Talk:Queen Camilla: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:47, 20 November 2022

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Queen Camilla article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14: 15 days

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Women B‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women 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.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Royalty and Nobility B‑class

	Biography portal 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.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Mid-importance).

British Royalty B‑class Mid‑importance

	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.British RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject British RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject British RoyaltyBritish royalty articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiltshire B‑class Mid‑importance

	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.WiltshireWikipedia:WikiProject WiltshireTemplate:WikiProject WiltshireWiltshire articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cornwall B‑class Mid‑importance

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.CornwallWikipedia:WikiProject CornwallTemplate:WikiProject CornwallCornwall-related articles

B

This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

See drop-down box for suggested article edit guidelines:

Be bold - if you know something about Cornwall then put it in! We value your contributions and don't be afraid if your spelling isn't great as there are plenty of spelling and grammar experts on clean-up duty!
Articles on settlements in Cornwall should be written using the standard set of headings approved by the UK geography WikiProject's guideline How to write about settlements.
At WikiProject Cornwall we subscribe to the policies laid down by Wikipedia - particularly civility and consensus building. We are aware that the wording on Cornish entries can sometimes be a contentious topic, especially those concerning geography. You don't have to agree with everything but there is no excuse for rudeness and these things are best solved through consensus building and compromise. For more information see WP:CornwallGuideline.
These pages are not platforms for political discussion. Issues relating to Cornish politics should be restricted to those pages that directly deal with these issues (such as Constitutional status of Cornwall, Cornish nationalism, etc) and should not overflow into other articles.
Most of all have fun editing - that's the reason we all do this, right?!

Template:London Bridge task force

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 5 times. The weeks in which this happened:

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Move logs: Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall
Camilla, Queen consort of the United Kingdom
Camilla, Queen Consort

Discussions:

RM, Camilla, Queen consort of the United Kingdom → Camilla, Queen Consort, Moved, 8 September 2022, discussion
RM, Camilla, Queen Consort → Queen Camilla, Not moved, 9 October 2022, discussion

Signature

The new signature of the Queen Consort has been released, "Camilla R". A picture of it is on the daily mail site, https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11344693/King-sends-telegrams-reign-people-celebrating-100th-birthdays.html. Jjfun3695 (talk) 03:31, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see they are still using the title "Queen Consort" for her. It seems to be sticking. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:01, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other Queens have the same in their Signature such as Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, Queen Mary, Queen Elizabeth II and other Queens of the United Kingdom. King4852 (talk) 11:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is the signature section in her infobox going to be changed to reflect her new signature? Jjfun3695 (talk) 13:46, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtful. Daily Mail is not generally considered reliable. If some other reliable source exists, we can use that. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mail may not be a reliable source. Yahoo News is however. https://uk.news.yahoo.com/100-old-receives-card-king-105500998.html?guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAC7rm-YdUZoUizX5ovqP6R2hQRF2ZV-boRGPoVAhm07dP2GKsGByxg9r8H9gdjqbwn_JlwR0QaEcMKkj1_VjB6BjuO2ejL0Xwzse9UmfgkJCf8o_NGn912YTfXUjdkaxR8qQPCDrbKXbwD5OlRa4KQPbsmESntJ8NiDzT6nWBnDL Estar8806 (talk) 21:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:RSPS: Yahoo! News runs both original reporting and syndicated feeds of other sources...Take care with syndicated content, which varies from highly reliable sources to very unreliable sources. The original article is from the Lancashire Telegraph. How reliable is the paper? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 11:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think it is not to require people to read the Daily Mail, but the official letter from Buckingham Palace that appears in it. Why do you think the signature in the official letter from Buckingham Palace: Camilla R is not credible.This tweet is from the recipient, you can also refer to the signature picture inside. According to the official letter from Buckingham Palace, I think it's time to update her signature to Camilla R. In fact, The Sky News has photographed Camilla signing Camilla R in September.

https://twitter.com/lilianfaithfull/status/1585952819018104832?s=46&t=8B_c-oh-EJg_zRMwbjN4lQ

https://twitter.com/camilla17071947/status/1570734587189538819?s=46&t=GcthzXtNzm9u9yScjawMFg KGOO510 (talk) 16:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This shows The Queen's signature on a letter of condolence from Queen Camilla it shows her signature, "Camilla R", quite clearly, particularly the close up image. Hopefully this can be used to update Her Majesty's signature. ^[1] GandalfXLD (talk) 09:44, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://twitter.com/RealRoyalMail/status/1589547029315063808

