever called her Queen Alexandra, it's not quite the same situation as with the Queen Mother. All the Kings that have been mentioned are also different situations as they were reigning monarchs and not consorts. And even the comparison to Victor Emmanuel IV is different as he is a pretender and not the wife of a pretender. She was so overwhelmingly known as the Queen Mother, that it seems Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother seems like a logical choice. Most Americans (and other non-Britons, I would hazard a guess) don't even know her maiden name, so unless one if already a student of history, one wouldn't even no to look under hBowes-Lyon. The comparisons of Catherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn are also different, as those are the name by which they are generally known. It seems a bit insulting and disrespectful to refer to the lady who was queen right before this one, and who was Queen Mother for half a century until a few years ago, by her birth name. I can't believe the BBC or Britannica or any other reliable source would entitle her article Elizabeth Bowedes-Lyon RockStarSheister (talk) 06:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, with regard to her name, we are being much too slavish to the rules. Remember a basic tenet of Wikipedia is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules to reiterate: IGNORE ALL RULES if the result makes no sense. In the present case, obeying the rule about her maiden name clearly makes no sense as she is widely known worldwide as the Queen Mother. Additionally, there will not be another Queen Mother for many years, not until William (assuming he ascends the throne, marries, and reproduces) dies. There won't be one when Charles ascends the throne as Elizabeth will have died unless she abdicates, which seems unlikely. There won't be one if and when William follows Charles after Charles' death as William's mother has already died. So, if we name the article "Elizabeth, the Queen Mother" we will be properly entitling it after the name by which she is overwhelmingly known and we should be good for roughly the next half-century, until William expires. All the people who keep arguing about her maiden name are simply being unnecessarily slavish to one little rule at the expense of logic.RockStarSheister (talk) 05:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree the article should be at Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, the title used by the Royal Family (such as on their webpage) and which seems the best application of WP:COMMON, as it was her final, longest-lasting, and best-known title. While there may be other queen mothers, there is only one by this name. "Queen mother" already links to an article describing this position -- as it should. Her birth name seems a little odd, just as titling Pope Benedict XVI "Joseph Ratzinger" would be. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 13:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with the status quo. DrKay (talk) 07:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh, why? I think the discussion above suggests there's a problem with the current article title. Some of the discussion argues against "Queen Mother" as a title by itself, which of course would be inappropriate. But "Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother" is her final, longest-lasting, and best-known title, and moving the article seems a no-brainer. (The only question in my mind is whether "The" should be capitalized, which seems to be royal practice but is not generally Wikipedia's.) This may be an FA, but the title's clearly awkward. Unless there are strong arguments against this, I may be WP:BOLD and move it. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 08:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Moving it will cause an argument. I'm against causing trouble for no apparent benefit. DrKay (talk) 08:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The benefit is the article would be under a more appropriate title. You have to admit that it's a little odd to have one of the most prominent members of the Royal Family filed under a name only a very few would recognise; this is, by itself, a violation of WP:COMMONNAME. WP:NCNT states "Where the name by itself is unambiguous or primary usage, it is pedantry to insist on this form against usage". I believe the present title stems from a misunderstanding. There is only one "Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother", and this is the title that she is still referred to by the Royal Family. Reversion to premarital titles on death (not maiden names) occurs to prevent ambiguity with others who would subsequently hold this title, something that is not the case here. The name at birth might be the way the wives of Henry VIII are best known, for instance, but that's not true of the late Queen Mother. The article was under that title until 2005 (see the move log), when it was switched to the present title with the justification "maiden name after death" -- which I, and others, have argued is inappropriate. It was later moved back and forth to "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother", another inappropriate title (due to the honorific). It doesn't look like there has really been any formal discussion one way or the other, hence my feeling that boldness, or a poll, may be appropriate here. Regards, ProhibitOnions ^(T) 12:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

A poll is a good idea. If the procedure at WP:RM is followed, there is less likelihood of a factious dispute, as people will have a chance to air their views before a move takes place, and with luck will be able to see what the consensus is for themselves. DrKay (talk) 13:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Okey-dokey, I've added a request below. Please do comment -- if you think leaving it as it is is better, please say so. Regards, ProhibitOnions ^(T) 09:00, 2 May 2008 (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)

Actually, Windsor is quite a long way out of central London: Multimap makes it about 37km from Windsor Castle to Charing Cross, generally considered the centre of the metropolis. Her assertion of solidarity with East Enders was somewhat naive, given that their living conditions were so very different. The underlying problem with this article is that it is not sufficiently critical or distanced from royalist propaganda. I suspect that American readers and moderators alike tend to accept Establishment attitudes assertions from the UK at face value as representing consensus, if not fact. In reality, many British people do not accept the viewpoint represented here.Sjwells53 09:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Quoting from the article: "Rubbish was thrown at her and the crowds jeered, in part because she dressed in expensive clothing which served to alienate her from those suffering the privations caused by the war." and "Windsor Castle (about 20 miles, 35 kilometres, west of central London)" So, the views that you express are already represented in the article. It seems fair and well-balanced to me. Making it "critical" is not what wikipedia is about. We should not be a platform for political views, but an encyclopedia presenting facts. DrKay 09:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

"Critical" means making informed judgments in the light of all the facts, not being hostile. I take it for granted that even narrative that is supportive will be critical, because to, be worth anything, it has to reflect rational and mature judgment. My main worry here was that an entirely wrong impression is given to the general reader of the actual location and relative safety of Windsor. It's a good way from the very dangerous hot spots for bombing, which were mainly around the East End, where the major docks were located - in fact nearly 30 miles away. There was no more than an average chance of being bombed there. I'm not advocating that articles should take a hostile stance: merely that there be an attempt to disentangle the presentation of facts from the spin that has been put on them. An appeal to facts that does not take into account the tendentious nature of any presentation is naive. Clearly the royal family were used for propaganda purposes to act as a focus of national solidarity in wartime, and equally clearly, some British people have resented this. The war actually gave a great impetus to egalitarian forces in British society and the Establishment's view of national identity was by no means universally accepted. I have commented elsewhere on selectivity in relation to facts in this article, e.g. the absence of references to the Munich crisis. That doesn't, of course, mean that I think it's a bad article. In fact it's rather good. It's just that judgment of the prime author, mature and rational though it no doubt was, is still his or hers, remains subjective, and is open to challenge. Sjwells53 12:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• As I have already replied to you, her initial support for appeasement and Chamberlain is in the article, as is her wartime (un)popularity. DrKay 13:36, 26 June 2007 (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)

The problem is that this is not dealt with properly in context, when it was in fact a major constitutional issue both at the time and since. I hope someone who knows the field better than I will add a full section on the Munich Crisis in proper chronological order. In answer to the question here, no it isn't controversial not to support the government. In fact monarchs don't generally express either support or opposition for the government, because the monarchy is expected to remain outside politics. It is true that the government is HM Government, but in the UK we also have HM Opposition. To go out of their way to support a controversial government policy, as the King and Queen did in 1938, is almost unparalleled. It is all the stranger when one considers that Edward VIII was so heavily criticized and distrusted in government circles because it was felt he might not be able to remain silent on controversial issues.Sjwells53 14:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

While perhaps George VI and Elizabeth's support of Chamberlain, inviting him to the balcony and all, was unparalleled, we have to remember, so was the situation. They believed that Chamberlain had averted a war. And this was only twenty years after the Treaty of Versailles. I don't know how it is in Europe, but here in the US, the Second World War gets all the press. People forget the horrible destruction and huge loss of life of the First World War. Don't forget, the percentage of soldiers who died was much higher in the first war, and Elizabeth herself lost a brother in the war. So they were desperate to avoid another global conflict, and understandably so. I'm not saying one thing or another should be changed or deleted, just that when we look at how they handled Munich, we also have to remember they didn't have the hindsight we do, and they viewed the situation through the prism of the recent First World War, which we do not do either. Just my two cents. RockStarSheister (talk) 06:35, 9 March 2008 (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)

I am extremely disappointed that people are insisting that geographical designations are somehow "maiden names". None of these ladies were ever named "Hername of Someplace." They were all "Princess Hername" before they married, and have simply been given a geographical designation as a descriptor. If we were to follow this rule strictly for the naming of this article, we'd have to call it "Elizabeth of England." And I'm betting that would cause the most confusion ever. The Wikipedia rule for common sense should come into play, here, & not an obviously twisted version of another rule.FlaviaR (talk) 07:49, 28 August 2008 (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..).

It's interesting how many Wikipedia correspondents seem to be on such intimate terms with Her Majesty that they know what her intentions are in relation to succession and abdication. The rest of us have no way of knowing whether Elizabeth II may abdicate. If she did, she would become a queen mother, though only maybe the Queen Mother.Sjwells53 14:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

I doubt very much she was a Nazi sympathizer. After World War I, in which her brother was killed, she tended to be pretty anti-German and was in fact against her daughter marrying Philip, whom she referred to as "The Hun", a nasty epithet for Germans that was popular during the First World War. RockStarSheister (talk) 06:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think someone has gotten confused with the stories about Edward VIII. He was accused of Nazi sympathies. FlaviaR (talk) 07:33, 28 August 2008 (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.

• • You are confusing two events. The Archbishop did not want the wedding ceremony broadcast on the radio "because people might listen to it in public houses, and men might fail to remove their hats at the appropriate times."

• • The question of televising the CORONATION live was also raised and vetoed, although the processions to and from Westminster Abbey were televised live.

