Talk:Queen Camilla/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Title

Every time I try and add "Princess of Wales" into her title, OR "Princess Charles", it is removed? She IS the princess of Wales, even though it's not used. The wife of the Prince of Wales is the Princess of Wales - is it not? Furthermore, look at the titles of all the wives in the British Royal Family, for example The Duchess of Kent's full title is "Her Royal Highness Princess Edward George Nicholas Paul Patrick, Duchess of Kent, Countess of Saint Andrews and Baroness Downpatrick, Dame Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order." If we need proof of this, then surely we should go through and remove "HRH Princess [husbands name] from all the royal wives in the family? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.209.48 (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

It isn't that simple. You're trying to insert "The Princess Charles Philip Arthur George" but Princess Michael of Kent isn't "Princess Michael George Charles Franklin". Wallis Simpson married Prince Edward, but she wasn't "The Princess Edward Christian Albert George Andrew Patrick David". Alice Montagu-Douglas-Scott married Prince George, but she was "Princess Alice" not "Princess George Edward Alexander Edmund". The powers that be ruled in 1937 that royal titles and style were not automatically taken by wives; they are part of the royal prerogative. The precedent of Princess Alice demonstrates that the Queen is able to determine personal styles when she chooses to do so. You need a source saying her official name is "The Princess Charles Philip Arthur George". Until then, we should follow the Wikipedia:No original research policy. DrKiernan (talk) 16:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The last time I checked, Princess Michael of Kent did hold the full title of Princess Michael George Charles Franklin. It has since been changed. In regard to Wallis Simpson: in order to inherit the full feminine form of your husbands style and rank, you must first be granted the title "royal highness." Wallis was denied this style, and as such, could not be named "Princess Edward Christian Albert George", because in order to be a princess, you must be styled HRH. The Duchess of Cambridge is Princess William. The Countess of Wessex is Princess Edward. None of these have official sources, but it's automatically assumed. During her marriage, Princess Alice WOULD have been titled "Princess George Edward Alexander Edmund" because at the time she was a Duchess and not a Princess. It wasn't until her husbands death she requested from her niece, Queen Elizabeth II, to be titled "HRH Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester" instead of "HRH the Dowager Duchess of Gloucester." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.209.48 (talk) 01:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the unnamed commenter here. The title "Princess [husband's name]" is standard for British princesses. The "official titles" section should also mention the fact that she holds the title Princess of Wales, despite choosing not to go by that title. Akwdb (talk) 03:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I have continually tried to change it and every time I do so it is reverted -- I have no idea why. It appears as though whomever is changing the title is adamant that Camilla is NOT the Princess of Wales (even though the WIFE of the PRINCE OF WALES is automatically the Princess). Furthermore, he is adamant she is not Princess Charles, despite the fact that ALL royal wives automatically becomes Princess [husband's name] upon their marriage. I think it is being based of Wallis Simpson when she married Prince Edward. Wallace was denied the use of the style "Her Royal Highness" and as such could not be titled Princess Edward, because all princesses are entitled to the use of the style HRH.

Your point has no content. Under normal circumstances, we would expect Charles's wife to be known publicly as the Princess of Wales. No argument there. But for reasons we all know about, Camilla is not so known. And that really is the bottom line.

Now, if it were considered desirable some time down the track, things might change and she might assume the full title to which she is technically entitled. When and if that happens, then she'll be referred to as the Princess of Wales. Until then, she is referred to as the Duchess of Cornwall. Insisting on calling her Princess of Wales now, flies in the face of the decision she and Charles have made NOT to use that name.

Did you know that the Queen is technically the Duchess of Edinburgh? The title of Queen certainly outranks that, but it does not subsume it, nor has it merged in the Crown. The Queen could choose to be known as Queen Elizabeth II, Duchess of Edinburgh. But she doesn't, and we all respect that decision. The Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall thing is no different. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

It is only my wish that the Princess of Wales and Princess [husband's name] be added to her FULL title. Of course the Queen is still the Duchess of Edinburgh! However, since she is Queen, that title outranks a Duchess, and as such there is no need to mention such a title. I am not asking for her name to be changed to Camilla, Princess of Wales. I am simply stating that her full title includes Princess of Wales and Princess Charles, but the article does not include these titles in the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.83.90 (talk) 00:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

There is a difference between TITLE and STYLE. A person’s TITLE is what their full title is, whereas their STYLE is what they are known by (usually the highest title).

Prince Charles’ TITLE is “HRH Prince Charles, Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew”. However, his STYLE (what he goes by) is simply “HRH The Prince of Wales”.

As Charles’ wife, Camilla is entitled to the female equivalents of all of his titles. Her proper TITLE is “HRH Princess Charles, Princess of Wales and Countess of Chester, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay, Countess of Carrick, Baroness of Renfrew”. However, her STYLE (what she goes by) is simple “HRH The Duchess of Cornwall”.

The fact that Camilla does not use the STYLE “Princess of Wales” does not mean that she does not hold that TITLE through her marriage to the Prince of Wales. Those editors who chose to remove “Princess of Wales” from her title do not know what they are doing, as is evidenced by the fact that they choose to include “Countess of Chester” even though one cannot be Countess of Chester without also being Princess of Wales (those two titles have been inseparable since the 14th century). Sg647112c (talk) 13:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I think we should clarify the issue by naming her full set of titles (including Ps. of Wales)under the list of styles. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Sources

We can't use the Daily Record or the Daily Mail on an article on a living person. --John (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Clarifications Needed

The article states that Charles and Camilla have had "a controversial relationship." Well, yes, adultery and fornication have been, and for many people, still are, controversial relationships. Is there any reason why the article has to sidestep these issues?

The article further notes that if Charles becomes King, she is expected to become "princess consort" and not "queen." A further discussion of this point is required, including the fact that the British typically do not recognize morganatic marriage for its royals, and that, at least until now, the wife of the King is automatically the Queen. Indeed, in 1936, King Edward VIII proposed that he and Wallis Simpson enter into a morganatic marriage, but that was rejected. Allowing a morganatic marriage, moreover, would require consent of all the dominions, pursuant to the Statute of Westminster 1931.John Paul Parks (talk) 14:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The relationship (dating and later affair) is talked about in the Relationship with the Prince section. I don't see any sidestepping in the article. Also it has been clarified by the note as its source. If you are talking about writing that in the lead, you can but it has to be neutral...their relationship is surrounded by many rumors and we only know by reading books and other sources...most of these information are taken from the book Charles and Camilla: portrait of a love affair by Gyles Brandreth, which has been credited as an appropriate and reliable biography on the couple.

Many other editors too have expressed their issue on the what title she will use when the prince is crowned, and no changes have been made so far....I will suggest you write about the entire title controversy under the titles section and add reliable sources, and also you can reword the lead on that too. (Monkelese (talk) 17:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The article says "When the Prince of Wales ascends the throne...". Clearly it should be "If the Prince of Wales ascends the throne..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.208.169.209 (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Unless there is a law change, she will automatically become Queen (when Charles takes the throne), even if, as expected, she is styled as "Princess Consort" and not as "Queen" or "Queen Consort"- just as she is now the Princess of Wales, even though she is not styled as such.

Image

we discussed this a while back, where you claim the other picture was blurry which is why it should not be increased, pictures on Wikipedia are enlarged all the time, especially a nice picture, and this pic you agreed it's fine, so now your eye hurts..it's not about you, no one has complained about this image being big, please stop making this an argument, its unnecessary, also why are you screaming, why do you sound so angry over a picture on an article which you are not a main contributor? (Monkelese (talk) 18:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I also said: "It's even worse in infoboxes, as it usually makes them look heavy and unwieldy." If you believe that there is something wrong with default width, please take it to WP:WikiProject Infoboxes. Pictures are enlarged only when necessary. See GA such as Marie of Romania or FA such as Alexandra of Denmark. No images there are enlarged. The lead image is sometimes enlarged when the article contains no infobox, but this one does have an infobox. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images: "As a general rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed size than the 220px default (users can adjust this in their preferences). If an exception to the general rule is warranted, forcing an image size to be either larger or smaller than the 220px default is done by placing a parameter in the image coding." So, why is an exception to the general rule warranted? Surtsicna (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Again why is this image of an article you barely contribute to bother you so much, i know the image rules, let me try to remember you, the previous one you said was too blurry, not good, now this you have your reason. also the rules, it says an image which was cropped, can be enlarged, which this one was. This seems to bother you only, if there was a problem with it being enlarged, i would have been told long ago about it. I will keep reverting it and i'm sure you know what will happen to both of us.(Monkelese (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC))

There is no reason why this image needs to be enlarged from the default size. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm certain that no-one has mentioned it previously because it's very trivial and it's only been in place for less than a month [1]. Surtsicna has explained why the default is fine, but there is no explanation as to why the image should be forced to be wider. Consequently, it would seem more reasonable to adopt the default as that is backed by a rationale whereas the alternative is not. DrKiernan (talk) 19:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

this image was cropped, it looks much more presentable with a little size, what I added is not much that should be such a problem (Monkelese (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

By that standard, every photo would look more presentable with a little size. If this is your criteria, please revert your last edit. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I have to say that new lead image is super! Thanks, Surtsicna. DrKiernan (talk) 17:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

"acknowledged their transgressions???"