The new cypher of Camilla, the Queen Consort, has been unveiled by Buckingham Palace.Designed by Prof Ewan Clayton, it combines Camilla's initial "C" and "R" for Regina - the Latin word for queen.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63547165.amp

“CR” cypher has been announced, I think it's time to update the queen's signature and royal cypher. This tweet has a very clear signature that can be used to update：https://twitter.com/realroyalmail/status/1589547029315063808?s=46&t=w8Uol0O8BsxZN_gnt-FlZA — Preceding unsigned comment added by KGOO510 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CR, as in Camilla Regina & not Camilla Regina consort. Interesting. GoodDay (talk) 01:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, interesting, and again you need to beware WP:Synth. She signs “Camilla R”. Obviously R (^{[citation needed]}) means regina. Obviously, or at least one can guess, Camilla is not enamoured with the “consort” appendage. If Camilla had her way, she would have married Charles in their younger days. What’s going to happen? Is this the turning point where gender neutrality is applied to consorts? Or is this a simple rerun of Q. Alexandra, avoiding confusion with a recent queen regent? Note “queen regent” is a confusing term, In 1513, the queen consort Catherine served as queen regent while Henry VIII was in France. Queens consort can be queens regent. Wikipedia must not lead the way. Wait for reliable sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:22, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on description in lede

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists:

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the lede describe Camilla as:

A: Queen Consort of the United Kingdom and 14 other Commonwealth realms
B: Queen of the United Kingdom and 14 other Commonwealth realms

23:17, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Survey (RfC on description in lede)

A, as it matches the title of the article, the title of the article linked to (List of British royal consorts), her official title, and how reliable sources describe her, with 21 suitable articles using "Queen Consort" in the past 24 hours, compared to 14 describing her as "Queen". BilledMammal (talk) 23:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
B, as we omit 'consort' from the past & present queens consort intros. GoodDay (talk) 23:33, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
B, I don't think it's necessary to make a list of all present and past consorts to demonstrate that the current format is consistent with dozens of other articles, but I'll list a few just in case: Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, Mary of Teck, Alexandra of Denmark, Queen Mathilde of Belgium, Queen Letizia of Spain, Queen Maxima of the Netherlands, Queen Silvia of Sweden, Queen Sonja of Norway, Empress Masako, Queen Rania of Jordan, etc. Not to mention that the word "Consort" would be redundant in this article and any of those articles, because for instance the opening sentence as a whole on this page is: Camilla is Queen of the United Kingdom and 14 other Commonwealth realms as the wife of King Charles III. It's already stated that she is a "Queen" as the 'wife' of a "King" (i.e. she's not a queen regnant). Keivan.f^Talk 00:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
B per the above. Later in the article we can explain that she's not regnant queen. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:39, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A. The wikilink links to a list of British consorts, it's in the article title, it's what she actually is, and it seems to be the current convention to refer to her as such in the media. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The page is so named as there are male consorts as well, not just Queen Consorts. GandalfXLD (talk) 19:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
B because A is actually redundant. "Queen...as the wife of King..." is the description for a queen consort. Stating "Queen consort...as the wife of..." is redundant and not helpful. Her title is in the infobox and under Titles and Styles for those wanting option A, there argument that "it's her official title" don't seem to understand that queen consort is also a description. cookie monster 755 05:50, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
B because redundancy is not nice. Surtsicna (talk) 06:01, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A for accuracy. John (talk) 06:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A in line with the recent consensus on the article title, consistent with the majority of reliable sources. If B is chosen, then the link to List of British royal consorts needs to be changed to avoid a WP:EASTEREGG effect. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An RM bears no influence on the info within an article. And I'm not sure why we should alter the link List of British royal consorts. "Queen of the United Kingdom" means that the person can either be a queen consort or a queen regnant, and I don't think readers would necessarily struggle to figure that out on their own. In any case, if people are eager to remove the link, I should point out that the phrase "Queen of the United Kingdom" redirects to Monarchy of the United Kingdom. I guess that would not be confusing! Keivan.f^Talk 08:13, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In general an RM has no influence on the article content, sure, but in this particular case the reasoning that led to the RM conclusion (i.e. primarily the usage in RS) applies equally well to the lead sentence. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