RogerInPDX 22:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)RogerInPDX

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

Agree we can't have Her Majesty in the title, that has nothing going for it. The other issues you raise are I think discussed in the move request below. Andrewa (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm... The article English and British Queen mothers reads in part A Queen mother retains the style of Her Majesty that she enjoyed as Queen, but there is no further coronation ceremony to reflect her changed status (my emphasis), and the article on Alexandra of Denmark under Titles and styles reads 6 May 1910 – 20 November 1925: Her Majesty Queen Alexandra, this being the period in which she was Queen Mother. So that's probably why someone wants to attach it here too. But from memory, the announcement of the most recent Queen Mother's title following her widowhood left off the Her Majesty, and I've never seen it used. Andrewa (talk) 15:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

Should be "Wallis, Duchess of Windsor" and "Elizabeth, the Queen Mother" those should be the titles of the articles. The british are so stupid for forcing a King to abdicate because of his love. Wallis and Edward is a true love story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.21.103 (talk) 12:15, 2 June 2008 (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)

To assert that "Catherine of Aragon", "Alexandra of Denmark", "Catherine of Braganza", (or "Mary of Modena" for that matter), were known universally from birth by those maiden names is silly. Being born as the children or grandchildren of a ruler, they would have been famous from birth in their own countries ( but not in Britain ) , they would have just been Princess Alexadra or Infanta Catherine or whatever title was used into those countries for the daughters or granddaughters of the ruler. European royals identified themselves in various ways but did generally not use surnames or family names much. Just the same as today, "Prince Charles of England" may be thus refered to in an American or Japanese or Brazilian newspaper for some reason, but in the UK he would just be referered to as "Prince Charles". Names such as "Catherine of Aragon" would come into use, in the English language and from an English perspective, AFTER they had moved to Britain as a royal consort, as being one way in which the person of that name could be distinguished more or less uniquely from other people with the same given name.

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)

Elizabeth was not exactly "Queen Dowager". That title goes to a woman who used to be Queen Consort (as Elizabeth was), but who either had no children, or had no children who became Sovereign. It's a little like squares & rectangles: all rectangles are squares, but not all squares are rectangles. Yes, she was "Queen Dowager", but since she was also "Queen Mother", & that title is more significant, that's what she was called.FlaviaR (talk) 07:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Um actually no, you're really very wrong about that. She absolutely and completely was Queen Dowager. All former Queens Consort are Queens Dowager; not all are Queens Mother. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 14:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, actually, yes I'm really very right about this. Absolutely, in fact. I never said she wasn't "Queen Dowager", I said she was also "Queen Mother", &, as this is the more significant title, this is what she was called. Just like Queen Mary, who deliberately looked it up after the death of George V (re: the Morrow bio). FlaviaR (talk) 05:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Er, no. You said 'wasn't exactly QD'. She was, quite precisely, a QD. That she was also QM is true, but your error was saying 'not'. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 05:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

"Not exactly QD" because she was QM as well. I was directly responding to the incorrect assumption that being QM was somehow something she just chose to call herself, and that she was really just QD. IOW, I was absolutely correct, & to insist that I wasn't is nitpicking at best.FlaviaR (talk) 08:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. The word "dowager" is only used to distinguish between the wife of a current title holder and the wife of a deceased title holder; if the current holder has no wife the distinction is unnecessary. So Queen Mary was not Queen Dowager during the reign of Edward VIII (who had no Queen Consort), but became so during the reign of George VI (who had). As our present Queen obviously has no Queen Consort, then Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother was not Queen Dowager. Opera hat (talk) 11:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Er, I was probably spouting nonsense there. I think what I was saying still applies to peerage titles, but Catherine of Aragon is a counter-example as she was definitely known as Dowager Princess of Wales after 1533 despite the fact that she was the only one. Opera hat (talk) 23:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Apologies if this question is a bit irrelevant, but I distinctly remember reading a biography of the Queen Mother several years ago which stated that George V had granted the Duchess of York the right to be syled as 'Princess Elizabeth' on her wedding day. This was done as a special gesture by the King, and was not automatically aquired by marriage. I cannot for the life of me remember where I read it, and I was quite young at the time so perhaps misunderstood it. Can anyone else shed any light on this?

There's a memorial section on the official site that shows the order of service for her funeral. The Order of service includes a list of the styles and titles of Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother. Amongst the titles is Princess [2]--Mdieke (talk) 17:31, 1 October 2008 (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)

Thats incorrect, if their are over 3 Queens living at the same time, they'd follow presidence. If Queen Dowager and Queen Mother are taken the remaining Queen's will be simply known as HRH the Queen (her name). The sovereign Queen will be addressed HRM the Queen (her name) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.21.103 (talk) 12:20, 2 June 2008 (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)

Munich

There seems to be no reference to the royal couple's intervention during the Munich crisis. In fact they went so far as to welcome Chamberlain back from Munich. At the time and since, this has been seen as an unwarranted and unconstitutional intervention. Moreover, it seems likely that the Queen was the one who suggested this course of action. A paragraph or two exploring the most important political act in her life would not be out of place and might help to balance the very anodyne, royalist approach throughout the rest of the article. Even I (as an English republican, and there are lots of us) don't want to gainsay her role in maintaining wartime morale, but she was part of an Establishment that positively encouraged Hitler through their appeasement and general conservatism in the '30's.Sjwells53 09:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Huh? Have you read the article: "However, prior to the war both she and her husband, like most of Parliament and the British public, had been supporters of appeasement and Neville Chamberlain, believing after the experience of the First World War that war had to be avoided at all costs. After the resignation of Chamberlain, the King asked Winston Churchill to form a government. Although the King was initially reluctant to support Churchill, in due course both the King and Queen came to respect and admire him for what they perceived to be his courage and solidarity." DrKay 09:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I've read it, but it's merely a later allusion. That's very different from covering the Munich crisis properly and in chronological sequence. The monarchy doesn't often intervene directly in politics and it makes little sense to skate over the occasions when it does. In this case, constitutional specialists have taken a serious interest and there are varied views about how legitimate or otherwise it was. as I understand it, the royal couple actually went to meet Chamberlain on his return. This is unparalleled, I think. Raising it is not going to skew the article, because there is scope for defending the royal intervention. Not considering it at due length and depth in its proper context does, however, make the article more tendentious than it needs to be. It deprives the reader of facts that might lead to a more balanced view. There are actually many points with which one could take issue in the passage quoted here. I am also not at all sure that appeasers were simply trying to avoid war at all costs. Some, at least, were active supporters of Hitler or simply pro-German (which is by no means the same thing). Nor were people who wanted to avoid war all appeasers. Wanting to avoid a worse war is precisely why some of the Queen Mother's contemporaries volunteered to go to war in Spain, while others took a pacifist stance but supported anti-Nazi political action. I still think this is a very good article, although it takes fundamentally conservative stances for norms. That's why it's worth criticizing.Sjwells53 13:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

They didn't go to meet him, the King asked him to come straight to Buckingham Palace (which was not unusual), but then they appeared on the balcony together (which was unparalleled). This used to be in the article, I can't remember when it was removed or why. But it did have to be balanced by Churchill's later appearance on the balcony in 1945. Constitutionalists are not agreed on this issue, yes at least one has said it was unconstitutional, but there are others who say he did nothing other than follow the advice of his ministers, which is what he was constitutionally bound to do. I think you're putting undue weight on a minor issue: a man standing on a balcony. DrKay 13:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

DrKay, it's a bit more important than just a man standing on a balcony. While seeing the royals on the balcony is commonplace now, it was virtually unheard of them, and being on the balcony with a prime minister was practically unthinkable. Just because it's no big deal now doesn't mean it wasn't a big deal then- the first time something happens is usually, by definition, important, i.e. we don't mention every airline flight that take off now, but we mentioned the Wright brothers' first flight. Since that was the first time the royals and Prime Minister stood on the balcony together and even just the royals on the balcony wasn't done back then, it is very important and should be mentioned. We have to put these things in the context of their time, not how common they are now. RockStarSheister (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you've misread my comments, which is understandable as they are over 8 months old and the edits to which they refer occurred a long time ago. I said the balcony appearance was unparalleled.[3] I was one of the two editors who re-inserted the balcony appearances into the article.[4] My comment "you're putting undue weight on a minor issue" is not in regard to the inclusion of the appearances, but in regard to the interpretation of the appearances, and making sure that both assessments (1. unconstitutional, 2. constitutional) are included together and not focused on one or the other. DrKay (talk) 09:03, 10 March 2008 (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)

In fact, the way we refer to such people is conditioned by time and circumstance. If someone asks, "Who was George V married too?" the answer would be "Mary of Teck". People who remember her tend to use the term "Queen Mary", because that is who she was for them. For people like me, born too late, "Queen Mary" is ambiguous, and used without qualification would always mean "Bloody Mary" in the 16th century, in context perhaps half of "William and Mary". As time passes, and the generations who knew a monarch or consort die away, it becomes perfectly normal to refer to them by their original name. I suspect there will always be partial exceptions to this. "Prince Albert" will probably always be perfectly acceptable for Victoria's consort, mainly because there haven't been a lot of others to confuse him with, though even he is usually introduced as Albert of Saxe-Coburg. Even further back, we would generally introduce Henry VI's consort into a piece of writing as "Margaret of Anjou", although we might then need to refer to her as the queen, Queen Margaret, the former queen, or simply Margaret, as the narrative develops. "The Queen Mother" generally means Elizabeth Bowes Lyons at the moment, especially to the older generations, but it is slightly ambiguous. For example, I have seen references to Isabella (mother of Edward III) and Elizabeth Woodville (mother of Edward V) in the same terms. Obviously they were not granted the title formally, but as a noun phrase it had to have a history before 1952 for it to be meaningful at all. An article under the heading "Queen Mother" would be fine, but it would have to be about the title, its history and the ways it can be used - not about a specific queen mother.Sjwells53 10:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, Camestone, slow down there, tiger. Let's not be making blanket statements about Americans. I'm just a lowly Yank, as are the two friends I'm speaking with, and all three of us damned republican Americans believe that the article should be titled "Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother." My two friends couldn't tell you her maiden name if their lives depended on it, nor do they really care what it was. Only her life after marriage interests most yanks. RockStarSheister (talk) 06:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting and relevant comment. But there does seem to be something going on here that's arousing people's passions and POVs, on both sides. Andrewa (talk) 02:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If this article were truly controlled by Americans, instead of the reference to her as Queen Mum, it would be Queen Mom. Satisfied?JGC1010 (talk) 03:58, 31 August 2008 (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)