The writer of the article on Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, shows the usual illiteracy regarding the worship-traditions of the Anglican Communion. This particular nonsensical, somewhat "sensational" little comment came from one of the networks, I'm sure, as they are also notoriously ill-informed on religious practices. Specifically "service of blessing, which included acknowledgement of their transgressions and repentance.[91]" The "General Confession" is a part of EVERY Anglican service and was NOT specific to the relationship of the Prince of Wales and the Duchess. Somebody picked up on this and thought it was the couple doing penance of some kind for the adulterous nature of their relationship. Whoever posted this article really should have done their homework a little better.. from a WELL-WRITTEN article about Anglican worship: http://www.myhenrycounty.com/anglicans.php

Anglican General Confession

The Anglican Communion, which includes the Church of England, The Episcopal Church (in the United States) and other member churches, has its own act of contrition, referred to in the Prayer Book as the General Confession. This is said by the Congregation en masse during regular worship services. The original form in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer is:

ALMIGHTY and most merciful Father; We have erred, and strayed from thy ways like lost sheep. We have followed too much the devices and desires of our own hearts. We have offended against thy holy laws. We have left undone those things which we ought to have done; And we have done those things which we ought not to have done; And there is no health in us. But thou, O Lord, have mercy upon us, miserable offenders. Spare thou them, O God, who confess their faults. Restore thou those who are penitent; According to thy promises declared unto mankind in Christ Jesus our Lord. And grant, O most merciful Father, for his sake; That we may hereafter live a godly, righteous, and sober life, To the glory of thy holy Name. Amen.

Modernized forms can be found in other Anglican Prayer Books."

17:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC) Nancy Kenfield-Lea — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.247.43 (talk)

there are other writers, don't know who you're putting all the blame on, this part was added by a writer and it seems there is no source. This information will be removed since there is no reliable source for it. (Monkelese (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessary changes

Childhood and young adulthood section education and career obviously consists of both of it..she went to school from her childhood to her young adulthood. She had a career in her young adulthood...no changes needed or new section is necessary. If you would like you can add education to the section title. I also don't understand by what you mean her career in 2005, I said her friend Virginia Carrington who was her roommate became an aide to her and Charles, it has to do with Carrington, not Camilla..read.

Second marriage section look at the first marriage section, it starts with her wedding, then married life and children and divorce. Second marriage section is obviously about her engagement and wedding, no married life added, that sub section should remain, no need to remove it.

Again making this an argument is unnecessary, it has remain since I edited the page and should remain, don't start an edit war for a stupid reason (Monkelese (talk) 23:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Monkelese: I really respect your edits on this article but I believe that you think you own this article or any other article you have created and when someone edits them you become angry. That's my feeling. I also don't want to get to an edit war with you. Actually you undid my explained edits and called them unnecessary changes and said that those sections should remain the shapes they have now, but I don't think like this.

Early life: First of all I agree that I made a mistake when reading this section as you said above. Anyway, when we talk about early life we mean childhood, and as you said young adulthood, her career or education. First I thought that we can have two separate sections one for her early life and one for her education and career. Now I think we can have both of them under the main title "early life". But I believe using the title "Childhood and young adulthood" is silly because every person on this earth knows what an early life section consists. See Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, Sarah, Duchess of York and Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother.

Second marriage: I think just second marriage is enough. Marriage sections just contain information about engagement and wedding or maybe children. Take a look at the Queen Mother's article. I think the period that she was the Duchess of York or Queen Consort were also parts of her married life. Camilla and other British princesses are not exceptions. When the married life of a person is notable, then it will be divided to different parts. As you have completely explained how Charles and Camilla got to know each other and how their relationship started so nothing remains to be added to their marriage section. As with many other royal articles the marriage section obviously has information about the wedding. So I think we can remove that "engagement and wedding". Keivan.f^Talk 06:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

It's current edit is fine..it should stay and no discussion further needed (Monkelese (talk) 01:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@Monkelese: As you can see DrKiernan also supported the idea of changing those sections' titles. I also think that nothing is left to be discussed. But let me tell you something, there's no "should" here. Everything can change by everyone. Be happy. Keivan.f^Talk 06:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@Monkelese: I also like the title "childhood and young adulthood". It's better than early life. Keivan.f^Talk 06:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

It is not necessary to have a third-level heading when it merely repeats the second-level heading. Third-level headings are used to create sub-sections within a section but here we have only one section, rendering the third-level heading redundant to the second-level one (or in other words the sub-section and the section are the same). The section covering her life before her first marriage could be split into more than one section, or sub-section, or re-titled, but having a single sub-section within a section (i.e. a third-level heading immediately below a second-level heading and no other third-level headings in that section) unnecessarily balloons the table of contents without any gain in ease of navigation or understanding. DrKiernan (talk) 12:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Minor issue of capitalization

"Although she will legally become Queen if Prince Charles becomes king..." I know for sure that Prince is capitalized in this sentence, as it is attached to "Charles". "Queen" and "king" are capitalized differently here, though it seems as though their usage is the same. I simply don't know the rule about these titles if not attached to proper names. If someone with a clue knows for sure, it's an easy fix. 69.142.70.108 (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120415013717/http://www.royal.gov.uk:80/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/TheDuchessofCornwall/StyleandTitles.aspx to http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/TheDuchessofCornwall/StyleandTitles.aspx
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120411153349/http://www.royal.gov.uk:80/LatestNewsandDiary/Pressreleases/2012/TheDuchessofCornwallRoyalVictorianOrder.aspx to http://www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDiary/Pressreleases/2012/TheDuchessofCornwallRoyalVictorianOrder.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Future Page Title

I do not expect this to become a serious issue for some years, but how will this page be titled in the future as Charles's parents die?

If we assume that Prince Philip (being the elder of the couple) dies first, might this page be retitled Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall and Edinburgh?

Further, when Her Majesty perishes would we know how to proceed? I assume that Charles, Prince of Wales would swiftly be moved to either Charles III of the United Kingdom or George VII of the United Kingdom, depending on his final decision as to a regnal name, but this still leaves open Camilla's position. If they go ahead with what has so far been suggested then it would presumably be Camilla, Princess Consort but if that charade is dropped would she be Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom or else Camilla, Queen of the United Kingdom?. I know that for many consorts we traditionally revert to maiden names for historical records (Catherine of Aragon, Jane Seymour, Mary of Teck, Camilla Parker-Bowles) but I'm not sure that it would be appropriate to do this while the person is still alive and incumbent.
Robin S. Taylor (talk) 12:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

OverRepeated Words

I feel like there is too much use of "Official Visits". Could someone just fix that use of Official. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrevorCasey (talk • contribs) 18:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

thanks for pointing it out, I fixed it. (Monkelese (talk) 22:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130323061206/http://www.huffingtonpost.com:80/2010/12/09/prince-charles-and-camill_n_794574.html to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/09/prince-charles-and-camill_n_794574.html#s203450
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150724035826/http://www.southampton.ac.uk/mediacentre/news/2012/dec/12_219.shtml to http://www.southampton.ac.uk/mediacentre/news/2012/dec/12_219.shtml
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140808060923/http://www.northernireland.gov.uk/news-dhssps-250613-northern-irelands-first to http://www.northernireland.gov.uk/news-dhssps-250613-northern-irelands-first
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131003163453/http://www.thebrooke.org/about-us/our-patrons-and-ambassadors/our-president-hrh-the-duchess-of-cornwall to http://www.thebrooke.org/about-us/our-patrons-and-ambassadors/our-president-hrh-the-duchess-of-cornwall

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131019123945/http://www.rcht.nhs.uk/RoyalCornwallHospitalsTrust/OurOrganisation/NewsAndPublications/Publications/AnnualReports/AnnualReport0708/FitterFuture/ResearchAndDevelopment/RoyalPatronageForOsteoporosisCentre.aspx to http://www.rcht.nhs.uk/RoyalCornwallHospitalsTrust/OurOrganisation/NewsAndPublications/Publications/AnnualReports/AnnualReport0708/FitterFuture/ResearchAndDevelopment/RoyalPatronageForOsteoporosisCentre.aspx
• Added archive https://archive.is/20150315172520/http://www.hrh-princeofwales.com/uk/focus/rape-and-sexual-abuse.html to http://www.hrh-princeofwales.com/uk/focus/rape-and-sexual-abuse.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130113044824/http://marriage.about.com/od/royalty/p/princecharles.htm to http://marriage.about.com/od/royalty/p/princecharles.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

She declared her preference for the style of Princess Consort

What is the legal status of the Clarence House statement on the day of her marriage to Charles? Does the style "Princess Consort", in the context of her husband being King, have any legal standing? Can she choose to refuse the style of "Queen Consort"? May she legally do so? Is it not her legal style whether she chooses to use it or not? If so, then should the sentence not indicate that this is a personal preference of Camilla's as opposed to having any legal requirement? Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

If sources say it is her choice, then the article may say so, citing those sources. If they do not, it may not. DrKay (talk) 10:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any sources for any of the titles mentioned in the article. Maybe they're all spurious. Should I take them all down until I find a source for them? Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

The sources are in the appropriate section. Per WP:CITELEAD, sources are not necessary in the lead when the material is sourced in the article body. DrKay (talk) 15:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

There is no citation for the Clarence House declaration. The source only refers to her usage of the Duchess title. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I have been here long enough to know when it is fruitless to discuss a point. When someone is determined to be difficult, no amount of argument will change their mind. If you think that citation 218 (the official statement from Clarence House) is not sufficient to support the claims in the article "an official statement issued by Clarence House" and "Clarence House stated", then it is really not difficult to find secondary alternatives: "Camilla will not be known as Queen Camilla but as the Princess Consort, Clarence House added", which you would have done if you were actually interested in citing the article rather than simply arguing about it. I'm done here. DrKay (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Can anybody assist me in finding sources that might answer these questions: What is the legal status of the Clarence House statement on the day of her marriage to Charles? Does the style "Princess Consort", in the context of her husband being King, have any legal standing? Can she choose to refuse the style of "Queen Consort"? May she legally do so? Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

