Talk:Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Royalty and Nobility (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject British Royalty (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Wiltshire (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wiltshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wiltshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Cornwall (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cornwall, an attempt to improve and expand Wikipedia coverage of Cornwall and all things Cornish. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project member page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Clarifications Needed[edit]

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.

Title[edit]

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)

taking changing to using[edit]

A technical change: It is wrong to say that Camilla has 'taken' Duchess of Cornwall as her title rather than Princess of Wales. A more apt way to put it is that Camilla has 'chosen' to use Duchess of Cornwall. 213.233.149.18 (talk) 00:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Already Accepted and Fixed by your help. Thanks. TheGeneralUser (talk) 02:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

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)

Image[edit]

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)