It seems very odd. The title box should say just "consort", not "queen consort" since it includes both prince consorts and queen consorts. Philp did NOT follow Elizabeth as queen consort, merely as consort, and the title box should reflect this or it is simply wrong. I'm going to be bold here and change it to consort.RockStarSheister (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2008 (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)

Quite right. It is absurd to impute knowledge or ignorance on the basis of nationality. In fact, Ireland suffered (or enjoyed, depending on your viewpoint) the same monarchy as England for centuries, so there is no reason to suppose that an Irish person would be any less interested in it - nor indeed any reason to suppose that all English people consider the monarchy fascinating. I think it should be possible to discuss any possibility in the discussion pages without resorting to personal or ethnic abuse. We should also be aware of the naturalistic fallacy as it applies to history. Accepting or rejecting a particular fact does not lead automatically to a particular value or attitudinal judgment. Challenging someone's legitimacy is only a slur if you also happen to hold a particular, very old-fashioned, view of human worth. It's interesting to note that someone can call a proposition "fiction and speculation". It seems to me that it can't really be both. Speculation and fiction are good things. If it's speculation, it's a putative fact and deserves to be treated as such: discussed here and later embodied in the article if there seems to be something in it. If it's fiction, then it's a work embodying significant creativity, and there may be a place for it in a consideration of literature or oral tradition. If it's rubbish, there's no place for it at all.Sjwells53 10:52, 26 June 2007 (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)

How rude. I thought wikipedians were meant to treat each other with respect. You disagree with my position and I accept that. I have cited evidence which suggests that the College of Arms and the Earl Marshall take my view and certain Lords Chamberlain take yours. On this, personally I would defer to the Earl Marshall and the officers of the College of Arms. IIRC (and I may not) the point regarding royal and non-royal titles came from the HMSO publication Honours and Orders (or Honours and Titles); but this is also how the references are made on the monarchy website (which whether unreliable or not, is an interesting piece of evidence of usage on this very point). Bbombbardier 15:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about being rude. I must have been having a very bad week. Anyway, the Royal website uses "the Lady" on various non-Royal personages at various places (some Googling on site:royal.gov.uk finds "The Lady Diana Godfrey-Faussett" (which, incidentally, is a particularly fantastic name), "The Lady Mary Colman", "The Lady Sarah Chatto" (who obviously has that title as the daughter of an Earl rather than as a pseudo-Royal) and "The Lady Elizabeth Leeming"). The Court Circular this morning also made no distinction: "the Lord Nicholas Windsor" appeared alongside "the Lady Susan Hussey" and "the Lady Mary Mumford". I can't comment on that HMSO publication, as I haven't seen it. Proteus (Talk) 15:38, 27 October 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)

I believe that the use of the surname is wrong altogether. When she married her husband, Elizabeth took his surname (which was nothing). Therefore upon marriage, she became Elizabeth Angela Marguerite. Charles 17:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Events That Marked The Queen Mother's Life

This section is both anomalous and superfluous. I don't like to delete it unilaterally without there being some discussion of the matter. Any thoughts, others?Masalai 11:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree - delete. Astrotrain 11:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Me too // DBD 17:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Photograph used

QUERY: How is it possible to use a Beaton photograph in the article? To the best of my knowledge (as I have had to use Beaton photos before in my work), the copyright to Beaton's images is held by Sotheby's London and has been for many years.Mowens35 15:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Geneaology of the Queen Mother

Will whoever is writing on this page please STOP! You're dead wrong all the time. The Queen Mother had ties to not only the House of Bruce(Scotland) but also the Tudors(through HenryVII) and the Stewarts (through Charles II). "Only royal ties"...sheesh what planet are you on??

Actually, I would ask the same about you after that making such an intelligent and well rationalized statement. If you understood family trees, you would know that King Robert I of Scotland is her only royal ancestor. There are no Stuarts or Tudors in her family tree. As a descendent of Robert Bruce she would be a distant cousin of the Tudors and Stuarts. But, distant cousin does not count as direct royal ties. The article was speaking of direct ties not distant relations.

She is not descended from Charles II directly through any of his illegitmate children. I think you are confusing her with Camilla, Lady Diana and Sarah Ferguson.

As for the Tudors, there seems to be no direct descent from Mary or Margaret Tudor through any of their children. Possibly through any illegimate children through King Henry VIII, however, it is questionable whether those children were his at all. And, there is no direct descent through them either.

Please in the future sign your messages and think before making illogical comments. I will not argue further because it is clear to me that this article like some here are not based on fact but of people's opinions. RosePlantagenet 16:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The full descent from the Tudors is:

Henry VII:

Princess Mary:

Lady Frances Brandon:

Lady Catherine Gray:

Edward Seymour, Lord Beauchamp:

William Seymour, Duke of Somerset:

Lady Jane Seymour:

Charles Boyle, 2nd Earl of Burlington:

Richard Boyle, 3rd Earl of Burlington:

Charlotte Boyle, Baroness Clifford in-her-own-right:

Lady Dorothy Cavendish:

Lord William Charles Cavendish-Bentinck:

Rev Charles Cavendish Bentinck:

Cecilia Cavendish-Bentinck:

Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon:

I can not speak for Andrae24 (the author of the immoderate comments above), but my edits are always based on fact and backed up by references, as you should have seen quite obviously from my previous work on this page. DrKay 16:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

My comments were not directed at you but at Andrae24. As you deleted my edits and then suggested I read his comments. It seemed only right that you read my response. If you guys disagreed you could have simply just added on the fact she is also a direct descendent to Mary Tudor, as well, rather than to delete it and insult it. That is the rational thing to do. >.>; The conflict that was created by behaving rudely seems unnecessary, however, I am fairly new to this site and maybe that is what people prefer to do.

I study people's family trees and it seemed interesting to post her family history. But if reading her family history is too upsetting for people, and they can not handle it then I will not bother putting it up. RosePlantagenet 19:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Channel 4 documentary

Tomorrow a documentary on British television will recycle some of the urban myths surrounding Elizabeth. I have spliced in a sentence from George VI's article to cover any re-edits that may arise from the showing. Some of the content was leaked this morning by a tabloid newspaper. DrKay 14:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence about the alleged romantic interest between Edward and Elizabeth (which I inserted on November 21 last year) because: 1. The memoirs, diaries and letters of the prinicipal players, including the Prince of Wales, Wallis Simpson, the Duke of York, the King, the Queen, Freda Dudley Ward, Mabell Ogilvy, Countess of Airlie, Harold Nicolson, Walter Monckton, Lord Stamfordham and Stanley Baldwin (amongst many others) make no mention of any courtship between Elizabeth and Edward. 2. All biographers agree that Elizabeth Bowes Lyon was deeply religious and very traditional, which is presumably why she refused several suitors whom she considered unsuitable, and instead chose someone with a reputation of faithful dependability. It makes no sense for a woman of high principles to fall for a louche man. 3. There are only two pieces of evidence supporting it: (1) The Daily News article of the 5th Jan 1923. The very same month the engagement of Elizabeth and Bertie was announced, leading one (and others, such as Sarah Bradford) to suppose that the newspaper just got it wrong and misheard gossip of the royal romance, thinking it was the Prince of Wales rather than the Duke of York who was courting her. (2) Hugo Vickers's interview of Rosemary Olivier, where she said she saw the Prince of Wales and Elizabeth "sitting together and laughing" [in public]. This means nothing. I’ve seen an English 89-year old great-grandmother sitting and laughing with a 17-year old black youth. That doesn't make them a courting couple. It was most probably just an innocent every-day conversation. 4. Buckingham Palace denied it. (Press Release 7th January 1923). 5. Peer review dislikes the comment as it has to be qualified with weasel words and is badly referenced. DrKay 08:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Buffy

On the dismbiguation page Buffy, 'Buffy' is given as a childhood nickname for the Queen Mother - I can find no other reference to this, any idea where it came from? --kylet 17:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Presumably My Darling Buffy by Grania Forbes but I've never read it. DrKay 09:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms & weasel words

I see various weasel-word phrases have been added to the Criticisms section as if to give the impression that criticisms of the QM don't really count. For example the ludicrous phrase 'Probably her only serious solecism...' as if the Queen Mother was so perfect she only ever erred once in her life! I have deleted these phrases, which might belong in a Buckingham Palace press release but not in an encyclopedia. 62.136.143.124 12:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I see there is now no longer a Criticisms section, having been merged into the previous section, which begins:

Behind the soft charm lay a canny intelligence and iron will, as demonstrated by the shrewd support she gave George VI, and by her sheer endurance.[43] Sir Hugh Casson described her vividly as like "a wave breaking on a rock, because although she is sweet and pretty and charming, she also has a basic streak of toughness and tenacity. … when a wave breaks on a rock, it showers and sparkles with a brilliant play of foam and droplets in the sun, yet beneath is really hard, tough rock, fused, in her case, from strong principles, physical courage and a sense of duty."

NPOV? What a joke. Ben Finn 11:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

GAC

1. Well-written: Pass
2. Factually accurate: Pass
3. Broad: Pass
4. Neutrally written: Pass
5. Stable: Pass
6. Well-referenced: Pass
7. Images: Pass

I'm passing this as a Good Article because it appears to meet all of the above criteria. --Bookworm857158367 02:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Alcoholism?

Is there any information backing up claims that she was an alcoholic (or at least a heavy drinker)? Is was alluded to in a scene from The Queen. --24.249.108.133 17:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Taken from featured article comments

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 04:34, 30 March 2007.

---

Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon

Queen Consort of George VI of the United Kingdom; Mother to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom

Support Self-nominated There were some problems with POV raised at Peer review, but I hope that these are now resolved. DrKiernan 09:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Support- the work done by DrK has surely brought it up to FA status. Astrotrain 09:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Support- Wow...I don't think I could be more impressed. Sue Rangell 00:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Support- Factually accurate,well researched,well presented.An example of what a FA should be. Lemon martini 14:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Good article, well written. However, after a quick scan I'd of like to have read mention of the following from Woodrow Wyatt's diaries and other sources about Bowes-Lyon's views of the commonwealth, and African efforts to end apartheid [5]. Which is one of the few things that sticks in my mind when I think of her as a person. Of note is ....