What law dictates that she should be queen? Surtsicna (talk) 12:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Are you implying that it is a matter of her personal preference whether or not she takes certain titles? Do you have a source to say that she may do so? Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not implying anything. You ask whether she can legally choose not to be queen, which presumes a law stating that she should be queen. Does such a law exist? As far as I know, it does not. While the Constitution of Spain specifies that the king's wife is called queen, the (uncodified) British constitution does not. If she does not assume the feminine form of her husband's highest title upon his accession, she will be in the same position in which she is now - entitled to it by a millennium-old custom and practice (common law?) but downgraded by personal choice. Such a choice would be no more (and no less) illegal than her choice not to be known as Princess of Wales. Surtsicna (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

You mention three sources of Law in the UK: 1. statute law ("Does such a law exist?); 2. Common Law; 3. Constitutional law. You mention in the case of Spain that it is specified (written). While the constitution in the UK is not entirely written (uncodified), that does not mean that there is no such thing as Constitutional law. Many royal powers derive from this source. While it may not be conveniently written down (as in a statute), that does not mean that it does not exist. So I think that we can take it that the wife of a King, unless explicitly debarred in a statute, may expect to hold the title of Queen. Is this seriously in doubt by @DrKay: or @Surtsicna:. If not, then the discussion can move forward. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

There appears to be no dissenting voices to what I wrote immediately above. Since silence assumes consent, I'll try to move the debate forward. So, given that in British constitutional law that the wife of a king is entitled to hold the title of Queen, does anybody know of any law (from any of the 3 sources), by which the wife of a king may, at her choosing or the choosing of the king, refuse the title of Queen? While the King may confer titles, is he also empowered to refuse titles, even ones that are constitutionally given? Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

As this page has failed to attract quantities of editors to help, I'll make an appeal elsewhere for help. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@Laurel Lodged: At the very instant of the Queen's death, Camilla would be queen, simply because wives of kings have always been queens. Such customs are, legally speaking, as good as law. Acts of Parliament would be needed in all 16 Commonwealth Realms to deny her legal status as queen. What Sir Michael Peat, Charles's then Private Secretary, suggested in 2005 is that a lower title of Princess Consort may be invented and used by Camilla on an everyday basis if Charles becomes king. However, she would still have the title and status of a queen. FWIW, I don't think it will happen, as people would see it for what it was: a queen pretending to be a princess. Firebrace (talk) 17:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Please note that Clarence House has removed the princess consort information from its website, suggesting that Camilla will be styled as queen. CookieMonster755✉ 23:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Intro or Infobox

Should Princess of Wales be in either the intro or infobox? She does have that title, regardless of its lack of public usage. GoodDay (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Since she is technically Princess of Wales, but choses instead to use a lesser title as Duchess of Cornwall, I think mentioning it in the lead is understandable. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I think it should remain in the second sentence of the lead and linked through the 'more' link in the infobox but shouldn't be expanded beyond that. It's worth mentioning but because it's not in use, it's not of sufficient weight to give it more prominence. The current coverage seem about the right weight. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Lead has been rewritten to keep it neutral

Again I don't see the point of before, during and after should be in the lead. A third opinion will be appreciated. (Monkelese (talk) 12:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC))

The rewrite is poor because by introducing the marriage before the relationship, it's back-to-front and reads as if the publicity came after the marriage. 'It formalised in' is also atrocious grammar. No native speaker ever says that. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. I guess it should be kept as it was. (Monkelese (talk) 12:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC))

Mistress?

There's a little edit war going on regarding whether to include the Category:Mistresses of British royalty for Camilla. I (and the IP editor editor trying to add it) think it should be, it being very publicly known that she was precisely that while Charles was married to Diana. User:Monkelese disagrees, saying that now she is married to him that category doesn't apply. I can't see how getting married obliterates history. HiLo48 (talk) 01:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Of course, the old saying is that when a man marries his mistress, he creates a vacancy. - Nunh-huh 02:32, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I assume all women who have an affair should have one under theirs too, Queen Anne boleyn and jane seymour also had affair with Henry when he was married, very well known too, again this is his wife, Diana has nothing to do with this, if he was still married to her and not Camilla or if he never married Camilla then i agree, but unfortunately i don't since she's his wife. (Monkelese (talk) 04:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The point simply is that Camilla WAS his mistress. Eventually marrying him doesn't change that fact. But removing the category hides it. Why would you want to do that? HiLo48 (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

she's not part of that category now that she's his wife as two past queens Anne boleyn and Jane Seymour. We all know they had an affair, it says so in the article, no one is hiding that but putting her in a mistress category when she' his wife of 13 years and eventual queen consort does not sound neutral. Let's keep that category out, again shes introduced in the lead as a his wife not a mistress. (Monkelese (talk) 04:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I believe facts are neutral. You want to hide one. That's not neutral. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS says Anne Boleyn and Jane Seymour are irrelevant to this discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 04:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

This is not a Diana fan page, IP editor sounded like one, they had affair which says it in the article, i dont see any hiding in that. unfortunately she's his WIFE, not a mistress so you can't categorize her as a mistress which doesn't sound neutral, being in the category of something is when you are in it, she's not, this is The Prince of Wales wife for 13 years now. (Monkelese (talk) 04:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm. Is that REALLY the way categories work? Seems a pretty selective definition. I don't believe it's correct. There is nothing non-neutral about it. And I don't know why YOU keep bringing Diana into this. HiLo48 (talk) 05:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Because the IP editor brought Diana into it, Diana is not his wife Camilla is, as i said if there was no marriage between Charles and Camilla then she belongs in that category, unfortunately she's married to him. you cant categorized someone as a mistress when she's his wife, past or not. (Monkelese (talk) 05:07, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Let's forget Diana, eh? Camilla WAS Charles' mistress. She isn't now. Do categories never include things that happened in the past? Of course they do. Categories have to cover things that happened in the past. HiLo48 (talk) 05:24, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Diana is not his wife anymore Camilla is and has been for many years, as an editor of this article for many years which you are not, this article is about the second wife of the Prince of Wales, not his mistress, i don't see why you are so determine to put in her in the class of a mistress when she's his wife and doesn't apply, doesn't sound neutral. Hopefully this conversation ends here, have a good day. (Monkelese (talk) 05:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I say simple facts are neutral. You say they aren't. I disagree, and cannot comprehend your position. HiLo48 (talk) 06:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

sigh, the article says they had an affair, thats the fact, doesn't say any mistress in it, the woman is his wife and should not be categorize as anything lower. Goodbye. (Monkelese (talk) 06:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah, maybe we're seeing a real reason for your position at last. What do you mean by "lower"? HiLo48 (talk) 06:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Real reason, I will say it again, she's is his WIFE and should not be in that category, that is fact. (Monkelese (talk) 06:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Let's get some logic into this. It is factual to say she is his wife, but it is not factual to say she should not be in that category. The latter is an opinion. One that I and others disagree with. We have given reasons. HiLo48 (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Anne Boleyn and Jane Seymour were not mistresses. It isn't "well-known" that they were at all. As Anne's article makes clear, the evidence is that both refused to become mistresses. Camilla was Charles's mistress, she is now his wife. Like Wallis Simpson, she should be in both mistress and married categories. Monkelese's argument is like "Barack Obama is no longer President of the United States, so he should be removed from that category". DrKay (talk) 06:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

whether or not they refused, Henry left each wife to be with the other, that makes them one, Anne boleyn in her day was seen as one, it as only changed now. you can categorize Camilla as one, she's his wife and will be known as the Kings wife in history just like boleyn and Seymour. The category on this article wont change it. I wont argue. (Monkelese (talk) 07:10, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

You're quite right. Adding that category to the article won't change Camilla's status as Charles' wife. And I think that again demonstrates something about your view here. You seem concerned that doing so would somehow be a negative. Wikipedia doesn't make judgements on such things. It simply documents reality. HiLo48 (talk) 08:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. FactStraight (talk) 12:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Reason for not marrying Charles

"Some sources suggest Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother did not approve of the marriage because she wanted Charles to marry one of the Spencer family granddaughters of her close friend, Lady Fermoy."

That is UTTER nonsense. In fact, Princess Diana's father, the then Viscount Althorp, eventually won a bitter custody battle over his children, because his mother-in-law, Ruth Lady Fermoy, lady-in-waiting to Her Majesty the Queen Mother, testified against her own daughter. Lady Fermoy later disclosed that she had strong reservations against the Prince of Wales marrying her granddaughter, but didn't dare to speak out.

Those "some sources" are "Lilibet: An Intimate Portrait of Elizabeth II" by one Carolly Erickson. The maudlin title alone ought to cause suspicion in any discerning reader.

--92.208.143.75 (talk) 12:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Will she be QUEEN?

The article currently states that she will be queen consort, citing a Guardian piece.

She will legally become queen consort, in accordance with English common law,[222] (www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/16/what-happens-when-queen-elizabeth-dies-london-bridge) under Titles, styles, honours and arms

BUT that Guardian piece actually says this:

Since she married Charles in 2005, Camilla has been officially known as Princess Consort, a formulation that has no historical or legal meaning. (“It’s bullshit,” one former courtier told me, describing it as “a sop to Diana”.) The fiction will end when Elizabeth II dies. Under common law, Camilla will become queen — the title always given to the wives of kings. There is no alternative. “She is queen whatever she is called,” as one scholar put it. “If she is called Princess Consort there is an implication that she is not quite up to it. It’s a problem.” There are plans to clarify this situation before the Queen dies, but King Charles is currently expected to introduce Queen Camilla at his Accession Council on D+1. (Camilla was invited to join the Privy Council last June, so she will be present.) Confirmation of her title will form part of the first tumultuous 24 hours. www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/16/what-happens-when-queen-elizabeth-dies-london-bridge

So, IMHO, that citation is not suitable.