B - Consort has been omitted from every other Queen Consorts as Keivan.f has pointed out. I would also add that under common law she is legally the Queen as the wife of a King. King4852 (talk) 09:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Indifference Life is too short to think about such futilities. Craffael.09 (talk) 00:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Should Option A be chosen I would support every other Queen Consort having there intro changing to match Camilla as she is no different legally to them and to keep all Queen Consorts intros consistent. King4852 (talk) 09:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would much rather have superfluous wording in the lead sentence of one article than in the lead sentences of all articles. Surtsicna (talk) 18:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would not automatically apply this decision to any other article. There is a big difference here in that Camilla is often referred to as "Queen Consort" whereas the previous queen consorts were referred to as simply the "Queen". I know there are some people who want consistency across centuries, but things sometimes change after long periods of time have elapsed. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Alexandra was referred to as The Queen Consort after her mother-in-law, Queen Victoria, passed away. It too was dropped before her coronation. People mistakenly believe that Queen Consort is the title, it isn't, it is the position. GandalfXLD (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A The article should use her current title of Queen Consort and not her anticipated title of Queen. While there is speculation that she will eventually receive the title of Queen Camilla, that is a matter for the King to decide, not Wikipedia editors. The reference to the other Commonwealth realms is a bit confusing, since she has no official position there. TFD (talk) 11:00, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She already is Queen Camilla. The King doesn't have to bestow what is already hers by law. GandalfXLD (talk) 19:39, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GandalfXLD, what law says she is "Queen Camilla?" TFD (talk) 19:51, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
English Common Law. The wife of The King is The Queen. As with all prior Queen Consorts. GandalfXLD (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Under English common law, a woman takes the feminine form of her husband's title with her husbands name. So the wife of Prince Michael of Kent is called Princess Michael of Kent. The wife of Mr. Richard Roe is Mrs. Richard Roe. The wife of Lord John Doe is Lady Doe. What is your source that Camilla's form of address would be any different? TFD (talk) 23:30, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

B If it was good enough for other articles I don't see why this should be changed now. Nemov (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A This is a very similar question to the failed move above. Omnibus (talk) 02:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And yet this has nothing to do with the RM. The RM was about establishing whether Camilla, Queen Consort was the common name or Queen Camilla. It wasn't a debate about whether she was Queen of the United Kingdom or not (which she undisputedly is). Keivan.f^Talk 07:05, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A per above. ~ HAL333 04:36, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A per the BBC and the way I understood the letter from Queen Elizabeth. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC has all the articles about her listed under Queen Camilla (not Queen Consort Camilla or anything bizarre like that), and Elizabeth II's letter was about establishing her future position and role not her title (otherwise she would have specifically mentioned her future title as "The Queen Consort", the proper way of referring to one by their title). And Camilla's style of address has nothing to do with her position. She is Queen of the United Kingdom per English common law like all the queens consort before her. Keivan.f^Talk 15:23, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, Queen is the BBC's category, Keivan.f. However you must agree that almost every pertinent headline at the BBC link you offer says Queen Consort. Sorry I can't speak to UK law. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

People have taken that letter far too seriously. Queen Consort is the position held by Queen Camilla and her predecessors in the role. If you search for the Queen Mother's death certificate it says Queen Consort. Consort will at some point be dropped in favour of the traditional and legal style, HM The Queen. GandalfXLD (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A for the same reason as consort needs to be in the tile, can for consistency with the title. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
B I think there is a difference between her role and her title. She is the current Queen of the United Kingdom. Jjfun3695 (talk) 13:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
B Queen Consort is the position, not the title. She is Queen of the United Kingdom and consort will be dropped in due course, as was the case of Queen Alexandra in 1901. English Common Law states that the wife of The King is The Queen, no mention of consort. GandalfXLD (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A In line with article title, confirmed in recent move discussion. The determination of a few users to rehash this conversation in every conceivable way is getting very tiring. U-Mos (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The RM is absolutely irrelevant. What does a discussion about an article's name have to do with its content? Not to mention that its result was "not moved (for now)", meaning the matter is not even settled. And FYI, it wasn't any of the users in favor of "Queen of the United Kingdom" who started this survey. The article had been perfectly stable using that phrase until someone decided to start an edit war over it. Keivan.f^Talk 21:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Whoever started this survey is being pedantic and wasting everyone's time. GandalfXLD (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for my assumption, but regardless the move request result means changing the lede to say queen consort is uncontroversial and should stand. My view is all such discussions should be closed immediately until such a time as new developments occur, as they are just going round in circles endlessly to no purpose. U-Mos (talk) 13:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A, until she formally goes by B or public consensus changes.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A – this is how she is styled in most official sources for the time being. It may not be consistent with other queen consorts, but it makes sense to use this term for the transition period, or until reliable sources call drop the "queen consort" title, which is still the common name. P.S. - styling Camilla as such is not saying she isn't the queen, which seems to be the implication of some who support the alternative wording. – QueenofBithynia (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lead sentence is not there to establish her title and style; it's there to describe her position and essentially establish her notability. She's Queen of the United Kingdom as the wife of Charles III. Her official title at the moment is "HM The Queen Consort", not "HM The Queen Consort of the United Kingdom". In other words, the first sentence has nothing to do with her title. Keivan.f^Talk 21:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