• that she supported apartheid era President PW Botha of South Africa.
  • Or, that she supported the few liberal policies introduced by Botha: interracial marriage – which had been banned – was legalised; the constitutional prohibition on multiracial political parties was lifted; the Group Areas Act, which barred non-whites from living in certain areas, was relaxed; constitutional reforms granted limited political rights to "Coloureds" (South Africans of mixed white and non-white ancestry) and Indians; and he was the first South African government leader to authorise contacts with imprisoned ANC leader Nelson Mandela. DrKiernan 08:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• that she often drank a toast at the end of dinner to Margaret Thatcher who opposed sanctions against South Africa.
  • It is also said the Queen and Thatcher didn't like one another, so would be unlikely to drink a toast to her. Mrs. ThatcherAndrew Neil once said to Brian Walden and Woodrow Wyatt, whilst they were discussing the animosity between the Queen and Mrs. Thatcher: "The problem is, the Queen is the kind of woman who could vote SDP." Wyatt's comments should be judged with the knowledge that Wyatt was a supporter of Thatcher himself, and that the Queen Mother might say something complimentary to charm Wyatt, and Wyatt might have read too much into it. DrKiernan 08:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• that she scolded black Commonwealth countries which had been pressing for sanctions.

**Perhaps because she felt that by imposing sanctions the worst hit economically would be the black African population? (I'm not defending that position, I'm just saying that others held it) DrKiernan 08:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC) I can find no evidence in Wyatt that she scolded any Commonwealth countries for demanding sanctions. DrKiernan 16:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• that she described Kenneth Kaunda of Zambia as "an idiot" for demanding sanctions.
  • She may well have described him as an idiot, but not necessarily for demanding sanctions. It could have been for the far more mundane reason that, when dining with the Queen and much to the Royal Family's amusement, Kuanda drank from his finger bowl. DrKiernan 08:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

If this has already been discussed then forgive me. If not, then perhaps it should be.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 20:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Given that all these comments either jar with other recorded comments made by her (such as "I love communists") or can be taken two ways, I think it best to avoid them. DrKiernan 08:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Also she had no role in politics, so any views that she may have aired are of no real relevance. Astrotrain 10:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The exclusion of these points shouldn't bar the article from reaching featured status, as DrKiernan is correct to note that they are debatable. However, Be warned that the exclusion of various verifiable details on the basis that perhaps she meant something else - or that they could be judged in a certain light by us - is problematic. If I've spotted possible ommisions at first glance, then be sure that others will in the future. It may be worth pre-empting that by adding a sentence or so briefly covering these points in an NPOV way, rather than seeing some POV hack coming along and making a mess of it after it reaches featured status. In response to Astrotrain, all major British royals have a role in politics whether they like it or not, and their political views are of notable interest to articles.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 16:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Good article, very readable. As far as POV language goes, I found only one pressing sample: "Her ceaseless smile, endurance and longevity gave a consistent impression of stable continuity." The only other problem I have is with the image QM Arms.png, which is of too poor quality for a FA. Tweak the wording of that one sentence and find a larger/higher resolution image, and I'll gladly support this as a FA. Caknuck 01:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

There was a better quality image of her arms- unfortunatly it was deleted when the coat of arms pages were all deleted by that stupid Orphanbot. Astrotrain 10:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Support Oppose POV issues and other problems.

• "Her ceaseless smile, endurance and longevity gave a consistent impression of stable continuity."
  • Sentence removed. DrKiernan 17:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• “During the war, her seemingly indomitable spirit provided moral support to the British public,” - that’s an opinion/perception stated as fact. It needs to be stated in terms of an opinion popularly put forward rather than “the truth” .
• ”Although the King was initially reluctant to support Churchill, in due course both the King and Queen came to respect and admire him for his courage and solidarity.” => for what they perceived to be his courage and solidarity.
  • This sentence is supported by two sources, neither of whom feel it necessary to qualify this characterisation of Churchill. DrKiernan 16:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• “Her birthdays became times of celebration” – for who?
  • Phrase removed. DrKiernan 14:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• “she helped to stabilise the popularity of the monarchy as a whole.” Needs elaboration and clarification. How did she help stabilise public opinion? And is there any tangible evidence other than the opinion of Lawrence Goldman in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography?
  • Reworded as "regarded as…help[ing] to stabilize the popularity of the monarchy…". DrKiernan 14:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• “Despite her reputation as holding conservative family values (after the U.S. President Jimmy Carter kissed her on the lips, she said "No man has done that since my husband died."[72]), she held liberal views on homosexuality.” I don’t think the US style political dichotomy “liberal – conservative” is appropriate here. What are “conservative family values” and how do her comments about Jimmy Carter relate? The evidence provided re:homosexuality proves that she was tolerant of homosexuals, not that she “held liberal views on homosexuality”.
  • I'm not sure tolerant is right either. She was more than tolerant - she was supportive of her homosexual staff when it was suggested they be dismissed. Perhaps we can use gays in the military as a comparison - the "conservative" view is "sack gays", the "liberal" view is "gays should have the same employment rights", the "tolerant" view might be Clinton's compromise: "gays should keep their sexuality a secret". On this scale she might be "liberal". I've rewritten the section, so as to avoid using these labels. DrKiernan 16:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• You have included the criticisms from unreliable American hack, Kitty Kelly, yet as of now there is still no inclusion of the verifiable analysis I have provided above by Francis Wheen, a prominent British journalist.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 20:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • But Wheen is a left-wing writer with an obvious political motive, which does not apply to the biographers¹ used as main sources. There are already about twice as many citations to left-wing newspapers as to right-wing ones in the article (which is understandable - it accords with my own reading preferences). I am not personally convinced that the current balance between sycophantic hagiographers and their socialist opposers is weighted one way or another. Nevertheless, I may gain access to a copy of Wyatt's journal on Wednesday evening, and I would like to assess that before considering whether to make the edits you've suggested in your comments above. DrKiernan 14:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

¹I do not include Kelley in the term "biographers", but I think it would prove problematic to remove that material. I imagine other editors would wish to re-insert it. DrKiernan 14:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your changes, DrKiernan. I still worry about the "ceaseless smile.." and the "admire Churchill for his courage.." lines, the first just doesn't read like an encyclopaedic entry. As her smile obviously wasn't ceaseless, it reads as more of a platitude or a Daily Mail caption. The second needs to be phrased in a way emphasising that Churchill's "courage and solidarity" was in the eyes of the subjects. Regarding the Guardian piece, I don't particularly like articles that use random criticism from journalists, and I personally can't stand Wheen but I still feel that his piece represents a notable perception, one that I was well aware myself. -- Zleitzen^(talk) 16:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, after that accusation I can either claim that the Daily Mail is clearly an underused source of superlative quality, or change the sentence. I've changed the sentence. DrKiernan 17:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I've decided I'm not at all impressed by Wheen's reading of Wyatt's diary. The actual conversation on South Africa reads,
[Queen Mother]: How disgraceful it is that the press is trying to involve the Queen in the row about sanctions and whether some states might leave the Commonwealth.
[Wyatt]: Is there any truth in the story that she [the Queen]'s at odds with Mrs. Thatcher?
[Queen Mother]: None whatever (vol. I p. 167)
So, she does not say that she is against sanctions. What she actually says is that she is against the Queen becoming involved in politics. The passage "She thinks it is awful how the BBC and media misrepresent everything that Botha is trying to do." (vol. I p. 101) is accurately reported by Wheen, but as I said before that could be in relation to his few liberal policies. These are the only mentions of her in relation to South Africa in the entire 3 volumes. In fact, on reading the journal, it is Wyatt who is revealed to be a right-wing racist, not her. When he rubbishes the blacks by saying that they are not like us, her contribution is, "I am very keen on the Commonwealth. They're all like us." (vol. II p. 547) I'm more than ever convinced that Wheen's comments are unrepresentative and bias, and should not go in the article. DrKiernan 16:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello DrKiernan. Thanks for getting hold of the diaries. I'll bow to your better judgment on this and put it down to a typical Wheen slur, of which he has become increasingly associated with. I thought about the Churchill sentence, it still reads as though his "courage and solidarity" is a given. I'm not sure the Kurds would agree; "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes" etc.[6]-- Zleitzen^(talk) 16:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello! In my reply to your request for qualification of Churchill's character I very nearly wrote a second sentence along the lines of: "Indeed, I could claim that 'courage and solidarity' could easily read 'bravery to the point of foolhardiness, and bloody-minded obstinacy', and still be an accurate representation of his character." But then I thought better of it and decided to be polite. Anyway, this is a long way to say, I shall add your suggested qualification. DrKiernan 16:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

Birth date

THERE IS ALWAYS PROBLEMS IN BIRTHDAY DATES IN WIKIPEDIA. MARGARET IS BORN IN 1927 IN THIS ARTICLE, WHILE SHE IS BORN in 1930 in HER OWN ARTICLE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimanas (talk • contribs) 08:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay. First off, welcome to our 'paedia! I've left a message on your talk page explaining signing comments. Also, in internet life in general, not just Wikipedia, WRITING IN ALL CAPS IS ILL-ADVISED, because it is considered equivalent to shouting in real life - people sometimes even take offense because it's like you're yelling furiously at them, so please reserve his practise for such cases. Next off, if you've found an error in the 'paedia, well done for letting us know, but, you could just as easily correct it as I - look at a source outside Wikipedia, find the correct date, and edit any occurences of the wrong one. Cheers DBD 10:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• The article states "In 1926 the couple had their first child, Elizabeth…Margaret Rose, was born four years later." 1926 + 4 = 1930. DrKay 12:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Title?