This would be a better source if in fact we agree that she will be "queen consort": https://www.theweek.co.uk/91149/will-camilla-and-kate-ever-be-queen The article quotes Oxford University Professor of Public Law Pavlos Eleftheriadis: "the wife of a head of state is not a joint head of state, however. The sovereign reigns on his or her own. In that sense Camilla will be a 'Queen' in the limited legal sense of being the wife of the sovereign"

This topic is especially important now, since the Daily Express has published, at least twice, articles with a headline such as this one: Camilla WILL be Queen despite backlash because ‘monarchy is NOT a popularity contest!' 2 January 2019. Granted, the article later quotes an expert: "His wife will become Queen Consort, formally established by precedent". https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1065973/camilla-queen-camilla-duchess-of-cornwall-title-prince-charles-royal-family-news It was also published by The Sun. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7973528/camilla-queen-prince-charles-king-princess-consort-nonsense/

I propose to delete the Guardian citation (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/16/what-happens-when-queen-elizabeth-dies-london-bridge) because that article clearly says she will be "queen", not "queen consort" as the Wikipedia article states. We should than add a new citation, such as the article from The Week, quoting Oxford University law professor Pavlos Eleftheriadis, who is also a peer, as saying she will be "queen consort". OR https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a24594447/when-prince-charles-becomes-king-camilla-queen-consort/ OR https://www.ibtimes.com/camilla-parker-bowles-will-be-queen-consort-when-prince-charles-reigns-no-question-2738063 All confirm that Camilla will be "queen consort".

Peter K Burian (talk) 14:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

You can add the other reference to the Guardian one on the article (Monkelese (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I am doing so because the Guardian citation claims she will be queen. These two confirm she will be queen consort. Peter K Burian (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

You're confusing me. Above you said "...she will be "queen", not "queen consort" as the Wikipedia article states ...", but now you're saying she will be queen consort. Anyway, nobody has ever doubted she will be queen consort at law (as distinct from queen regnant), just that there's this position that she will not be called that. Both queens regnant and queens consort are called "Queen [name]". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, Jack of Oz Yes, I quoted some articles in Talk, from tabloids that say she will be queen, in order to indicate that this is becoming an issue in the media.

I then mentioned articles from reliable news sources, who quoted experts, and confirmed she will be queen consort. The edit I made to the actual article makes that very clear and includes the two citations to sources that confirm that. Peter K Burian (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

When/if Charles becomes king, Camilla will become queen consort. The rest is just stuff for selling tabloid papers. GoodDay (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed and a surprising number of them are hyping the Queen aspect. My question: Was Prince Philip ever considered to be a king? ... So why would Camilla have a greater role than consort? Peter K Burian (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

A queen consort is a queen. If Camilla becomes a queen consort, she will be a queen. Now, the issue here is that the Clarence House said Cailla would be a princess consort, not that she might be. We are reporting that, and we could also report more recent opinions. Surtsicna (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

She is no more a queen than Philip is a king, in my view; it's just honorary.

See https://www.theweek.co.uk/91149/will-camilla-and-kate-ever-be-queen The article quotes Oxford University Professor of Public Law Pavlos Eleftheriadis: "the wife of a head of state is not a joint head of state, however. The sovereign reigns on his or her own. In that sense Camilla will be a 'Queen' in the limited legal sense of being the wife of the sovereign" Peter K Burian (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

We are not discussing views here. In the UK, a woman is entitled by common law to share her husband's title and rank. Philip is not a king and nobody has argued otherwise. George VI's wife was a queen and nobody has ever questioned it. The present wording is correct. Surtsicna (talk) 00:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

If Charles or Camilla pass before Elizabeth II or if Charles & Camilla divorce before Elizabeth II passes on? it'll be a moot topic. GoodDay (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

One need not be a UK citizen to understand its common law and traditions. Just as many Brits contribute to Wikipedia articles on Canada because they are well-read and do their research, I feel I am capable of doing so on articles about the UK. I did not imply there was anything wrong with the current wording; in fact, I recommended it and provided two citations to confirm it. Peter K Burian (talk) 02:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Seriously?

Sophie will get duchess of Edinburgh not the duchess of Cornwall... FTWDragon (talk) 11:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what is this pertaining to? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:58, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Duchess of Cornwall in 2014 (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• TheDuchessMay2015.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

New Zealand

Royal visit to New Zealand day 4--Johnsoniensis (talk) 13:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protection needed

As she is the next Queen consort, this page could be at risk of severe vandalism at any moment. Considering the animosity towards her because of known history with Diana, Princess of Wales. Royaleditorviii (talk) 10:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

New Titles

This source mentions that all the titles of the late Prince Philip have been passed on to his eldest son, the Prince of Wales. So, according to that, Camilla will now have new titles, i.e., the feminine form of the titles that have been passed on to Prince Charles. If so, please add them in the article. Peter Ormond (talk) 17:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Peter Ormond I fully agree, one editor seems intent on keeping it off this particular article though, citing "not given in the source" but doesn't give the same argument on any other articles where it's mentioned. It's comical to see on my watch page constantly. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 01:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I did try putting in some cited content[2], like I did at other articles[3], but was told that I didn't read it properly and was just plain ignorant. DrKay (talk) 12:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

References

RfC about the photo in the infobox

There is a clear consensus to use the 2017 image because it is of higher quality.

Cunard (talk) 08:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

---

Which of these two images is more appropriate for the lead section? Although the one to the right is more recent, its quality is far worse compared to the one to the left, yet when I changed the lead photo to the one that was taken in 2017, a user opposed my decision, arguing that the 2019 photo was more 'presentable' and 'recent' so I decided to take it to the talk page. Keivan.f^Talk 04:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Infobox image

• 
  Taken in 2017
• 
  Taken in 2019

• I choose the 2019 picture, quality of the picture is fine, it might not be a closer shot of the 2017 one but it looks fine and it is newer. (Monkelese15 (talk) 05:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
• The better picture is the better picture. The subject is 72; she has not changed significantly since she was 70. Surtsicna (talk) 09:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
• Use the 2017 image, as it's better quality. The 2019 image is too blurry. GoodDay (talk) 13:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
• 2017 Image Its of higher quality. ~ HAL333 03:48, 31 January 2020 (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.

A comment now that "The Crown" has made this subject one of popular interest I think that Wikipedia should chose as a lead image one that is flattering. The image chosen is like one which would be chosen in a US political ad to make the opponent look bad.--Hfarmer (talk) 03:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Hfarmer: Why is that though? She's well-dressed and standing in front of the UK flag. And it was taken within the past three years which makes it recent. I wasn't able to locate any recent photos with high quality in the Commons. You might as well take a look and share the available options with us. Keivan.f^Talk 08:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

This image, taken in 2018, has a higher resolution than both of the above images. Can it be used as the lead image? Peter Ormond (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The brightness is very high, which makes it a poorer choice in my eyes. DrKay (talk) 22:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I have adjusted the brightness. There shouldn't be any issue now. Peter Ormond 💬 13:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments

Please comment your thoughts at Talk:Wedding dress of Camilla Parker Bowles#Title. Peter Ormond 💬 07:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 September 2022

Camilla is Queen Consort, not Queen!!! 75.25.129.9 (talk) 02:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

She is styled as Her Majesty and is titled as The Queen Consort. This is not a place for personal opinions. cookie monster 755 02:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 September 2022 (2)

coronation: To be announced To Y: Bbraxtonlee (talk) 02:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: sorry, I didn’t know it would do this. Please italicize the “to be announced” after the coronation in infobox! :) Bbraxtonlee (talk) 02:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Keivan.f^Talk 02:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for picking up my slack. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

No problem. :) Keivan.f^Talk 02:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Lady of the Garter

I believe that Royal Ladies of the Order of the Garter are styled KG and not LG. See Princess Anne and Princess Alexandra 148.252.133.114 (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Anne is a Royal Knight and Alexandra is a Royal Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter. That's not the case for Camilla. Keivan.f^Talk 22:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Keivan.f The idea that Princess Alexandra is a Royal Knight Companion – and thus appends KG to her name – comes from a Debrett's article published at a time when the Princess Royal and Princess Alexandra were the only female royals in the Order. The Palace claims that Alexandra is a Lady Companion. The Sunday Times lists her as a Lady of the Garter. This College of St George Archives Blog lists her as a Lady of the Order. There are two possible answers to this: Debrett's was wrong to say Princess Alexandra is included with the Royal Knights Companion and she should append LG to her name and not KG (it is correct for Princess Anne as she specifically requested to be invested as a Royal Knight Companion), or all Royal Ladies are included with the Royal Knights, but are not the same, and append KG instead of LG.