B I do not believe Elizabeth II intended to create a new title. "Queen Consort" has never been a title before in any language. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A – Officially, “Her Majesty The Queen Consort” (per royal.uk). Was supported at the Platinum Jubilee (see bbc.com), and differs from the ruling Queen or officially “Queen Regnant”. Unofficially it might be simplified to “Queen”, and a redirect should be there to the article “Queen Consort”. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 10:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, we have "Queen of the United Kingdom..." linked to the List of British royal consorts page. Therefore, no confusion as to what type of queen she is. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A – Officially, “Her Majesty The Queen Consort” and whilst usage might eventually shorten the job title over time, it will now be useful to those who have been used to QEII, who was obviously regnant. Not sure whether Camilla has any official standing outside the UK (ie in "14 other Commonwealth realms") YET. Pincrete (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
B per arguments above. BogLogs (talk) 13:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
B She is Queen. There is no ambiguity here. ---Greatestrowerever^{Talk Page} 19:24, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A, she is not the Queen but a mere consort of the king. That being a consort affords her the curtsey title by marriage is completely different from a real Queen, like Queen Elizabeth II. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 19:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting we change the intros to wives of George II (Queen Caroline), George III (Queen Charlotte), George IV (Queen Caroline), William IV (Queen Adelaide), Edward VII (Queen Alexandra), George V (Queen Mary) & George VI (Queen Elizabeth)? GoodDay (talk) 08:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A per Rosbif73[1]. She is treated differently from previous queens consort. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So what? Legally she's Queen, as the wife of the King. Just like the other queens consort. GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

B Title and position aren’t always the same. Her position is Queen of the United Kingdom (and the Commonwealth Realms) but her title is Her Majesty The Queen Consort. This idea also exists with Princes, Princesses and Queens Dowager. Princess Anne (when known as “The Princess Anne”) did not hold the position of “Princess Anne” but rather that of Princess of the United Kingdom. Mary of Teck similarly was called Queen Mary, but her position would be Queen Dowager. --Estar8806 (talk) 02:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A: There has to be a difference between Queen and Queen Consort, and if her title is Queen Consort then that's what she should be referred to. RPI2026F1 (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The pipelink is used for this situation in the other intros of queens consort. Why shouldn't it be used in Camilla's? GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (RfC on description in lede)

Comment See "Palace to quietly drop Consort from Queen Camilla’s title" by Hannah Furness, royal editor, The Telegraph 14 October 2022.

"Since the death of Queen Elizabeth II, Buckingham Palace has steadfastly stuck to the title of “Queen Consort” as the public gets used to a new era.

"Between now and the coronation, The Telegraph understands, aides hope to quietly drop “Consort” from Queen Camilla’s title to bring her in line with centuries of wives of Kings before her.

"Former consorts in modern history...have been called by the simpler title of Queen plus their Christian name...An exception has so far been made for Camilla.

"The title [Queen Consort] was set by Queen Elizabeth: "[I]t is my sincere wish that...Camilla will be known as Queen Consort.""

The article explains that "Queen Consort" is indeed a title, it follows after the Christian name, it is unprecedented, it is what Elizabeth II requested and it may change. Until we get a better source or the title changes, I suggest we keep the current text.