Why is it that this article simply has the name Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, while Wallis Simpson's article is named according to what was essentially a made up title, Duchess of Windsor? It is rather peculiar that a thrice married whore is referred to by her title on wikipedia, while the late Queen Mother isn't. I hope this isn't a result of favouritism, simply because the whore was American. Regardless, shouldn't something be done to fix this, perhaps fixing Simpson's article to make these two rumoured rivals equal? 84.68.95.128 09:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Reading the conventions for names and titles will answer your question. Queen Elizabeth was a queen consort will the Duchess was not. Charles 09:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Arsenal

Do we have a reference for her being an Arsenal fan? I'm not suggesting we add one to the page, but could someone maybe give one here just to ease my peace of mind? DrKay 16:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, OK. G2bambino's removed it. DrKay 16:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I've asked User:PeeJay2K3 if he has any sources. --G2bambino 16:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

PeeJay provided the following at my Talk:

Here are some links that cite Queen Elizabeth II, the Queen Mother and Prince Harry as Arsenal fans:

[7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]

The majority of those links confirm both the Queen and her mother as Arsenal fans, and a couple of them say that Prince Harry is too. Hope those are sufficient. PeeJay 16:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Some comments: The articles don't confirm, per say, that either member of the Royal Family is definitively an Arsenal fan, only that "palace sources" and other second hand informants have said the royals said they were. I think it's probably prudent to include in each article some point that mentions they've been said to be supporters of Arsenal, but not that they undoubtedly are. It follows, then, that they probably shouldn't be placed in the Arsenal fan category. Thoughts? --G2bambino 16:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Add- I shouldn't have deemed those edits to be vandalism. Apologies. --G2bambino 16:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The blogs are obviously not reliable, but newspapers do count as verifiable sources. Personally, I would rather that it wasn't mentioned in the article but only because we'd have to hedge it around abit which would be untidy, which I appreciate isn't a very good reason. I would however accept it as a category. DrKay 17:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean we should add the category back in? PeeJay 17:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Is rumour enough to warrant inclusion? --G2bambino 18:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

So just because it was said by a royal source rather than by the QM herself, it's classed as a rumour? The more senior royals almost never give interviews directly to the media, so all we have to go on is the word of the royal aides, which I think is proof enough. PeeJay 18:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, technically, yes. I read in one article you supplied that Buckingham Palace refused to issue an official affirmative or negative response on the matter; that means the information we have is just hearsay. It's true the royals rarely (or never) give interviews, that's why much of the content regarding their opinions and beliefs is filled with "it was reported...," "so-and-so said...," etc. I don't have any issue with including commentary like that re. the Arsenal issue, but to put them into an Arsenal fan category seems to be definitively saying they are Arsenal fans. Maybe not; I could just be being too procedural. Perhaps others should offer an opinion. --G2bambino 18:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I've checked through those sources above more carefully, and I see they are all ultimately derived from the article in The Sun. There is a related discussion here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 12#Category:Arsenal F.C. fans. DrKay 14:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Racing

I may be missing something here but seriously how can you have an article about the Queen Mother that makes no reference to her interest in racing? She was one of the most successful owners and breeders of race horses in the UK in history. Someone is asking whether the article should refer to her support for Arsenal but without any reference to the 100's of racehorses that she owned. Who writes this crap? Dr Spam (MD) 07:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the article before being so uncivil: "She developed an interest in horse racing that continued for the rest of her life, owning the winners of approximately 500 races. Her distinctive light blue colours were carried by horses such as Special Cargo the winner of the 1984 Whitbread Gold Cup and The Argonaut. Although (contrary to rumour) she never placed bets, she did have the racing commentaries piped direct to her London residence, Clarence House, so she could follow the races.[43] One of her jockeys, Dick Francis, later achieved fame as a writer of detective novels." DrKay 07:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes your're quite right - under "new role in widowhood" (!) Dr Spam (MD) 09:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Never placed bets my arse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.109.92 (talk)

She became Queen when her husband became King not when Edward VIII abdicated

"In 1936, she unexpectedly became Queen when her brother-in-law, Edward VIII, suddenly abdicated in order to marry his mistress, the American Wallis Simpson." She did not become Queen when Edward the VIII abdicated, her husband became King when this happened. She became Queen when her husband ascended the throne upon the abdication of his brother. I can't seem to edit the page as the servers are slow, and I have NO time. Someone please correct this. Thank you. Also, maybe I'm wrong about this technicality, but I think I'm correct. KP Botany 14:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. DrKay 14:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - that makes more sense and reads better. WjBscribe 14:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. Isn't this the same thing, more or less? Her husband became king when her brother-in-law abdicated, and she became queen when her husband became king, therefore she became queen when her brother-in-law abdicated. john k 14:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, it is the same thing more or less, but you're speaking from a position of knowledge and intellect. The way it was previously written could have been mistaken by the less informed as meaning that she became Queen Regnant in her own right, as opposed to Queen Consort through the right of her husband. DrKay 15:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. KP Botany seemed to be saying that the original statement was incorrect, rather than that it was ambiguous. It was perfectly correct, just, I suppose, potentially misleading. john k 15:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the fix. Yes, you read me correctly, I did think it was incorrect, as she can only become queen by her husband becoming king, her husband is the one who gains the throne through the abdication. However, the new prose is more straight-forward, and I'm not positive and can't quote on this technicality, and as Dr Kay points out, it now works better for those less informed (or less interested) in technical issues, as a Wikipedia article should be. Good job on the article, all, and lovely to see it on the main page. KP Botany 22:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Why was she a commoner?

This might be a silly question (I'm an american, don't know how all the titles work), but if her parents were an Earl and a Countess, why would she have been a commoner? Aren't the legitimate children of nobles nobility themselves? 157.191.2.16 17:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Explained here: Commoner. We used to have a link to that article but it seems to have been lost along the way. I have re-instated it. DrKay 17:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Most Dangerous Woman in Europe

If Hitler branded her the “most dangerous woman in Europe,” why is the citation merely from a rather general story by The Churchill Centre? Did Adolf call Winston? Could the Hitler quote be–heavens no!–just royal “finest hour” stuff for the home folks by the WWII British propaganda machine?69.85.163.61 03:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Quite possibly. I've always thought that a weak point. If you can find a proper citation please do put it in, I for one would like to see a better source. DrKay 07:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Queen Mary

"She became convinced that Elizabeth was "the one girl who could make Bertie happy", but nevertheless refused to interfere". I remember reading that Queen Mary arranged for a rival to Albert to be sent away on foreign duties to clear his way? Astrotrain 17:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hatley Castle

Could you provide a better source? It's just that the link on the speech is broken. The official site says that the castle was sold before 1940 with the express purpose of using it as an educational establishment.[17] Thanks, DrKay (talk) 11:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Name (again)

The Times style guide[18] says "Bowes Lyon no hyphen for most of the family, but always important to check in Who's Who or Debrett. The late Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother did NOT take the hyphen." Is there a reason why Wikipedia uses Bowes-Lyon (with hyphen)? Bluewave (talk) 10:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The official sites seem happy to use it: http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page1038.asp and http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page147.asp DrKay (talk) 10:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

pronunc?

Bawiss-Lee-onn? Bow-iss- Lion? Boaz Leon?

How is Bowes-Lyon pronounced. Is Lyon like the city in France and is Bowes plural of Bow or is it sharp on the last syllable? --81.105.243.17 (talk) 23:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Bows Lion. DrKay (talk) 07:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the proposal was No consensus. Húsönd 01:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon → Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother — Royal watchers, but very few others, will recognize the late Queen Mother as "Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon". Better to use her final title as she was known during her 50-year widowhood, and that is still used by the Royal Family. It's also unambiguous. There is only one "Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother". In other articles, reversion to premarital titles on death (not maiden names) occurs to prevent ambiguity with others who would subsequently hold this title, something that is not the case here. The name at birth might be the way the wives of Henry VIII are best known, for instance, but that's not true of the late Queen Mother; see WP:COMMONNAME. The article was under the proposed title until 2005 (see the move log), when it was switched to the present title with the justification "maiden name after death" -- which is inappropriate. — ProhibitOnions ^(T) 09:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support. Proposed new name fits WP:NC in a nutshell perfectly. The explanation given by the nominator as to why the normal rule for royal consorts should not be applied here is most satisfactory. Andrewa (talk) 12:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Amend. Elizabeth, the Queen Mother may be more useful to link to; text which says Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother can still be linked. Its present use, as a dab to such figures as Elizabeth Woodville is an anachronism, and can be replaced with a header or a dab page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I prefer Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon because she is the only famous person of that name, whereas there are other Queen Elizabeths, other Queen Mothers, and other Elizabeth, Queen Mothers. DrKay (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Per WP:NC(NT). Charles 18:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Please explain how this guideline supports using a maiden name (not a pre-marriage title); it states "there is limited support" for this usage. I have no objection to this when this is the WP:COMMON name (Anne Boleyn) but this obviously is not the case here. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 11:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:NC(NT), which policy was thoroughly discussed & well-reasoned: queenly styles are confusingly few and similar, maiden names much less so. Most European queens consort outlive their husbands, yet few or none are listed encyclopedically under their widowed titles. Re-directs make it unnecessary to innovate here. The inclination to break pattern to accommodate a beloved decedent is understandable -- but myopic. FactStraight (talk) 07:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It's got nothing to do with her being "beloved". It's got to do with the most recognizable title for the page. The guideline you mention does not deal specifically with maiden names: "Many English and French queens are traditionally referred to in English by {Name} of {Place}, like Margaret of Anjou, Isabeau of Bavaria, or Mary of Teck, where the place is country or House of origin. is some sentiment that this "maiden name rule" should be generalized into a convention for all past European royal consorts; however, there is limited support for doing so contrary to actual English usage." Furthermore, we shouldn't be too picky: "Where the name by itself is unambiguous or primary usage, it is pedantry to insist on this form against usage: Marie Antoinette, not Marie Antoinette of Austria...In general, the convention is to title queens consort and empresses consort as "{Name} of {Place}" and grand duchesses consort, duchesses consort, princesses consort, etc as "{Title} {Name} of {Place}" where the "Place" and applicable titles (in the cases of those below the rank of queen) are held premaritally or by birth." In other words, this doesn't apply. To give one example, Caroline of Brunswick is widely known as such, but as a commoner Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon is not. At the very top of WP:NC(NT), we read: "Most general rule overall: use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem." Which they don't. And the most commonly used name for this person is her official title, or shortened variants thereof; hence, my proposal that the page be moved. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 11:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support as nom. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 11:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose As the disambiguation page shows, "Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother", can apply to four other women. Though she may currently be easily recognized by the title she had at death, the custom of referring to deceased queens consort by their birth names is also well known and is doing its inevitable work. Everyone is becoming accustomed to referring to her by her original name, the same way Queen Mary is now Mary of Teck, though that would have sounded odd fifty years ago. Ariadne55 (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Umm, Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother redirects to this article. Dab pages for similar formulations are besides the point, and can always be linked to from the main article. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 22:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I meant Elizabeth, the Queen Mother. Ariadne55 (talk) 00:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