The Duchess of Cornwall should be treated the same as Princess Alexandra (or vice-versa).OhDidgeridoo (talk) 23:29, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

@OhDidgeridoo: Good point. But, I don't think Debrett's has made a mistake regarding Alexandra's situation. I just checked her up to date biography on the Royal Family's website. The very last sentence on her biography reads as follows: "Princess Alexandra was created a Dame Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order (GCVO) in 1960, and made a Knight of the Order of the Garter (KG) in 2003." It specifically says that she was made a knight, and not a lady, similar to Princess Anne apparently. So it contradicts the Palace's earlier statement from 2003 when it said she was made a Lady Companion. Now with Camilla, she has been named a Lady of the Garter. I haven't been able to find a source that calls her a knight. Until then, her article should be left as it is, because anything else could be considered original research. We cannot simply assume that Anne or Alexandra's case automatically applies to all the other ladies without having a source to back it up. Additionally, I'll add a footnote to Alexandra's page regarding the Palace's contradictory statements about her knighthood. Keivan.f^Talk 02:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Royal Ladies of the Garter have the post nominals LG after their name. Royal Gentleman have KG. Heidi bradshaw (talk) 10:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

References

Regarding Archie and Lilibet as prince and princess

A discussion regarding the status of Archie and Lilibet as prince and princess has been started here. Thank you. cookie monster 755 21:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 September 2022

Consistency edit: The word "consort" should be removed from this part of the text so that it corresponds to the Wiki page about The Queen Mother which writes:

"Elizabeth Angela Marguerite Bowes-Lyon[b] (4 August 1900 – 30 March 2002) was Queen of the United Kingdom and the Dominions of the British Commonwealth from 11 December 1936 to 6 February 1952 as the wife of King George VI. 2003:C2:71D:7B00:30E9:30A5:BE2C:ED98 (talk) 22:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --N8_wilson 🔔 01:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I understand the reasons above but all the Queens Consorts (Mary, Alexandra, Elizabeth etc have all been styled HM The Queen. Camilla IS the Queen Consort but so was the Queen Mother and she was always entitled to be known as the Queen. I think the article is not consistent with other Queens Consorts who held exactly the same title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.28.194.217 (talk) 05:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

It's abundantly clear that she is referred to as Queen Consort simply to differentiate her from the late Queen Elizabeth II.

The statement released by the palace started by addressing "The Queen passed away" and then went on to state the King and the Queen Consort will remain at Balmoral. If they were to refer to Camilla as the Queen in the statement, it would cause confusion. I think people will be less likely to use Consort when they address Camilla when she is crowned alongside the King at the coronation. 81.140.89.191 (talk) 07:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure this is correct. There was huge historic sensitivity (basically because of Diana) about her being ‘Queen’. I think she is likely to always be referred to as Queen Consort as she was not his first wife, nor mother own the heir, and married him in later life. Her official title is also unlikely to change now it’s “formalised” on their royal site - i.e. it would be weird to change it next year following the coronation. BeaujolaisFortune (talk) 13:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I too beleive this as the reason why she is being refered to at Queen Consort now. Especially with so many people being antsy around her being known as queen anyway. In my opinion, we should distinguish Elizabeth, as Queen Regnant insted of the other way around, as historically, most queens have been consorts. The next two monarchs will be male (as it stands), so it will be some time before we see another queen regnant. Hopefully by then, people will understand the difference by then. I for one, think she should be known as Queen Camilla, but understand why the news and official outlets refer to her as consort. EmilySarah99 (talk) 03:28, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 September 2022 (3)

"consort" in the leading line should be capitalized: "Queen Consort" Leyendecker (talk) 20:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Matches current article title, and destination of link. See move discussion above. U-Mos (talk) 04:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk page archives

Yesterday I moved the talk page archives, to follow the change of title: Talk:Camilla, Queen Consort of the United Kingdom/Archive 1 through 5. As of yesterday the archive links showed up in the talk page header. Today, archive search works, but the five links aren't visible. The template appears to be configured correctly. Can anyone advise? Thanks, Storchy (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Done. Capitalisation of "consort" needed to be removed to match the current artcle title. U-Mos (talk) 04:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Ha! I missed the capitalisation change. You're hired. :-) Thanks. 06:42, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 September 2022

Camilla is the Queen; the term Queen Consort has no historical basis and has never been used before. Officially, she is Her Majesty The Queen, or Her Majesty Queen Camilla. 2A02:C7C:38B7:E500:2DEA:E0BA:7EDB:EF60 (talk) 01:28, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The official royal family website, which is maintained by the palace and therefore an authority on all things to do with their titles, refers to Camilla as Her Majesty the Queen Consort. King Charles, in his address to the nation yesterday, addressed Camilla as his Queen Consort. Until the palace start referring to Camilla simply as Her Majesty the Queen - then it is not down to us to decide what her title is or how she should be address; regardless of the precedent set by previous Queen Consorts in history. Watching the BBC news yesterday, the news reporter asked the royal correspondent how we should be referring to Camilla and whether "Queen Camilla" is appropriate. He said without a doubt that she is Queen Camilla however they currently need to differentiate her from Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Referring to Camilla as "The Queen" or "Her Majesty the Queen" would undoubtedly confuse the public who would believe they are referring to Her late Majesty. I believe that for now, they are referring to Camilla as "The Queen Consort" until Queen Elizabeth's death settles down, at which point the country will be more accustomed to referring to Camilla simple as The Queen. As part of the ceremony today at St James' Palace to officially declare Charles as King - Camilla signed the document as "Camilla R" which further signifies she is a Queen. So, unfortunately, whilst most of us know that Camilla should be referred to as Queen and not Queen Consort - we will have to wait for the palace to change how they refer to Camilla. For now, she is Queen Consort in how she is addressed. 81.140.89.191 (talk) 12:00, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See move discussion above. U-Mos (talk) 04:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

So the official website of the British monarchy has it wrong? SERIOUSLY?? I guess the royal family forgot to consult this Wikipedia:Talk page before giving her the title of Queen Consort, huh? Hagaland (talk) 17:51, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 September 2022

That the article title be changed from:

Camilla, Queen Consort of The United Kingdom

To:

Queen Camilla of The United Kingdom 49.186.215.92 (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:21, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Religion

The Wikipedia article states "Camilla remained an Anglican and did not convert to Roman Catholicism", but the Wikidata item claims both Catholicism and Church of England. Which is correct? Sincerely, Moldur (talk) 11:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The wording of that is ambiguous, and seems to say that there was pressure to convert to catholicisim (?). If she were currently a Catholic Charles would not be King. (I beleive that law was ammended after the King and Queen married). She may have been a Catholic in the past, which could explain this, but I am not well versed on her life, so that may be incorrect. EmilySarah99 (talk) 03:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Even if she was Catholic, Charles would still become king. Princes who married Catholics and were removed from the line of succession were put back in line once the law was amended. That's why Prince Michael of Kent is in the line of succession at the moment, whereas a few years ago he was not. Keivan.f^Talk 20:53, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 September 2022

In the Marriages and Children segment, it states "They had two children: Tom (born 18 December 1974), who is a godson of Prince Charles".

I believe this should read "They had two children: Tom (born 18 December 1974), who is a godson of King Charles" as Mr Parker Bowles is still, and currently, a godson of Charles. 194.78.163.162 (talk) 11:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done P M C 15:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

How to say ma'am

The article mentions, under style, "thereafter as Ma'am (pronounced /mæm/), with a short 'a' as in jam."

This is uncredited nonsense. There is no requirement to pronounce it any particular way. This should be removed from the article. 2604:3D09:C77:4E00:B4EA:910C:790D:28B3 (talk) 21:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Mmm...no. It is correct. There is also a reason for this. Sira Aspera (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

You do realize that there's a source attached to that sentence which will take you to the Royal Family's website, right? I guess you should take it with the royal household if you feel uncomfortable about their instructions. Keivan.f^Talk 20:57, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

On meeting Queen Elizabeth the second, I was briefed by the equerry, "the first time, you address her as 'Your Majesty' and thereafter as 'ma'am', to rhyme with 'jam'.". 86.181.0.154 (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Remove statement about ex-husband subsequent marriage from "First marriage" sub section

"A year later, Andrew Parker Bowles married Rosemary Pitman (who died in 2010)." - Please delete this line. It has nothing to do with Camilla, so it should not be in her BLP. It's info about Andrew Parker Bowles so it'll apply to his BLP. 119.18.1.17 (talk) 01:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

It's only one sentence about the fate of her ex-husband. I think we should say something about what happened after the divorce (though I wouldn't be opposed to removing the parenthetical comment about Pitman). DrKay (talk) 08:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 September 2022

Change ‘Camilla … is Queen consort of the United Kingdom…’ to ‘Camilla … is Queen of the United Kingdom…’ to align with other previous Queen Consorts of England and Britain who are not specifically mentioned as Queen consort. Marvin Clarence, Monarchist (talk) 04:20, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Already being heavily debated under the other talk topics. 119.18.1.17 (talk) 06:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Buckingham Palace isn’t the supreme authority on all royal titles. The law plays its part to.

A consort is the spouse of of monarch. because of English common law a woman takes he husbands status upon marriage. When Charles and Camilla married in 2005 she took on the female equivalent to all Prince Charles now King Charles III titles. Charles III is currently the King of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms so therefore Camilla is the female equivalent of that title been Queen of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms. King4852 (talk) 11:49, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Changes in lede following the death of Elizabeth II

The lede has been updated from:

As Duchess of Cornwall, Camilla carries out public engagements, ...

to

As queen, Camilla carries out public engagements, ...

I believe it is too early to state what Camilla's role will be as Queen (or Queen Consort, or whichever title we settle on). I believe, for now, it would be best to render this sentence into the past tense as:

As Duchess of Cornwall, Camilla carried out public engagements, ...

Thoughts? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

My concern is that this page has already been moved to "Camilla, Queen of the United Kingdom". She has indicated on multiple occasions that she wants to be known as Princess Consort, not Queen. Has there been any official statement yet of what she's to be known as? The relevant paragraph under 'Titles, styles, honours and arms' implies not.