TFD (talk) 16:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, Elizabeth II never used the word "title" in her letter. That to me seems like the author's own interpretation of the letter's content. Also, as I pointed out earlier in the RM, Queen Alexandra was referred to as "Queen Consort" in the immediate months following Queen Victoria's death. With regards to this article and all the other articles, the first sentences are there to describe the subject's position and briefly give the reason behind their notability. Camilla is Queen of the United Kingdom as the wife of Charles III; that's her position. Her official title and style at the moment is "HM The Queen Consort" (not HM The Queen Consort of the United Kingdom or anything like that), and we already have a whole section dedicated to covering her titles. So if people are now going to stick to the "oh, but that's her official title" narrative, maybe we should start the article by saying that "Camilla is Her Majesty The Queen Consort". Keivan.f^Talk 21:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a19405611/camilla-parker-bowles-queen-title-when-charles-becomes-king/

“Camilla Officially Takes on the Title of Queen Consort” SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And? What is the point that you're trying to make? You didn't even bother to read what I had said. I said her title is "HM The Queen Consort", yet we don't begin articles by including official titles in the lead sentence. We might as well start the article by saying "Camilla is Her Majesty The Queen Consort" based on your logic. Camilla's position is Queen of the United Kingdom as the wife of Charles III, which clearly conveys the meaning that she's a queen consort, not a queen regnant. Keivan.f^Talk 00:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Point is that you make statements at odds with published sources, while not citing sources yourself, making you woefully non-compliant with WP:SYNTH. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:05, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of my statements are at odds with published sources, which again proves my point that you didn't read or understand what I had said. And I don't find Town & Country to be an authority on royal titles. All these sources have reported on her titles based on how she has been styled on the official website. And I never denied that her 'title' is "The Queen Consort" (go back and read what I had written). I simply said that the first sentence is not about giving away her official title, which contrary to what you are trying to imply is not even "Queen Consort of the United Kingdom". Not only this is not used by any other Wikipedia articles on British queens, it is not used on the royal website either. And I won't even get to the grammatical awkwardness and the redundancy of having the word "Consort" thrown in there, as Consort means spouse to a monarch and it is already stated in that very first sentence that she's the wife of Charles III. Keivan.f^Talk 14:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot include HM per Honorific prefixes and suffixes. Queen Consort of anywhere would seem strange, because she is consort of the king, not of any particular place(s). TFD (talk) 23:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how it works. Queens consort do not have any constitutional role, but they are queen of the countries in which their husbands are reigning. Example: just earlier this year Queen Letizia of Spain and Charles (then Prince of Wales) officially unveiled a plaque during an engagement which had their titles as "HM The Queen of Spain and HRH The Prince of Wales" (not HM The Queen of Felipe VI!). There are other examples with other queens and empresses as well. Keivan.f^Talk 00:22, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing substantive titles and courtesy titles. The wife of a king or other titled person uses his title, but has no constitutional role. "Consort" literally means a spouse.[2] Camilla is the spouse of the King, not of the United Kingdom. She is therefore Queen of the UK or Queen Consort, but not Queen Consort of the UK. Note that Albert and Philip used the titles of Prince Consort, which followed their Christian names, but were never referred to as Prince Consort of the UK, although Philip was in fact a "Prince of the United Kingdom." That is a substantive title which precedes the Christian name, e.g., "Prince Philip." TFD (talk) 00:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

She is queen consort of the UK because consort is a modifier of the noun queen not the other way around. DrKay (talk) 07:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"of the UK" also modifies queen. So you can use one or the other. Note that neither Albert nor Philip were referred to as "Prince Consort of the United Kingdom." TFD (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Last time I checked, the UK Parliament has not passed any legislation sticking 'Consort' to Camilla's title. They're the 'only' body that can do that & so far, they haven't done so. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No need for Parliament to get involved; titles are typically legislated directly by the Crown under the Royal Prerogative via letters patent. Not that we have any record of any letters patent relating to Camilla as far as I know, but in any case that is beside the point. The sentence under discussion is describing Camilla's role, and adding "consort" in that description would make it more useful to readers IMO. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

