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.

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

"acknowledged their transgressions???"[edit]

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)