And BTW, it's a lead, not a lede. — Smjg (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The Palace statement already refers to her as Queen Consort https://www.royal.uk/ BeaujolaisFortune (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Hmm. ISTM that's simply the way she's being referred to in this instance, and doesn't constitute an official statement of what she's to be known as.... — Smjg (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I think everyone is taking it that way: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/royal-family/queen-consort-meaning-camilla-prince-charles-b1944724.html BeaujolaisFortune (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

"Camilla, Queen of the United Kingdom" implies that she is Queen regnant. I think the example of other queen consorts should be followed and the name of the article reverted back to "Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom". M. Armando (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Hot take: the article is fine where it is for now. In a little while, we'll discuss at tedious length where it should be in the end, and that'll be Queen Camilla. DBD 20:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I think this page, as well as Charles, William and Catherine's, should be locked to ALL editing. The number of changes being made in the past few hours have been RIDICULOUS. And I'm always reading about how there should be uniformity and continuity between similar pages (ie Kings, Queens, etc) and yet these changes couldn't be further from that. If they were, then Charles's should be "Charles III of the United Kingdom and Camilla's should be "Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom". This community can be so unbelievably frustrating.JasonKurth (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC) JasonKurth

Charles Wikipedia Page should be titled as “Charles III of the United Kingdom” every current monarchs Wikipedia page uses this template. Camilla Wikipedia Page should be titled as “Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom” every current Queen Consort in the world uses this template. King4852 (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC) King4852

I do not agree with this. This excludes the other 14 countries of which Charles III is also King. Jèrriais janne (talk) 23:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Counterexamples: Carl XVI Gustaf, Felipe VI, Letsie III, Mswati III, Tupou VI. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 21:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I notice you conveniently leave out the fact that the other 37 currently reigning monarchs use some version of the "Name X of Country" format. JasonKurth (talk) 22:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC) JasonKurth

@JasonKurth Unfortunately, that would create a very long title indeed, given that Charles III is King of 15 sovereign states. Jèrriais janne (talk) 22:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Why is she titled 'Camilla, Queen Consort of the United Kingdom'? Every Queen consort in history has been referred to simply as "The Queen." A queen consort is addressed as "Her Majesty the Queen" and not "Her Majesty the Queen Consort." Her title has been changed to "Her Royal Highness the Queen Consort" which is just wholly incorrect. A queen cannot be a Royal Highness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.89.191 (talk) 21:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

my thoughts exactly - see the Wiki page about the Quuen Mother "Elizabeth Angela Marguerite Bowes-Lyon (4 August 1900 – 30 March 2002) was Queen of the United Kingdom and the Dominions of the British Commonwealth from 11 December 1936 to 6 February 1952 as the wife of King George VI." 2003:C2:71D:7B00:30E9:30A5:BE2C:ED98 (talk) 22:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. LapseOfLuxury (talk) 18:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Same here. I truly believe the reason people are not refering to her as 'Queen Camilla' is because

a) people are still in denial and many didn't want her to be Queen Consort in the first place, but 'Princess Consort', and

b) so many people have only ever known a Queen Regnant and do not kow the difference, or lack the capacity to understand that Camilla is not in charge.

EmilySarah99 (talk) 03:07, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The page should be renamed either to Queen Camilla (as she will be generally known) or Camilla, Queen Consort of the United Kingdom (her official title — and "Consort" with a capital C because it's a title). The style should follow whatever style is used on Wikipedia for others queens consort. Vabadus91 (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Everyone would call Camilla as Her Majesty The Queen instead of queen consort,better change that Him9 (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Camilla is the Queen of the United Kingdom. Under English common law a woman takes her husbands status upon marriage. Upon marriage in 2005 Camilla legally became the female equivalent of all Prince Charles now King Charles titles. The Female equivalent of a King is a Queen. King4852 (talk) 20:49, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Privy Council

The article refers to HM joining 'His' Majesty's Privy Council. Should be changed to 'Her' Majesty's Privy Council. See below.

Member of His Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council (PC) 2600:4040:2B40:C100:89E:4C73:8D6E:D177 (talk) 08:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't see the prefix "His/Her Majesty" attached to "Privy Council" at the moment. So I assume the problem has been fixed. Keivan.f^Talk 19:06, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Queen Camilla…please she is Queen Consort

Queen Camilla…really? Those that argue she sjj no oils be called Queen because all of the other women in her position were called Queen are ridiculous. She remains a divorced woman something that none of her predecessors were. She helped destroy a marriage and she’s lucky that her Majeety, Queen Elizatheth II was gracious to make note that she wishes her to be Queen Consort. Honor the late Queen’s request. It is an accurate description of who she really is and honors the Church of England of which King Charles, III is head of now. 2603:6081:40F0:180:C85C:48BB:ADFD:A333 (talk) 23:08, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

There has been no official statement from the palace, or the Church of England, that Camilla is referred to as Queen Consort due to her being a divorced woman. That is utter nonsense and Wikipedia is not a place for personal opinions on her role in past relations. 81.140.89.191 (talk) 10:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

During Edward VII's reign, his wife was "Queen Alexandra". During George V's reign, his wife was "Queen Mary". During George VI's reign, his wife was "Queen Elizabeth". So naturally, in Charles III's reign, his wife is "Queen Camilla". GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 September 2022

That the subject title of Her Majesty, be changed to Camila, Queen of the United Kingdom. As you can see Her Majesty Lezita, Queen of Spain is a Queen-Consort of Spain but is known as Lezita, Queen of Spain. And if you go back to The Queen-Mother she was known as Her Majesty, Elizabeth, Queen of the United Kingdom and so on during His late Majesties, George VI’s reign and so on. I believe Her Majesty is owed the realest respect of this dignity on her OWN wiki page. Thank you for your time. 2A00:23C4:A287:E801:ECD5:2A5E:6223:3967 (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: See discussion above. Please provide reliable sources to support any proposed changes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Camilla is the Queen of the United Kingdom by virtue of the Fact her Husband is King of the United Kingdom. Under English Common law a woman takes on her husbands status upon marriage entitling Camilla to the female equivalent of all Charles titles. Camilla is the Consort as she is the Spouse of the Current Monarch.

The key point to make here is it is one thing to be a Queen and another thing be a Consort.

It’s also worth noting that all other Current Queen Consorts of Europe are referred to on their wiki pages as Queen (First Name) of (Country)

King4852 (talk) 18:19, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Please see the entire talk page as this issue has been rehashed extensively. She is entitled to the style and title of HM The Queen. However, the royal.uk website uses Her Majesty The Queen Consort. Therefore her title is HM The Queen Consort. Whether this is temporary or permanent is speculation and not for Wikipedia to decided. We follow reliable sources. If (or when) she is simply The Queen and not The Queen Consort, the page will be updated accordingly. This is not a Diana vs Camilla drama. This is as encyclopedia. cookie monster 755 03:54, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Her Majesty the Queen Consort is the way she is styled publicly not her tittle.

Queens of the United Kingdom can be styled in multiple ways. Previous Queens have usually been styled as Her Majesty the Queen However in this case they’ve choose to style Camilla differently as Her Majesty the Queen Consort.

King4852 (talk) 08:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

In Relation to her title her title is the same as every other Queen Consort before her and they all have Queen of the United Kingdom in it. King4852 (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Her Position and title is “Queen Consort of the UK & NI”

But the spoken style and when referring to her

Is “Her Majesty, The Queen”

The wife of a reigning King is a Queen. The whole consort bit is distinguisher from a Queen “regnant” who reigns in her own right.

We weren’t calling her The Duchess Consort of Cornwall. It’s already assumed bc that’s how it works. 2603:9000:5B00:7E00:68B6:F67A:A40D:FA53 (talk) 20:11, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The palace have openly referred to as Her Majesty the Queen Consort. They are the authority on all things royal, including their titles and how they are addressed. Charles called her his "Queen Consort" and not his "Queen." It's obvious to us, who have understanding of how they do things, that a Queen Consort is addressed simply as "Queen" - and that they are most likely using consort to distinguish her from Queen Elizabeth II. In time, they may drop use of the word consort when referring to Camilla - as some media outlets are calling her Queen Camilla, or "The Queen." Until then however, she remains Queen Consort in how she is addressed. 81.140.89.191 (talk) 10:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The best strategy is to wait and gradually adapt to what the Palace will call her. Beyond all rules and conventions, they are the supreme authority in terms of titles (see Elizabeth II of Scottish). We currently do not know if the Queen Consort is a compromise due to Camilla's particular public perception or if it is temporary in order not to create confusion with the woman who has been The Queen for the last seventy years. (For example, in a similar way, upon Elizabeth II's accession to the throne her mother was granted the title of Queen Mother, a title not automatic but which provided a way of calling her that avoided confusion with the daughter of the same name.) We have to wait.Sira Aspera (talk) 14:44, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Take a breather IP. There's no huge panic to change anything & at this moment, this BLP is going through an RM. GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The UK includes NI. Your suggestion means "Queen Consort of the UK and NI and NI". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

"The Queen" after coronation?