She's no different then any other queen consort. Elizabeth II had no authority over what Camilla was to be called, either. Again, unless Parliament decides otherwise? Camilla (as the wife of the king) is the queen. GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any legal opinion, law, order in council or other official announcement that supports what you say? Because until you do, I have to accept the reliable source I provided. TFD (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a constitutional monarchy. Not an autocratic monarchy. GoodDay (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So what part of the constitution says that parliament determines what she should be called? Parliament never approved any of titles that living members of the royal family use. TFD (talk) 18:24, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Parliament has supremacy over the monarch. Until it says otherwise, Camilla is queen as the king's wife. You & I aren't going to agree, so it's pointless to continue this circular argument. GoodDay (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. Certain matters such as royal titles remain the sole prerogative of the monarch. But, I repeat, that is totally beside the point in this discussion. Rosbif73 (talk) 21:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does. The UK Parliament can reduce the British monarch to a complete symbolic figure. But, that's an entire different topic, which you & or anyone else are free to argue, at whichever venue is appropriate. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the King in Parliament has greater power than the king acting without parliament. But since the king or his predecessors have never assented to any legislation concerning the title of the queen consort, it's a moot point. TFD (talk) 14:11, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We're gonna have to end this little discussion between us. GoodDay (talk) 00:22, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative suggestion: we could base the opening sentence on that of Prince Philip, making it "Camilla (born [...]) is the wife of King Charles III. As such, she became queen consort on 8 September [...]".

She's no different then any of the other current & past queens consort. We shouldn't be attempting to treat her differently from them. GoodDay (talk) 16:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then write a letter to the king explaining this to him. Once he has seen the light, we can alter the article. But it's not up to us to determine what title she uses. TFD (talk) 18:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not for the monarch to decide. As the wife of the king, she's queen. GoodDay (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is about her title, which is determined by the king. TFD (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The king has 'no say' in it. GoodDay (talk) 00:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then who does? TFD (talk) 17:59, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Parliament of the United Kingdom and Parliaments of other Commonwealth realms. The law as it stands states a woman takes her husband status upon marriage and therefore is the female equivalent of all her husbands titles. The Female equivalent of a King is a Queen. King4852 (talk) 19:45, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Each Commonwealth realm except the UK has an act setting the title of the monarch. In the UK, the king decides his own titles per the Royal Titles Act 1953 (United Kingdom). None of these acts mention the title of the king or queen regnant's consort.

Indeed under common law, a wife takes the feminized version of her husband's title and his name. Hence, Mr. Richard Roe's wife is Mrs. Richard Roe. Prince Michael of Kent's wife is Princess Michael of Kent. Note that adding the wife's Christian name to the feminized title has no basis in common law, although some women, particularly if divorced, do this.

Furthermore, a choice may be made not to use a title. For example, Camilla did not to use the the title of Princess of Wales and instead was known as the Duchess of Cornwall. Megan chooses not to be called Princess Harry and instead is known as the Duchess of Sussex. Similarly, Camilla is referred to as Queen Consort.

TFD (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’d point out even if they do not use a particular title like for example the ones you’ve listed above it does not change the legal matter that they hold that title, Meghan Markle is a British Princess as the wife of a British Prince and Camilla is a Queen as the wife of King Charles III who is a King. she is currently a Queen Consort as she is the wife’s of the current King however if she outlives Charles as King she would become a Queen dowager and would no longer be a Queen Consort. I’d further point out wether a woman is a Queen Regnant, a Queen Regent, Queen Consort, a Queen Dowager or a Queen Mother they still are a Queen in law. King4852 (talk) 18:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not her title, it should not be capitalized, per Titles of people. In fact it would apply in this case even if it were her title because it is a reference to her office, not her title. TFD (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New suggestion What about, "Camilla, Queen Consort, is the wife of Charles III, King of the United Kingdom." It minimizes repetition. TFD (talk) 16:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just leave it as is. People need to stop being pedantic and move on. GandalfXLD (talk) 09:45, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I suggested wording that is less pedantic than the current version, which is: "Camilla...is Queen of the United Kingdom and 14 other Commonwealth realms as the wife of King Charles III. Camilla became queen consort...." TFD (talk) 14:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can look at the Wikipedia of all the Queen consorts in the past, it says "Queen of United Kingdom and Commonwealth".I don't think Camilla needs an exception, she's the same as all the Queen consorts in the past. KGOO510 (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is that the sovereign has decided that Camilla's title would be different from her predecessors. While the sovereign may be incorrectly advised and may change the title, that is up to him, not Wikipedia editors. Incidentally, per Titles of people, you should not capitalize Queen in queen consorts because "In generic use, apply lower case to words such as president, king, and emperor." So while Camilla may be a queen of the United Kingdom, it should not be capitalized unless and until it is her title. (Note - the correct plural is queens consort.)

