Talk:Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother

... may I ask, are we going to keep calling her "The Queen Mother", as if she was one still, as if that were part of her name, and as if there have never been others? Looks ridiculous. Respectful? Just askin'. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

It is "Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother", so until such time as she is displaced in sources by a different Queen Mother. But in actuality she will always be a "Queen Mother" by usage even though she is no longer the mother of a reigning sovereign. Just sayin'. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

She really should have been called "The Dowager Queen Elizabeth" Queen Elizabeth the Queen mother does indeed sound ridiculous and it is said she chose that title so she could be called Queen twice. 92.9.34.250 (talk) 09:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Are there any sources that she had any choice at all, for whatever reason? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Since when do we change page titles merely because a person is dead? That's her common name and that will be her common name until maybe there is another British queen (or a queen named Elizabeth) who chooses to be known as "The Queen Mother" and disassociates the title's common usage from Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. Note that the pages on Diana, Princess of Wales and Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester have not been moved either despite the fact that they have been dead for decades. Keivan.f^Talk 20:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

HBC played princess Margaret in The Crown not The Queen Mother 174.22.249.81 (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

You have misread it. To quote:

She was portrayed by ... Victoria Hamilton (Seasons 1 and 2), Marion Bailey (Seasons 3 and 4) and Marcia Warren (Season 5 and 6)[176] in The Crown

and in The King's Speech by Helena Bonham Carter. DrKay (talk) 08:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

You could avoid the confusion with an Oxford Comma: She was portrayed by [...] in The Crown, and in The King's Speech by HBC. I also had to do a double-check when reading the list, so I understand why the other person thought it needed to be fixed IOAM19 (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Result: No significant opposition; consensus was that the proposed image is fitting for the lead. Rexophile (talk) 15:55, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

---

The lead image is currently a portrait and usually lead images of consorts are during their spouse's reign. I was thinking maybe the one below from 1942. I cropped the one in the discussion above (image looked a little bit too long), which has been dead for awhile so that it would look more suitable for an infobox. It can be altered as needed if we decide on it. Thoughts? Rexophile (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Rexophile (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Looks good to me in terms of size and dimensions. Maybe a little bit of retouching could also help, but overall I prefer a real image to a painted portrait. Also, we tend to use images of deceased people that show them in their younger days rather than ones from the final years of their lives so it's a suitable choice IMO. Keivan.f^Talk 23:03, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I just retouched the image to remove some of the obvious scratches and marks that would otherwise be visible from afar. Rexophile (talk) 02:17, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Looks good. If no opposition arises I guess we can start using it in the infobox. Keivan.f^Talk 03:01, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I think I want to give this another few days to see other opinions, but if no substantial disapproval arises, it will be replaced then. Rexophile (talk) 03:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Personally I think the current infobox image is fine. I think Elizabeth later in life might be a tad bit more WP:RECOGNIZABLE for most. But as the community largely ignored that during the discussion for her daughter's infobox image, I think the proposed image is perfectly acceptable. estar8806 (talk) ★ 03:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I think in general we're at the point that no matter how long the person lived we tend to put a pic that shows them in their 'prime' at the top of the page. That being said she may be recognizable as an old lady to those born in the 80s and 90s but older people also do remember her in her role as queen consort during WWII. Keivan.f^Talk 03:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

This makes sense, but like you said, such was disregarded for Elizabeth II.. And I have to say, I don't always think of a frail, aged woman when I hear "Queen Mum". We'll see. Rexophile (talk) 04:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

The image could be used in the infobox, if other users agree to it as well. Looks good to me. MSincccc (talk) 06:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. The present image is colour, higher resolution and less grainy/blurred. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

  The main image now is a portrait, which is highly unusual for lead images when an actual photograph is available. Rexophile (talk) 12:00, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

  A photograph from 1940s is going to be a bit grainy (just like the one for Queen Mary which was reworked until it became more acceptable). Cannot say for sure how much more this image can be reworked but, it's still a photograph and not a portrait, which cannot represent a person's appearance fully and is influenced by the artist's interpretation of their subject. Keivan.f^Talk 14:52, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah.. An image is way more suitable, regardless of if it's in color or not. Rexophile (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Closing this discussion since it has been a few days and a singular opposition statement that is contrary to some other royal lead images is not applicable in this situation. Image to be uploaded. Rexophile (talk) 15:53, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I think this close is unwarranted and bias. There were two editors in favor (Rexophile and Keivan.f), two against (Estar8806 and Celia Homeford) and one in favor "if other users agree to it as well" (MSincccc). That's roughly 2 support, 2 oppose and 1 neutral. That's not consensus or no significant opposition. DrKay (talk) 16:14, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

If I were you, I probably would have actually participated in the discussion after being invited. Consensus isn't just formed on numbers either, so I suggest you see WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS. I also think that because this topic did not get a lot of attention between the afternoon of the 27th and today that there would really be no other relevant comments. I urge you to participate in discussions if invited instead of commenting on a closed discussion less than an hour after it ended. Rexophile (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't care about the image so I didn't and don't wish to comment on it. It is the process that I'm complaining about. It is not appropriate for the opening party to close a discussion with a reading of consensus unless that consensus is very clear or the opening party is withdrawing. Neither applies in this case. Your further intransigence is more worrying not less. DrKay (talk) 07:13, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

None of which gives you the right to solely declare the discussion bias and then solely undo the change. You also started commenting on this after the discussion was closed?? I honestly really suggest that you had commented after being invited instead of allowing yourself to then say "unwarranted" and "bias" after the discussion closed with inactivity and a WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS. It's almost as if you brought yourself to act like this intentionally, which is really unsettling when such conduct is coming from an administrator. Any further personal comments you want to make about me can be made on my talk page. This closed discussion is not a place to rant about me. Rexophile (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

This isn't about you. It's about the close of the discussion and therefore belongs here. DrKay (talk) 22:12, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Estar8806's vote does not really count as oppose given that he also said "the proposed image is perfectly acceptable". But I would not be opposed to a proper WP:RfC to settle this. Uninvolved users can help choose between the photograph and the painting. Keivan.f^Talk 17:42, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I intended to reply here with the same thing- my comments should really be counted as me being firmly against but more so as weakly against change, but, in agreement with MSincccc, if other users agree the proposed image is fine. I do, however, agree with DrKay that this was a, good-faith, biased close, particularly considering the discussion wasn't open for a full week (even though its not a formal RfC, I still think leaving a discussion open for at least week is good practice). estar8806 (talk) ★ 21:10, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

In any case, it should not be allowed to change to a very old historical photo, though justified, while erasing the beautiful former lead image entirely from the article. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

The charm of the old lead painting can be added in her later life section. Rexophile (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Should have been when the change was made. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:48, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

A technical request to move this page back to Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother has been submitted. There was very little, if any, consensus on this matter. Rexophile (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

I removed your technical request, copying my edit summary from there: "User:Rexophile, this is not the correct place to contest RM closes, that would be the closer's talk page and then WP:MRV" HurricaneZeta^C 19:34, 20 January 2026 (UTC)