Am I correct in understanding The Daily Telegraph article as claiming that Camilla will be styled "Her Majesty the Queen" (rather than "Her Majesty the Queen Consort") after she is crowned? Surtsicna (talk) 02:56, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

They might be right, though that's not how it has been historically. I think she's being styled as the Queen Consort at the moment to distinguish her from the late Queen who reigned for over 70 years. We have to wait and see what happens after the official mourning period is over, which for the royal family is 7 days after the funeral. Keivan.f^Talk 07:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this is indicative of the fact it may go this way, following the coronation. I have not heard her publicly referred to as ‘The Queen’ (as opposed to ‘Queen Consort’) yet. So I think Wikipedia should remain cautious on the title change and stick with Consort for now, as per her official title on new royal biog (and just put the capital ‘C’ in Consort please!) BeaujolaisFortune (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@BeaujolaisFortune Unless we see letters patent from the King, the title of Queen Consort does not exist formally unless it is actually created. Once THE Queen is laid to rest slowly the word consort will be dropped. I understand wikipedias hesitance, but Camilla's style is Her Majesty, the Queen. This will hopefully get sourced confirmation after the funeral and Charles implements his own changes to the household. 2A00:23C8:2283:E001:83C0:35A2:1B8C:E80B (talk) 11:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm guessing that by the time King Charles III's coronation occurs? The media will be referring to her as "Queen Camilla" & "HM The Queen". As others have pointed out, the 'consort' bit is being used a lot, so as not to confuse her with the late Queen Elizabeth II. GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree, but the coronation itself has no special legal significance here. The 'queen consort' business is purely disambiguation, and is likely to become less prominent once the late queen is buried. GenevieveDEon (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Yup. GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Please change this awful title asap. cookie monster 755 22:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Great news. The article is being moved to Camilla, Queen Consort. cookie monster 755 00:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

For now, but eventually "Queen Camilla" ;) GoodDay (talk) 01:30, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, if the palace drops the word "Consort" from her title and starts referring to her as "The Queen" like all the other consorts, we can revisit the topic and have it moved to "Queen Camilla". For now, anything will be better than the awfully long and bizarre title that the page has had for a week. Keivan.f^Talk 01:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

The idea that if Camilla is properly called Queen Camilla it will "confuse" her with Elizabeth II is absurd. The wife of the King is the Queen. It is out of sheer meanness that she is being called Queen Consort, as a title as opposed to a pure description, even when it is done officially, and it is shameful, but welcome to 2022. 2600:4040:5D38:1600:18C6:3612:EE84:F8DF (talk) 14:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Give it time, the mass media will catch up. It's only been 11 years now, that some of them are still calling Prince William's wife "Kate Middleton" & only 4 years now, that some of them are still calling Prince Harry's wife "Meghan Markle". GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Not everyone in the public has knowledge of how titles in the royal family work. Whilst most people here would understand that the wife of a King is "The Queen" but that is not to say the general public will. You're forgetting - for most of us - we've only ever known a Queen on the throne. We've never had a King and Queen on the throne before. Give it time. Some media outlets are referring to Camilla as the Queen already. Consort will be dropped in good time. 81.140.89.191 (talk) 20:53, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I suspect you're right. Still, ignorance is ignorance, and it's the official site itself saying "Consort," not just the media. And the feeling that "it should have been Queen Diana" is still pretty strong, I reckon. 2600:4040:5D38:1600:1DF1:CD07:A76C:6E8F (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

The palace refers to her as Her Majesty The Queen Consort. Whether this title is being used due to Camilla's past controversy (the whole not using the PoW title and being styled as "The Princess Consort") or distinguishing Camilla from her mother-in-law The Queen, is not known at this moment. Right now she is officially Her Majesty The Queen Consort, and the article should refer to her as such (I do think an exception to that is the initial lede sentence, see my comment below). Whether she eventually will be just "HM The Queen" is WP:CRYSTALBALL and we can revisit that issue in the future when it arises. Under English common law, Camilla is entitled (but not styled) to use "HM The Queen" as the wife of a king regnant. cookie monster 755 03:27, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

It's actually the opposite of what you say: she isn't officially "HM the Queen Consort", but unofficially so. There is no such title as "Queen Consort" — it would have to be created by letters patent — so she is by common law "HM the Queen" but being unofficially styled as "HM the Queen Consort" or the clunky "Queen Consort Camilla". Vabadus91 (talk) 23:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Title

Was she still Mrs camilla parker bowles after her divorce in 1995 ? 170.52.111.91 (talk) 01:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes. General Ization ^Talk 02:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Intro, should read "Queen of the United Kingdom", properly linked

Due to the possible insistence of this BLPs intro starting with "Queen consort...", instead of "Queen..." We're having IPs retroactively changing "Queen..." to "Queen consort..." in the intros of previous British queens consort. GoodDay (talk) 05:33, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

This makes complete sense there is no legitimate reason why it shouldn’t read the same as previous Queen Consorts. Under English common law upon marriage a woman takes on her husband’s status meaning a woman takes on the female equivalent of all her husbands titles. Charles current title is King of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth Realms and therefore the female equivalent of that is Queen of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth Realms. Camilla is currently the spouse of the current monarch so she is the current Consort. King4852 (talk) 17:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

GoodDay Do a bold edit. I support it. She is legally technically the Queen without the word consort in it (but her official title as of 9/17/22 is " HM The Queen Consort"). As a description, she is the queen consort of UK and Commonwealth realms, but all past consorts have been referred to as "the Queen". I do think she should be referred to throughout the article though as "The Queen Consort" because that is her title according to royal.uk (whether permanent or temporary to distinguish from the late Queen is another discussion). cookie monster 755 03:22, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Indeed & we simply link it to List of British royal consorts, so no problems. GoodDay (talk) 03:24, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

GoodDay Yes, that sounds good. Change it to Camilla...is the Queen of the United Kingdom...as the wife of Charles III and I would suggest putting an efn tag () explaining the whole situation with The Queen/Queen Consort, Queen Elizabeth II stuff. What do you think? The RM was only about the article title, not the lede or article contents. cookie monster 755 03:30, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

There a warning in the intro, not to make any changes without a consensus. GoodDay (talk) 03:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh yeah, forgot about that lol. GoodDay another discussion should be held regarding this to prevent edit warring. cookie monster 755 03:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

PS, People has now referred to HM The Queen Consort as Queen Camilla, per here. cookie monster 755 03:34, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Give it another 24 hrs & if enough editors are in agreement, we'll change "Queen consort..." to "Queen...." GoodDay (talk) 03:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Her Majesty The Queen Consort is the way she is styled it’s not her tittle. Queens can be styled in multiple ways. E.G Her Majesty the Queen, Her Majesty the Queen Consort, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, Her Majesty Queen Mary,

They are usually styled based on what type of Queen they are wether it be Regnant, Consort, Dowager and Mother. King4852 (talk) 08:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

The current queens consort of other countries, use "Queen of..." in their intros. Why should Camilla be different? GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Are any of the others styled the equivalent of "The Queen Consort" in their respective languages? Ham II (talk) 08:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Her style is "Her Majesty", her title is "The Queen Consort", her full address is "Her Majesty The Queen Consort". Jogo30 (talk) 09:18, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Please folks, read up on the article Queen consort, where 'consort' is lower-cased. PS - I knew this was going to be problematic across pages, if this BLP's name ended up with 'Consort' instead of 'consort', in the article name. GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Queen consort, in the intro (capitalization discussion)

It should be "Queen consort...", not "Queen Consort..." GoodDay (talk) 04:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The royal family website lists her as The Queen Consort. I think the title should at least capitalize the c in consort. cookie monster 755 04:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The title of the article should to be updated to title case: Camilla, Queen Consort of the United Kingdom. Mainstream news outlets (here's one, but there are many others) are reporting that this was intended as her title and are using title case. Iandaandi (talk) 05:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The mainstream media doesn’t get everything right, and I would only follow what is being published by the BBC and other British broadcasters at the moment. Also, she’s not only the Queen (consort) of the UK. There are 14 other countries in which she’s queen. Keivan.f^Talk 05:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Consort should be capitalized. The BBC does it as here, here, and the Guardian does it here. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 06:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I understand this section is about the capitalisation of consort. I agree that it should be capitalised. WIkipedia Manual of Style states “Royal styles are capitalized (Her Majesty; His Highness); exceptions may apply for particular offices.” I am not clear why an exception applies here. Her official title, according to the Palace website just updated, is Her Majesty the Queen Consort https://www.royal.uk/queen-consort BeaujolaisFortune (talk) 13:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

References

I imagine this discussion will be rendered mute at some point when consort is dropped as all British Queen Consort's are styled in the same way. But in this case, I think when it just reads Queen Consort, the c should be capitalised. But when part of a title, Queen consort of the United Kingdom, which would change to Queen of the United Kingdom when consort is dropped, c should be small case.GandalfXLD (talk) 16:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Title as Queen.