Incidentally, although all heads of state are referred to as "King" in Wikipedia articles, an exception is made for Oliver Cromwell and Richard Cromwell. The reason for the exception is that although they were heads of state with the same powers as their predecessors, they did not use the title of King. Wikipedia editors in their case follow reliable sources, rather than precedents set in other articles.

TFD (talk) 19:22, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Elizabeth II or Charles III had or has any 'say' in what Camilla's title would be & is. The wife of the king, is the queen, until Parliament says otherwise. Meanwhile, we have 'pipelinks' to direct readers to what type of queen Camilla is. GoodDay (talk) 08:28, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any basis for your opinion. TFD (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do have any proof that the British monarchy is an absolute monarchy, rather then a constitutional monarchy? GoodDay (talk) 06:45, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What does that have to do with anything? TFD (talk) 11:39, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned days ago. It's best we stop this conversation. GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You come up with comments that have no basis then complain when I point that out. You say that only Westminster can determine the queen consort's title, yet have provided no sources for your claim. None. You realize that one of the policies is to only add information that can be reliably sourced? TFD (talk) 06:05, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Going in circles again. GoodDay (talk) 08:04, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By going in circles you mean summarizing what is in reliable sources rather than beliefs you hold without evidence. TFD (talk) 20:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We're in disagreement on many things, apparently. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't be relying on the target of piped links to direct readers to anything (indeed, directing them anywhere that isn't intuitively related to the text of the link is a no-no per WP:EGG); any necessary clarification should be directly in the text. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:16, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We're doing it (using pipelinks) in the intros of the wives of others kings. Why treat Queen Camilla differently? GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because she is being treated differently in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 06:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not very reliable, if they're confused about the legal title of the king's wife. But again, we're going in circles. GoodDay (talk) 08:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

She is legally Queen, but the majority of reliable sources call her "Queen Consort". Like it or not, she is being treated differently than the wives of other kings, and Wikipedia should reflect that. The situation is entirely comparable to before Charles's accession, when she was legally Princess of Wales, but never called that in reliable sources (or elsewhere). Rosbif73 (talk) 10:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONSORTS By this rule if her title is queen then she should be referred to as Queen regardless of what other sources calls her as "Living or recently deceased royal consorts are referred to by their present name and title, as with Queen Letizia of Spain and Queen Anne of Romania." BogLogs (talk) 12:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rosbif73, to this day many sources still call Prince William's wife "Kate Middleton", but that doesn't mean they're correct. GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources do, sure, but the majority of reliable sources do not. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why support a majority of sources, that are getting it wrong? GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually not wrong, because although married woman may assume their husband's name, they can only relinquish their pre-marriage name by deed poll. So they can still use their credit cards. What is strange though is why when it comes to royalty and nobility, Wikipedians ignore WP:COMMONNAME. TFD (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My question was for Rosbif73, note the indent. You & I (TFD), have nothing further to discuss. GoodDay (talk) 01:42, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want editors to reply to your comments, don't post them on this discussion page. The purpose of this page is discuss changes to the article, which is of interest to all editors. You should expect that when you make unsupported statements, other editors may challenge them or ask for sources, since they affect how this article should be written. TFD (talk) 01:55, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways Rosbif73. You don't have to respond, if you don't want to. GoodDay (talk) 02:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources aren't getting it wrong, she is the queen consort. She's entitled to be called just plain queen, but not many sources do so. So WP:STICKTOSOURCE. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:25, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Give it time, they'll gradually more & more refer to her as 'queen'. GoodDay (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the majority of sources change how they describe her, we can and should reconsider at that time – but not before. Rosbif73 (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is nothing to wrong with the current intro on further reflection it’s gets a balance by both Referring to Camilla as the Queen of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms as the wife of a King which she legally is and it makes reference to the fact she became the Queen Consort which is what she is currently known as upon her husbands accession and is not the Same as a Queen Regnant. King4852 (talk) 20:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eventually both the page name - Queen Camilla & the intro - Queen of the United kingdom (with a link to List of British royal consorts), will be adopted. It's looking like (regrettably) many are letting erroneous sources be the decider. So we'll likely have to wait until those sources get updated correctly. GoodDay (talk) 18:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think that the Royal Family's website is erroneous? Can you provide any sources that say these sources are erroneous? TFD (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But King4852, I guess we'll have to wait & see. GoodDay (talk) 01:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen's cypher.