But that's not what I'm proposing this article be moved to. The proposed new title redirects to the article at present. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 18:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

A queen mother must also be a queen, so there's no difference between QE, the QM and E, the QM. My point, in my first sentence, was that there are four historical figures who can be called by the same name and title combination. I referred readers to the disambiguation page, rather than listing them all, in an (apparently fruitless) effort to save space. Ariadne55 (talk) 19:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

There are two obvious and very relevant differences. Firstly, of the two, only Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother is commonly used for the person in question. Secondly, of the two, only Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother is unambiguous. See #Elizabeth, the Queen Mother below. Andrewa (talk) 01:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon is a more precise title. I suggest that Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother redirect readers to Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon if it doesn't already. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 02:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support I fear this might be recentism to some degree, but she is commonly known as the Queen Mother and I can't see any /huge/ ambiguity issue that can't be solved with a hat. Narson (talk) 14:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per WP:NC(NT). Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother is not necessarily her most common name; it's not a clear-cut case. In any case, QE the QM redirects there anyway. "The Queen Mother" indicates it was a title created especially for her, but it wasn't; it's a title held by people at least as far back as the 1400s. The present title is correct, follows the guideline, and avoids any possible ambiguity. PeterSymonds | talk 20:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support as per nomination. Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother is a much more recognizable title. [LukeTheSpook] | ^{[t c r]} 16:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose as per PeterSymonds and others. Why not move Diana's article to Princess Diana, since that seems to be her most common name, no matter that it's incorrect. Her maiden name was Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. Other queens were popularly referred to as Queen Mother (see here for a reference to Queen Alexandra as the Queen Mother). See here also for more on the title. Morhange (talk) 22:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Another straw man. The proposal is "Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother", not "Queen Mother". That was her official title; see the Royal Family webpage [19], or the BBC website about her [20], or the website of the planned memorial [21]. It's also how Britannica lists her [22]. Again, all of you stating "per WP:NC(NT)" or "per (user above who cited WP:NC(NT))", could you please read it and explain how "There is some sentiment that this 'maiden name rule' should be generalized into a convention for all past European royal consorts; however, there is limited support for doing so contrary to actual English usage" supports your position. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 09:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Britannica seems to list her as Elizabeth (queen consort of United Kingdom) and Elizabeth Angela Marguerite, née Bowes-Lyon. It has Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother as an alternate name along with Duchess of York. [23]. Ariadne55 (talk) 12:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

From the survey: there are other Queen Elizabeths, other Queen Mothers, and other Elizabeth, Queen Mothers. That's extremely relevant... can you (or anyone else of course) be explicit about the other Elizabeths? Our queen mother article currently lists only this one. Andrewa (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Other Queen Elizabeths from the British Isles are Elizabeth de Burgh; Elizabeth Woodville; Elizabeth of York; Elizabeth I and Elizabeth II. The other Queen Mothers from Britain who actually held that title (as opposed to women who were Queens and the mother of a monarch living in the reign of their offspring without using the title) are Mary of Teck, Alexandra of Denmark and Henrietta Maria of France. The other Queen Elizabeths, who lived during the reigns of their children are Elizabeth of Aragon, Elisabeth of Austria (d. 1505), Elisabeth of Bavaria (1876-1965), Elizabeth of Bosnia and Elisabeth of Parma. MA (Cantab) (talk) 09:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

So, both Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother and Elizabeth, the Queen Mother are unambiguous, as in the English-speaking world only the subject of this article has held that particular title, is that correct? Andrewa (talk) 01:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth Woodville was Queen Mother between when her husband died and when her marriage was declared null and void by Parliament. Ariadne55 (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, that was from 9 April, 1483, until 25 June, 1483... just a day short of 11 weeks. Even assuming she was known as Elizabeth, the Queen Mother in that time (and there seems some doubt even of that, it's one thing to have a right to a style and quite another to be known by it), she's not commonly referred to by that title today. But perhaps that's another reason to prefer Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother for this article, which is the current proposal. It's most unlikely that Elizabeth Woodville was ever known as that. Andrewa (talk) 02:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth, the Queen Mother without the first Queen isn't a title I've heard previously... how common is it? I've often heard it shortened to the Queen Mother but never to this halfway version. Officially, and most notably I think in the original announcement by her daughter, the first Queen was always included of course... it was a very deliberate inclusion, a title that was an important mark of respect, honour and affection. Now, the official usage isn't all that relevant of course in itself, but in this case I think common usage follows it, probably for the same reasons. Andrewa (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

If the page was moved, which I hope doesn't happen, the title should be Elizabeth, Queen Mother. Charles 21:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Understood. But why? Andrewa (talk) 21:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Past royal consorts (referred to in one oppose vote above) I read: Where the name by itself is unambiguous or primary usage, it is pedantry to insist on this form against usage: Marie Antoinette, not Marie Antoinette of Austria. This doesn't explicitly apply to this case, but it's the same principle. There's no reason here not to stick to the underlying policy of WP:NC. Andrewa (talk) 21:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's one that does apply: Diana, Princess of Wales, not "Diana Spencer", even though she's dead, divorced, was no longer a member of the royal family, and there is a current Princess of Wales, even if she chooses not to use the title. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 11:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Diana's name is the form used by divorced British peeresses. Nothing new or extraordinary there. Charles 12:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There are no other Princesses of Wales called Diana, so I have no problem with the page being there. DrKay (talk) 07:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

And nor is there anything new or extraordinary in this move request. It's simply applying the official Wikipedia policy on article names to this particular article. Yes, there's a more explicit guideline for past royal consorts, but this guideline is explicitly there to deal with the problem of ambiguity that applies to most of these articles. Since in this case there is no such problem, to apply WP:NT#Past royal consorts in this case is, as that guideline itself puts it, pedantry.

I'm happy to be proven wrong on this, but it seems quite clear to me. Andrewa (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Diana was never queen. If she had become Queen Diana, her page would now be Diana Spencer. Since she didn't, she's treated like any other deceased wife of a peer. Ariadne55 (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Her page would now be Diana Spencer... Perhaps not. The rule on royal consorts is there for a specific purpose, that of avoiding ambiguity, and where there is no such ambiguity WP:NC can apply, as the rule explicitly points out. Diana had a very powerful following, and whether that was hindered or enhanced by her marriage problems IMO we will never know. But had she died as a young Queen, which I think is what you are speculating, IMO it's likely that there would now be a common name far more recognised than her maiden name. Exactly what that would be, I can't even guess. Andrewa (talk) 02:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

From the survey: queenly styles are confusingly few and similar, maiden names much less so. That may be true in general, but there seems grudging agreement above that it's not true in this case. The assertion above that there were other Elizabeth, Queen Mothers is unsupported by any examples, and it seems more likely that instead the article on queen mother is correct in listing only this one. Most European queens consort outlive their husbands, yet few or none are listed encyclopedically under their widowed titles. There's a world of difference between few and none. Re-directs make it unnecessary to innovate here. One could similarly argue that it's almost never necessary to move an article, as it's always possible to just create a redirect from the better name instead. But our practice has been to move the article to the name that best fits the spirit of Wikipedia:naming conventions; That's what this discussion is about. The inclination to break pattern to accommodate a beloved decedent is understandable -- but myopic. No, I don't think you understand our motivation for this at all, nor is it relevant. Andrewa (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Correction... one example has now been suggested of another Elizabeth, Queen Mother, but it's not clear whether this title was or is ever used for her. And there are still no other suggested examples of Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, which is the proposal. Andrewa (talk) 02:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

From the survey above: Why not move Diana's article to Princess Diana, since that seems to be her most common name, no matter that it's incorrect. Her maiden name was Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. Other queens were popularly referred to as Queen Mother (see here for a reference to Queen Alexandra as the Queen Mother). See here also for more on the title. Morhange (talk) 22:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should consider moving the Princess Diana article too, as surprisingly to me we don't have a DAB page at that name - are there really no other princesses by that name? Yes, other Queens were and perhaps are referred to as Queen Mother, but that's not the proposal. The proposal is Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother. Andrewa (talk) 01:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh please, god, don't move her article to Princess Diana. It's not a real title, and she never held the title Princess of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, etc, etc, etc. Calling her Princess Diana is not correct, and even if it is a commonly used title, we shouldn't be advocating its use when it's just plain wrong to use it. She was Diana, Princess of Wales, or The Princess of Wales, never Princess Diana. The reason previous Princesses of Wales held the title was because they were all actually princesses. The last Princess of Wales was Mary of Teck, and she was a princess prior to marriage, as were Alexandra of Denmark and Caroline of Brunswick, etc. Diana was not. Morhange (talk) 03:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Technically Caroline of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel was a duchess prior to marriage! ;-) Charles 04:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a very important issue, and relevant to the current article. You say Calling her Princess Diana is not correct, and even if it is a commonly used title, we shouldn't be advocating its use when it's just plain wrong to use it. Many do assume that we shouldn't use names that are in some sense plain wrong just because they are in common use, but Wikipedia policy is strongly and reasonably consistently to do exactly that. It's not that we want to be advocating these common names, it's just the opposite: We don't want to advocating anything, and in particular, trying to standardise English usage is a very popular cause but not one which Wikipedia seeks to adopt. See WP:NOTADVOCATE, which is policy (but has been somewhat watered down over the years, so it may change more in the future), and Wikipedia:official names, which is a proposal based on existing policy and intended to make it a bit more accessible. Andrewa (talk) 04:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth, the Queen Mother

Several people above, all of them I think opposed to the move, have suggested that Elizabeth, the Queen Mother is a better article title than the proposed Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother.