The correct form of address of the wife of a reigning King in short form is simply Her Majesty The Queen. There is no former precedent to add the word "Consort" as a formal part of the title. During the lifetime of King George VI, HM Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother was simply Her Majesty The Queen in her role as consort. On the death of her husband she became HM Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother. Queen Mary never had the word "Consort" formally added to her title either. During the lifetime of King George V she too was referred to as Her Majesty the Queen, and after his death as Her Majesty Queen Mary. Camilla, therefore, should simply be Her Majesty the Queen. The word Consort simply denotes thr difference between a Queen Regant who rules I'm her own right and one who holds the title by virtue of her husband. 82.30.177.12 (talk) 12:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Buckingham Palace, the source of all authority in matters concerning titles of British royalty, used "Queen Consort" in the royal statement concerning the matter: here. Wikipedia has no authority in the matter. This headline illustrates how Camilla will be addressed--not as "Queen Camilla", but as "Queen Consort Camilla". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 12:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I believe this will change once Queen Elizabeth II death has settled down. Just listening to the BBC now they asked the Royal Correspondent how we should address Camilla, and he stated that without a doubt she is Queen Camilla. He said that currently they need to draw a distinction between Camilla and the late Queen Elizabeth which is why they are quoting consort when referring to Camilla. Historically the wife of a King has always been a Queen consort but the word consort is not used when addressing her. Until the palace change the way in which they address Camilla, we are going to have to agree that her title for now is "Her Majesty the Queen Consort" as per the royal website. 81.140.89.191 (talk) 12:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Currently, it would cause confusion to refer to her as "Her Majesty the Queen" or simply "The Queen" as both titles have refered to Elizabeth II for the past odd 70 years. Once the funeral, and coronation pass, the consort addition may be dropped from conversation. EmilySarah99 (talk) 03:38, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

In all fairness, the palace has not referred to Camilla as Queen Consort Camilla. The only reference to her from the palace has called her "The Queen Consort." We have no idea currently whether or not the palace will refer to her as Queen Camilla, The Queen, Queen Camilla the Queen Consort etc. 81.140.89.191 (talk) 12:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The Palace have now updated their website with more content and it looks like she will indeed be referred to as Queen Consort: https://www.royal.uk/queen-consort BeaujolaisFortune (talk) 13:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

That update is from yesterday. It is clear that they are trying to distinguish her from Her Majesty The Queen (i.e. Elizabeth II). As the other user suggested, we should wait until everything is settled. Keivan.f^Talk 16:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

There is a former precedent to add the word "Consort" as a formal part of the title - see Albert, Prince Consort. -Shivertimbers433 (talk) 19:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

That precedent doesn't apply here, because the rules around courtesy titles are different for women than they are for men. Queen Victoria gave her husband the title of Prince Consort; it wasn't automatic. A man who is married to a woman who holds a title in her own right (e.g., Queen, Duchess, etc.) doesn't get a courtesy title from his wife's title. A similar thing happened with Prince Philip, incidentally - he was originally just HRH The Duke of Edinburgh (title given by George VI right before Philip and Elizabeth's wedding), until the late 1950s when Queen Elizabeth gave him the title of Prince, see List of titles and honours of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.

However, a woman who is married to a man who holds a title is entitled to use the feminine version of the title, and the feminine title for the wife of His Majesty The King (as Charles now is) is Her Majesty The Queen. This has been the case, as mentioned elsewhere on this page, for at least the 3 most recent queens consort (so going back to 1901), and much further back than that, too. Alpaca92 (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

As to the best of my knowledge, the legal title would be Camilla, Queen of the United Kingdom. But "consort" is technically only a classification of Queens, and Kings to a lesser extent, but we didn't call Elizabeth II; Elizabeth II, Queen Regnant. Saying that, I think it's just there to make things less confusing and perhaps over time it will fall out of use. Or maybe it won't, I suppose we'll have to wait and see. WiltedXXVI (talk) 21:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure there has been any official change in the title for the wife of the Monarch. George VI married Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon who was styled as Queen Elizabeth of the United Kingdom and the Dominions of the British Commonwealth. I'm not convinced that the Queen or Charles intends that "consort" be part of Camilla's title. Instead, I think they meant it for what it has always been, Queen but not one who inherits the throne and becomes monarch, but rather, she is the wife of the monarch, his consort, not his heir. Bodding (talk) 22:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

It’s quite clear from reading this discussion and from the press reports of the officially styled title for Camilla that she is to be referred to as the Queen consort. Those were the late Queen’s expressed wishes and that is how the Palace is referring to her. Given the fallout from the divorce of HM The King and Diana, The Princess of Wales there was considerable concern that Camilla would ever be styled as a “queen” at all. HM Queen Elizabeth settled that in 2022 with the compromise of adding “consort”. As the editors of Wikipedia we are in no position to change that. QueenofBattle (talk) 21:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it's a deliberate contrivance designed to ameliorate concerns regarding Camilla's status, and the fact that there's no historical precedent for the title is neither here nor there given that it was explicitly granted by the Sovereign at the time. It is obviously also something that is within the power of the current Sovereign to change, should he so choose. This little piece in the Guardian a few hours ago would appear to suggest official recognition of that being the case: "The question of whether the royal households will ever refer to Camilla as “the Queen” rather than “Queen Consort” could be contemplated in future, the King’s spokesperson has said." XAM2175 ^(T) 22:07, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The best strategy is to wait and gradually adapt to what the Palace will call her. Beyond all rules and conventions, they are the supreme authority in terms of titles. We currently do not know if the Queen Consort is a compromise due to Camilla's particular public perception or if it is temporary in order not to create confusion with the woman who has been The Queen for the last seventy years. (For example, in a similar way, upon Elizabeth II's accession to the throne her mother was granted the title of Queen Mother, a title not automatic but which provided a way of calling her that avoided confusion with the daughter of the same name.) We have to wait.Sira Aspera (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually, the supreme authority in terms of titles is the monarch. There is no such title as "Queen Consort", just as Elizabeth II's title wasn't "HM the Queen Regnant". The words "consort" and "regnant" merely describe what sort of queen one is. The title of a queen (consort or regnant) is simply "HM the Queen". According to common law, a female Royal who is not by birth of a higher rank than her husband simply adopts the female form of her husband's title.

For Camilla's title to be "Queen Consort", the monarch would have to issue letters patent creating it. King Charles hasn't done this and there is no indication that he intends to, therefore the style and title of the current queen consort is "HM the Queen", or more informally simply "Queen Camilla" in the same way as Elizabeth II was "Queen Elizabeth".

Vabadus91 (talk) 21:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

After Elizabeth II's funeral, the media will gradually begin calling her "Queen Camilla", "HM The Queen" etc etc. After all, (to name a few) "Queen" & "HM The Queen" was used for the wives of Edward VII, George V & George VI. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

All Queen Consorts of the UK are styled in virtually the same way as a British Queen Regnant. That being The Queen, HM The Queen and in this case, Queen Camilla, with the intro changing to, "Camilla is Queen of the United Kingdom", as is the case for the Queen Mother, Queen Mary, Queen Alexandra and so on. I imagine that at some point after the period of Royal mouring is over, consort will be dropped, I'm thinking quite soon.GandalfXLD (talk) 16:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

February 2022. Queen Elizabeth II announced that it was her “most sincere wish that, when the time comes, Camilla will be known as Queen Consort as she continues her own loyal service.”

This is unprecedented. The closest comparisons are Anne of Cleves never known as queen or queen consort, and Catherine Howard stripped of her title by the king, and Caroline of Brunswick who never received her nominal title of queen consort. Camilla’s courtesy title is a matter for the king, but Camilla is not like recent queen consorts, and I imagine she will not be officially called queen unqualified until her death. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Caroline was Queen, despite her husband's efforts. Queen Camilla is Queen Consort in exactly the same way as her predecessors. Consort is only being used now to avoid confusion with Queen Elizabeth II. The Consort part will be dropped. The Royal Family website is already beginning to change. I keep checking it. GandalfXLD (talk) 11:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

“Only”? No. It’s about management of the unpopularity of Camilla. You predict the consort part will be dropped. You predict that the king will go beyond his mother’s most sincere wish. Ok. Let us know when the royal family website changes, and/or when Camilla begins to be routinely introduced in new sources as the queen, no “consort”. You may be right, and if/when it happens, Wikipedia should reflect it. Wikipedia must not lead the sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Camilla is not like predecessors, in being a divorcee, in being married in a registry office. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree that once the change has happened on the website, Wikipedia should reflect it. There is nothing for the King to go beyond, Queen Camilla is Queen in the exact same way as the Queen Mother or Queen Mary, divorcee or not. The marriage was agreed to by both the Government, Church of England and Her late Majesty. Yes "only", she isn't as unpopular as people think, a recent poll placing her on 53% after her husbands accession. A number of historians have supported my position and expressed similar views, such as Rafe Heydel-Mankoo. I do appreciate the debate though. GandalfXLD (talk) 12:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Is she really Queen of 14 other Commonwealth realms?

In [4] :

Is Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, now Queen of New Zealand?

While Prince Charles automatically became our King, the Duchess of Cornwall did not become Queen of New Zealand. Our sovereign’s spouse does not have a constitutional role in New Zealand. The King has announced she will be known as The Queen Consort.

Mike Rohsopht (talk) 20:05, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The page says she did not become "Queen of New Zealand", i.e. she's not the queen regnant and has no constitutional role. It goes on to say that she's the Queen Consort. Keivan.f^Talk 20:55, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Camilla became queen consort of the UK & the 14 other Commonwealth realms, the very moment her husband became king. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

The attempts to downplay Camilla's title and status — this "Camilla exceptionalism" — are ahistorical, bizarre, and ridiculous. Camilla indeed became Queen of New Zealand the moment her husband became King of New Zealand, irrespective of whether there is a constitutional role for consorts of monarchs or not. Vabadus91 (talk) 23:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

It should be "Queen of..." in the intro. Certainly not "queen consort..." GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

No, she is not Queen Camilla OF anywhere. That formulation is reserved for queens regnant, who are also numbered. Hence the late Queen was Queen Elizabeth II of the UK etc, but her mother was, while her husband George VI was reigning, plain Queen Elizabeth; and later Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 September 2022

Camilla should be referred to as "Queen Camilla" due to being wife of the reigning king.

The term Consort is not required Arbootnoot (talk) 09:22, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

•  Not done Please offer reliable sources to support your proposed change. Consort is part of her official title, because she was not his first wife. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

  the fact she isn't his first wife is irrelevant to her title. 2A00:23C4:5602:2301:3DC4:CB85:43EB:20AA (talk) 09:03, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

  • • She would be the consort even if she was the first wife, since she is not a queen regnant. Dimadick (talk) 09:06, 23 September 2022 (UTC)