The palace have released the cypher of The Queen, CR, Camilla Regina, under what appears to be a version of the Queen Mother's Crown. I've added two links showing both the colourised and black and white versions. ^[1]^[2] GandalfXLD (talk) 06:37, 8 November 2022

References

Queen Camilla Cypher

Hello,

Today the Royal Family of the United Kingdom officially released the Royal Cypher of Queen Camilla, Queen Consort. I suggest it be put onto her Wikipedia article.

File:Queen Camilla Cypher.png BillClinternet (talk) 22:02, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

here here WiltedXXVI (talk) 12:57, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen’s signature

The Queen’s signature now includes an “R”, so it is now “Camilla R”.

Thank you. 185.44.152.97 (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few images to update Queen Camilla's signature:Camilla R

https://twitter.com/realroyalmail/status/1589547029315063808?s=46&t=PLOINh42ldrLbHjPS6Rs-w

https://twitter.com/windsoritems/status/1590685616815374336?s=46&t=PLOINh42ldrLbHjPS6Rs-w — Preceding unsigned comment added by KGOO510 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that The Royal Household has tweeted this out using the #QueenCamilla. I think another discussion about the moving this page to Queen Camilla (where is should have been since 8 Sep 22) is due soon. --Greatestrowerever^{Talk Page} 17:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not due until either a preponderance of reliable sources, or the official source (due to it reflecting the person’s right to assert their own name, a WP:BLP issue), drops the “consort”. Beware citogenesis. Wikipedia must not lead, Wikipedia follows. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:25, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tampongate

Is this already covered? 88.97.108.45 (talk) 22:42, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. See Camilla, Queen Consort#Relationship with Charles. Keivan.f^Talk 01:10, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article wrong

Article says she is Queen of UK in beginning. Not true. She is Queen Consort. Needs to be revised 2600:1700:7CA8:E070:D10C:7C21:3800:62F6 (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a subject of discussion at Camilla, Queen Consort#Rfc on description in lede above. TFD (talk) 01:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blame it on today's media, IP. It's been over 70-years since there was last a queen consort of the UK. So, it's gonna take them a while to get used to saying "Queen Camilla". Heck to this day, some of 'em are still calling Prince William's wife "Kate Middleton". GoodDay (talk) 08:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't call Queen Elizabeth (Consort of George VI)/Queen Mary (Consort of George V) the Queen consort of United Kingdom. They are all Queen consorts but will be called Queen. Queen Camilla's Royal Cypher is CR : Camilla Regina(means Queen).So she is absolutely Queen of UK. KGOO510 (talk) 15:09, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The difference, as reported in numerous reliable sources, is that the Palace has decided that she should be called Camilla, Queen Consort, rather than Queen Camilla. TFD (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Increasingly the UK press are referring to her as Queen Camilla or simply The Queen, see The Times Yesterday as an example. I think it's about time the article was changed to here proper name of Queen Camilla. ---Greatestrowerever^{Talk Page} 13:47, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Tampongate" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Tampongate and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 15#Tampongate until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 15:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://twitter.com/RealRoyalMail/status/1589547029315063808

[2] ttps://twitter.com/CameronDLWalker/status/1589739477445971968?t=yJdRd_Z7BtkqArLWRgKbWQ&s=19

[3] ttps://twitter.com/RE_DailyMail/status/1589744793441009664?t=ExFB692shC8HfUnaciR96w&s=19

[1]

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 253: / Line 253: @@
 :You wouldn't call Queen Elizabeth (Consort of George VI)/Queen Mary (Consort of George V) the Queen consort of United Kingdom. They are all Queen consorts but will be called Queen. Queen Camilla's Royal Cypher is CR : Camilla Regina(means Queen).So she is absolutely Queen of UK. [[User:KGOO510|KGOO510]] ([[User talk:KGOO510|talk]]) 15:09, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 ::The difference, as reported in numerous reliable sources, is that the Palace has decided that she should be called Camilla, Queen Consort, rather than Queen Camilla. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 00:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
+Increasingly the UK press are referring to her as Queen Camilla or simply The Queen, see The Times Yesterday as an example. I think it's about time the article was changed to here proper name of Queen Camilla. ---[[User:Greatestrowerever|<font face="Chiller" size="4">'''<font color="800000">Greatestrowerever</font></font>]][[User talk:Greatestrowerever|<b><font color="black"><sup>Talk Page</sup></font></b>]] 13:47, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 == "Tampongate" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] ==
 [[File:Information.svg|30px]]