There seems no good reason for this claim, and at the risk of failing to assume good faith I must wonder whether it's a straw man. Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother is overwhelmingly the more common title, and is unambiguous. The shortened version Elizabeth, the Queen Mother may be ambiguous (there seems some doubt as to whether a 15th century candidate has ever been known by this style, but she was entitled to it for about 11 weeks), and is arguably an insult to the subject of this article. As a straw man, it's a very good one. But is there any other reason to consider it? Andrewa (talk) 00:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Will

Why no mention of her will ? Apparently she left £7m to Peter Phillips, so she must have been absolutely loaded. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 19:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, that sounds ridiculous. £7m is more likely to be the sum of the debts she left, which had to be paid off by the Queen. According to the official press releases, her entire estate (personal effects, artwork, furniture and furnishings, actually very little to no cash) was left in entirety to the Queen. She asked the Queen to make provision for her staff, which the Queen did out of her own money. DrKay (talk) 19:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

So why not put it in the article ? -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 08:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added a short, sourced paragraph about her will and bequests to the Legacy section. The overdraft is already mentioned in the third paragraph of the Legacy section. It doesn't seem necessary to mention that the Queen, upon inheriting her mother's estate, must also have paid off her overdraft. First, because I couldn't find a good source for it, and second because it's routine with all estates, great and small. Ariadne55 (talk) 13:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hyphen

A user wanted to change Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon to Elizabeth Bowes Lyon throughout Wikipedia. Not only would this result in a lot of redirects, but is it even correct? --G2bambino (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

About 6 months ago I raised this issue (see somewhere above). The Times style guide says no hyphen and that practice seems to be accepted in the UK press. At the time I frankly couldn't be arsed to pursue it, but the issue is probably worth discussing. The Times is a reliable source that others follow. Bluewave (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it Bowes-Lyon, just like Mountabatten-Windsor? GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

More importantly; where's the consensus for changing to Bowes Lyon? GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I've always known it to be Bowes-Lyon. I'm not 100% sure, though. I can say, however, that User:Timeineurope should stop unilaterally moving pages until there's a decision that doing so is appropriate. --G2bambino (talk) 22:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd also add that this article reached FA status with the hyphens in. Not that that makes anything binding, but it's a point to consider, none-the-less. --G2bambino (talk) 22:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I've just requested (at his page) to reverse his 'page moves' & seek consensus for them first. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This was covered above in the "Name (again)" section. Reproduced here for your edification:

The Times style guide[24] says "Bowes Lyon no hyphen for most of the family, but always important to check in Who's Who or Debrett. The late Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother did NOT take the hyphen." Is there a reason why Wikipedia uses Bowes-Lyon (with hyphen)? Bluewave (talk) 10:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The official sites seem happy to use it: http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page1038.asp and http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page147.asp DrKay (talk) 10:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

So it looks like Timeineurope is correct. As for consensus.. I don't see any, but I would certainly respect the Times Style Guide, and thus will support the move. That being said... HEY BOYS, STOP IT UNTIL WE REACH A DECISION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, mmkay? It took me five six attempts to even post this! Oh, and the FA thing is a red herring. Errors exist in FA articles, it happens. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 22:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'd prefer not to be accused of throwing out red herrings, thank you. If you re-read what I said, you'll see that I said it wasn't an ultimate decider in what is correct and what isn't.

That said, Timeineurope may well be right, but he should be weighing in here first, especially when his edit is challenged. This isn't a matter of moving one page, it's numerous, with a cascading effect on many links throughout the encyclopaedia. --G2bambino (talk) 22:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a red herring because not only is it not an ultimate decider, it's not a decider of any sort. There are errors in FA-class articles; just because they were FA, that means there should be more weight on the side of the errors remaining? Of course not. It wasn't meant as an insult. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 22:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was something to take into account; an error in the title of the article would be pretty glaring. But, no worries. --G2bambino (talk) 22:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

A preexisting consensus has never been a requirement to move a page, nor should it be. Articles get moved without discussion all the time, without anybody objecting. WP:RM says about uncontroversial moves: 'please feel free to move the article yourself', and with The Times Style and Usage Guide, Who's Who and Debrett all in favour of Bowes Lyon, I figured the move would be uncontroversial. As for reverting your revert, I did that because you only offered the lack of consensus as a reason. Mere absence of prior discussion is never an acceptable reason to revert a page move. You would have had to express doubt about Bowes Lyon being the correct spelling in your edit summary. Timeineurope (talk) 11:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

But this is clearly not an uncontroversial move, so consensus is indeed required. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 11:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The above is simply an explanation of why I did what I did. I didn't foresee at the time that a mere spelling correction supported by all of The Times Style and Usage Guide, Who's Who and Debrett would be controversial. Timeineurope (talk) 12:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Wellll.. you did what most people here do; you didn't look at any contradictory evidence (e.g. birth & marriage certificates, as pointed out by DrKay below) before going ahead and making your change. That's understandable; like I said, most of us here do that. But a quick look at the contradictory evidence would have shown you how controversial the move would be, as would looking at sections 5, 7, 15, 55 and 57 on this very page. (Admittedly, they deal more with Queen Mother vs EBL, but the point is that there was already controversy about the name of this page.)Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 12:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue of the correct spelling of Bowes Lyon is entirely unrelated to the issue of whether the article should stay at her maiden name or not, so that controversy is completely irrelevant. As for the birth and marriage certificates, I wasn't aware of them. We don't normally consult birth or marriage certificates before deciding on the name of an article. Usually, consulting all of The Times Style and Usage Guide, Who's Who and Debrett would be more than enough. I looked at more evidence than could reasonably be expected. Timeineurope (talk) 13:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You kind of missed my point, but whatever.. it looks like it's going to keep the hyphen, as it seems pretty clear that the way she signed her own name (and the rest of her family signed) trumps any other reference. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 13:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) The "Requested move" section above this section clearly shows that the issue of page moves has been discussed at length and is contentious. There is also a section "Name (again)" which shows that the hyphen has also been raised as an issue before. DrKay (talk) 11:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Moving articles, should alwasy get a consensus first. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 22:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I hope Timeineurope will. GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean that you hope he also won't disagree...? --G2bambino (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Err yeah, I hope Timeineurope agrees that a consensus is needed first. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That's what I thought. ;) --G2bambino (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

A newspaper style guide is absolutely the wrong guide in this. Newspapers notoriously use styles that use less punctuation, fewer characters, etc. If the Queen Mum didn't use the hyphen, why is it used at the monarchy site? In addition, it is hyphenated for her here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Those are some of the pages using hyphens from the first two pages of a google search without the hyphen in "bowes lyon". Against those, I found one unhyphenated source. -Rrius (talk) 01:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

royal.gov.uk is actually notoriously unreliable for a wide variety of things. Amateur self-published websites, which most if not all of your links are, doubly so. That being said, Burke's takes the hyphen (available online, noted in the lineage of the House of Windsor), but I don't own/can't access Debrett's. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 02:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Individually, many are not great, but there is a point at which numbers mean something: especially in questions of usage. Too bad we don't a pre-marital primary source of how she wrote it (I imagine everyone would agree that that would be definitive). -Rrius (talk) 03:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

"Individually, many are not great, but there is a point at which numbers mean something: especially in questions of usage." Err..no. If that were the case, we'd be using 'Princess Diana', which is thoroughly incorrect. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 11:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Both her birth and marriage certificate (which she naturally signed, as did her brother, father, mother, husband, and in-laws) use the hyphen. DrKay (talk) 08:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If a cite for that can be provided, that's enough for me to support the use of the hyphen. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 11:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I had a look in Who's Who. I couldn't find her! However, I found other members of the family and it is clear that there is various usage within the family. For example, the 16th Earl of Strathmore was Timothy Patrick Bowes-Lyon (hyphenated), whereas the 17th earl was Fergus Michael Claude Bowes Lyon (no hyphen). Hence the recommendation by the Times Style Guide to check regarding the particular member of the family. With regard to birth and marriage certificates, certainly they have been indexed in the quarterly indexes with the hyphen but that does not prove that was how she signed (the marriage). Does someone here actually have a copy of the marriage certificate with her signature on it?Bluewave (talk) 13:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Who's Who 2001 (London: A & C Black) ISBN 0 7136 5432 5 p.63: "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth...Married 26 April 1923 (as Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, d of 14th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne), HRH The Duke of York..." DrKay (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Burke's also uses a hyphen [25]. DrKay (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems that Lynne Truss's book "Eats, Shoots and Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation" also supports Timeineurope. It states that there is no hyphen. So that's at least 2 reliable sources (the Truss book and the Times Style Guide) that specifically say there should be no hyphen. Plus there is evidence of Who's Who which makes it clear that some members of the family use the hyphen and others do not. Is there any source that specifically states that there should be a hyphen? Bluewave (talk) 16:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The Times Style Guide is just that -- a style guide, written to preserve uniformity of typographic and linguistic style. Factual accuracy is not the overriding purpose of the document, unlike Debrett's, Burke's, or (most importantly) documents signed by her own hand and that of her immediate family members. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 18:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't mention typography: it says that different members of the family use the hyphen or not. Specifically it says "The late Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother did NOT take the hyphen".Bluewave (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're familiar with style guides, but factual accuracy is not what they are about. And since her own signature and that of her parents (per birth & marriage certificates alluded to by DrKay) include the hyphen... Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 18:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Er yes, I think I am familiar with them, and this one is quite specific. Have we actually got any citable references to the signatures on the certificates yet? (And here's me being the one who couldn't be arsed to pursue something as insignificant as a hyphen...) Bluewave (talk) 20:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's DrKay's baby; I would have no idea where to find. Burke's here (scroll down to George VI) takes the hyphen. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 20:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I did my best to find a signature myself. The closest I've got is the 1901 census. The form was filled in by an enumerator, based on the information provided by the family, so it is one stage removed from an actual signature, but, guess what, no hyphen! You can see a portion of the image here.

I'd be leery of using something like that.. if you knew how many times people mis-spelled my (really not difficult) last name when writing it down, and I only caught it later... Let's poke DrKay for a citation, deal? Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 21:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, and her cousin demonstrably signed without a hyphen as shown here. Well, I've done my best for the anti-hyphen case: the Times Style Guide (which, if you read it, IS about accuracty); the Lynn Truss book (which is about anal attention to correct punctuation; the primary evidence of the 1901 census (probably more reliable than a marriage certificate); and the cousin. By the way, the reason I prefer the census to a marriage cerificate is that the census was compiled from input from the family: at a marriage, you sign whatever the minister sticks in front of you(well I certainly did). Also we haven't seen the image of the marriage certificate yet, but the census is there to see. I am really not that bothered about the hyphen (honest!) but I think the evidence against it is pretty strong...actually I'd rather we were arguing about whether she was the illegitimate daughter of a chambermaid! So I'll leave it to Timeineurope (with whom I have absolutely no connection) to argue the case for the furore the he or she has kicked off. Best wishes and goodnight. Bluewave (talk) 22:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You may sign whatever is stuck in front of you, but you sign with your own name, which is kind of my point. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 23:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I could have sworn that I had a copy of the actual page of Westminster Abbey's Marriage Register in a book at home. But I've gone through them all and can't find it. If you're really serious about moving the page, you'll have to do a requested move. DrKay (talk) 08:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I would have to perhaps question that QE necessarily signed her name with the state of hyphenation it ought to have — for instance I always write our type out my hyphen, but it doesn't appear in my signature (you try including a tiny dash in a flowing squiggle! My hat's off to QE if she managed!). Hyphens are quite tricky though — experience has taught me that they can easily just disappear, often because the person at the other end of the phone doesn't know what one is, or the web-form can't handle them! However, and this is my main point, I daresay that there are documents out there which refer to me as "{e.g. Rees Jones}", but, in the end, my parents decided how it would be spelled (when my father changed it by deed poll before they married), and I decide how I continue to spell it. If I became famous and some tabloid hack decided I had no hyphen, that wouldn't have any effect — he'd just be wrong DBD 11:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Comma

I say we loose the comma. Burke's and Who's Who agree with the official sites in not having it. DrKay (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Burke's uses it here and here. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 18:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The second article you cite contains the following sentence in the first paragraph: "The early Scots were a post-Roman Gaelic-speaking people who invaded and settled the west coast, known then as Dalriada, having travelled over the sea from Ireland, and before that, it is fancifully suggested, although not as yet proven, the Middle East." I don't think you can really point to that source as a shining example of how to use a comma. Opera hat (talk) 14:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I just checked again, and both your examples are written by a chap called Roddy Martine, whose other publications can be viewed here. He's clearly a commentator in Scottish culture and history as opposed to royalty, so can hardly be regarded as representing the weight of Burke's Peerage in this matter. Opera hat (talk) 14:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I say we lose the comma too. Debrett's New Guide to Etiquette and Modern Manners (Headline, 1999) uses "Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother" throughout, the sections of particular relevance being Chapter 7 (Royal, Diplomatic and Other Formal Occasions) and the Appendix (Correct Forms of Address). I suppose the absolute authority would be a pre-2002 edition of Debrett's Correct Form, but I'm afraid I don't have one. Opera hat (talk) 14:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not particularly invested, but I would agree that Correct Form would be the best citation. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 15:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The London Gazette does not use a comma. [26] [27] --Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 05:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

But it does use a hyphen. [28] DrKay (talk) 06:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Marriage

Reading some of the edits, I discoverd some body has written that Elizabeth married rather old for her era, at 23 I think. This was to an extent true, as most girls of the era espeacily of her rank were expected to marry as teenagers. Can anybody please elaborate. --Lizzie1988 (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it is completely untrue. Looking at the data from the 1921 census [29], only 18 out of every 1000 girls was married between the ages of 15 and 19, 270 out of every 1000 were married between 20 and 24, and 631 out of every thousand were married between 25 and 34. So, most women married between the ages of 25 and 34. Elizabeth married relatively earlier than most. DrKay (talk) 07:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The sort of raw numbers quoted above can be very misleading. DrKay is taking no account of a war that did not end until November 1918 and in which almost a million UK citizens died, the vast majority of them young men. The Great War therefore substantially affected the marriage 'market' for young women in the period leading up to the 1921 Census. Countless women in the under-25 age bracket who would have married had they enjoyed peacetime life instead lost their prospective spouses in Flanders and elsewhere.

We might add to this a fraction (one that we can only guess at) of the more than 1.6m UK military wounded who returned too traumatised either physically or psychologically to wish to marry. To look at this another way, while many women 25 and over in 1921 had been widowed by the war, the equivalent effect on many women under 25 was that they were robbed of boyfriends and fiancés, and when they came out of mourning found there were few other candidates for marriage.

There is also the question of how valid a census of the entire nation is in answering a question about the upper classes – the original query sensibly specifies "of her rank". I've taken a quick look at details of a few females in her family circle: her mother, her two sisters who survived to adulthood and married, the two aunts on her father's side for whom birthdate and marriage date are easily accessible, and three of her sisters-in-law (ie wives of three of her brothers). Marriage ages range from 18 to 28, which suggests a family in which 23 would not be considered unusual in any respect. (Including Elizabeth, the ages were 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 26, 28).

Interestingly, though, the two women on my list who would have been expected to produce an heir to the family title married at 18 and 19. So possibly what sparked this discussion may have been talk that, at 23, Elizabeth had married a little late to maximise her chances of producing a male heir. But as she married with no expectation of being required to produce a future monarch, this would seem an unfair complaint even in circles obsessed about breeding. Grubstreet (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Your argument about the war is obviously incorrect as the source which I have provided above also gives proportions for the years 1881, 1891, 1901 and 1911. The proportions do not differ significantly between years. DrKay (talk) 08:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Confusion?

Lede - After her husband's death, she was known as Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, to avoid confusion with her daughter, Elizabeth II.

Is it not the case that she would have become, formally at least, "Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother", regardless of the names of any of her children? -- JackofOz (talk) 07:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

No, the title of queen mother is not automatic. Her mother-in-law was styled HM Queen Mary during her widowhood and her grandmother-in-law was styled HM Queen Alexandra during her widowhood. Neither her mother-in-law nor her grandmother-in-law used the title of queen mother. Surtsicna (talk) 08:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Queen mother tells us:

The following queens became queen mothers, though not all chose to use that style.

• Queen Alexandra (1844–1925) — widow of Edward VII and mother of George V.
• Queen Mary (1867–1953) — widow of George V and mother of kings Edward VIII and George VI (though during Edward VIII's reign, there was no other queen as he was unmarried so she was not queen mother). Queen Mary never used the title Queen Mother, choosing instead to be known as "Queen Mary" and that style was used to describe her in the Court Circular. But she was a queen mother just the same. When her granddaughter acceded to the throne as Elizabeth II in 1952, the new queen's mother became queen mother.

That tells me that they were in fact queen mothers, whether or not they chose to use the style "Queen Mother". Do we know for sure that EB-L's reason was to avoid confusion with her daughter, or simply because she was entitled to that style anyway? -- JackofOz (talk) 09:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Move to Elizabeth, The Queen Mother of United Kingdom

She married the Windsor family, making her Mrs Windsor and she never officially mantained that last name post her marriage. She was given the Queen Mother by her daughter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Twelfth Doctor (talk • contribs) 10:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It is standard in royal bibliography when a royal dies to refer to them by their birth full name or pre-marital name, as their title will have changed continuously during their lives. The title "Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother" only applied to her from 1952. That is why history remembers "Catherine of Aragon" not "Queen Catherine" or the "Dowager Princess of Wales", and why we have "Mary of Teck" not "Queen Mary". This article belongs correctly at "Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon" and nowhere else. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 00:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)}

She has been best known as the Queen Mother continuously since 1952. That is 57 years, far longer than she was known as Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. There has been no change, regarding that fact, since she died over seven years ago. Most people in the UK, let alone in the rest of the world, do not know her maiden name. Biographies on Wikipedia should be at the name by which the person is best known; there's no way anyone could reasonably argue that she is best known as Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. Diana, Princess of Wales isn't at Diana Spencer. Comparing to the wives of Henry III is not a fair comparison, as they are all best known, by far, by their previous names / titles, and there is the additional need for clarification there as Henry VIII married more than one Catherine. WP addict 0 (talk) 05:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of Canada etc.

Surely all this is disgustingly treacly. In fact the Royal Family have always been extremely wary of Canada -- Queen Victoria was notoriously iffy about Princess Louise going there as Vice-reine and succeeded in demanding that she return home immediately after a sleighing accident in Ottawa. Apart from the Queen Mother's famous affection for Canada, this has been the pattern among the Royal Family. Princes Charles and William and Harry are ostentatiously indifferent to the Commonwealth and it is humiliating and embarrassing to Canada and Australia and the other Cth realms to carry on like this. Surely this discussion can be discreetly minimised. Masalai (talk) 15:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Frail only after Margaret died?

The lead states that she only became frail after Margaret died. That is both untrue and fringe POV. In addition, the wording of the last two sentences strongly and falsely imply that Margaret's death caused her death - as though if Margaret were alive, then she would be as well. The truth is that she died simply because she was ancient, no-one is immortal. WP addict 0 (talk) 05:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I have removed this. It was uncited and is weaselly worded about appearance, which can only ever be an opinion rather than a fact. Mentioning it with Margaret's death is also inviting the reader to make a connection, when no credible cite is offered to demonstrate there was one. Nothing to support it is offered within the article either.

Frankly, at the age of 100+ everyone is frail, and the suggestion she was hail and hearty until Margaret died, at which point she suddenly looked her age, is romanticised nonsense.

I also removed the statement about her comparative popularity with the rest of the royal family. It is a rather inexact and sweeping statement and is equally unsupported by cites. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)