Talk:Queen Camilla

Camilla's page title shouldn't be changed.

Queen-Consort Camilla's page title shouldn't be changed at all. All spouses of any regnant are always a consort, no matter how anyone says it or writes it. George VI's consort, Elizabeth, was always called Queen Elizabeth, but her title never officially changed to simply Queen.

Moving the page could also make some confusion if Camilla is a reigning queen or not. If Charles died she could be called the Queen Dowager or simply a widow, but changing the page just because a coronation invitation and the popular way her name is said doesn't affect her role and title in the Royal Family.

Making up a vote to change a page name for a Queen is not the right path. If there ought to be consensus, it should be done properly when the time has come and done by an administrator, and should be reassured that it truly is the right thing to do. But for now, changing Camilla's page would make a big fuss.

Thanks,

BillClinternet (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

You are wrong. George VI's wife was indeed simply "The Queen" during his reign. Whether the article should be moved or not can and should be decided by editors on the basis of usage in reliable sources. Surtsicna (talk) 17:04, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Upon being married to George VI, she became Queen-Consort. Historically, most, if not all Queens, are known as Her Majesty The Queen [Name]. It even expresses on her Wikipedia page that she was the Queen-consort, in addition to her Empress-consort title (both are shown in her infobox). BillClinternet (talk) 17:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes but that wasn’t her title. Queen Consort is a position and her page title will change to be in accordance with her title. AKTC3 (talk) 17:19, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

In addition, Wikipedia's aim is to educate people about all topics around many different categories. What is presented for educational purposes and all other information must be the most factual it can. Calling Camilla simply Queen Camilla due to it being popular doesn't mean it will be dropped. Every consort of a reigning monarch in the United Kingdom has always been known as a consort no matter if they'd been simply called Queen or not. BillClinternet (talk) 17:18, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

If her page name was changed to Queen Camilla, I can guarantee it could potentially start an editing war between editors. She will be always known as the Queen-Consort, and it is up to the admins to determine whether it would be necessary for such change to be made. BillClinternet (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

It isn’t wise to be a crystal ball and speculate so far into the future as to what the Queen will be one day called. But what is guaranteed is that the Palace is starting to refer to her as Queen Camilla as every single queen consort of the past was called. No reason for an edit war. To leave her page title as “Camilla, Queen Consort” would not only be inconsistent with past consorts and current consorts of other monarchies, but likely would be inconsistent with her potentially new reference after the coronation. AKTC3 (talk) 17:29, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Never has any other consort to a British monarch has ever used the form “Queen-Consort (Name),” it has always been “Queen Alexandra” or “Queen Mary.” Calling the Queen Camilla has nothing to do with it being popular but rather with keeping in line with past consorts of her rank. And yes they have all been consorts, no one is contesting that, however Consort is a position not a legal title given to any past queen consort. There is no “Queen Consort Alexandra” or “Queen Consort Charlotte” etc etc. And you are wrong about Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon never simply being Queen. If that were the case, you could say the same for the late Queen, Elizabeth II, who was a queen regnant, but never called “Queen Regnant Elizabeth II” AKTC3 (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Changing her title currently just to speculate that her title will change to Queen Camilla would be drastic.

You should definitely wait until after the coronation, to even see if it is the most popular idea of the Royal Household to refer to The Queen-Consort as The Queen.

An administrator should definitely be authorizing the name change and make sure it is truly necessary for the time being. BillClinternet (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I see you are a new user. A couple of things you need to know. Firstly, we have a policy called WP:COMMONNAME which means the title is supposed to be what's "popular" (at least among reliable sources) not what's "official" or "correct". Secondly, administrators don't "authorize" things like that. It's a matter of WP:CONSENSUS decided by all editors. DeCausa (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Noticing my account age doesn't attribute to the amount of time I've been editing Wikipedia, and that detail has no relation to Camilla whatsoever, thanks. BillClinternet (talk) 00:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Well there’s truth in what they said — consensus, not admins, decide things. And it does have relation to Camilla as you are insinuating that WP:COMMONNAME has no bearing as to how the Queen is referred on her. AKTC3 (talk) 02:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The most commonly used name in reliable sources is Queen Consort. After all, one would expect reliable sources to get titles correct. TFD (talk) 01:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

That's because the palace has referred to her as the Queen Consort. As soon as she was referred to as "Queen Camilla" in the coronation invitation, all secondary sources picked it up. There's no reason to assume reliable sources will refuse to call her "The Queen" once that term has been used by the palace. Keivan.f^Talk 02:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

No, they didn't refer to her as Queen Camilla and the media has not picked it up. The Earl Marshal announced the coronation of Queen Camilla. When the coronation takes place that will become her title. TFD (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The words "Queen Camilla" are in bold on the coronation invitation, which is issued by the palace. And the media did pick it up 1. Literally every single source noticed the impending change in her title. Keivan.f^Talk 16:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

The invitation is to "The Coronation of Their Majesties King Charles III & Queen Camilla" on the "6th day of May 2023." It's a future event when Camilla will be crowned and assume her new title. TFD (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Coronation does not confer a title; it is a symbolic religious ceremony.

There are three ways of obtaining a royal title: by letters patent, by inheritance, or by marriage. Camilla became Queen (by marriage) the moment her husband became King (by inheritance).

The coronation invitations mark the moment that the Palace drops its temporary styling of her as "Queen Consort". Her style will match her legal title. She already is the Queen because she is a queen consort — the clue being in the name. Vabadus91 (talk) 08:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes; I have held since the passing of Queen Elizabeth II that the reason for the "Queen Consort" title was simply to reduce confusion. Elizabeth was queen regnant for 70 years. Nearly everyone alive at the time of her demise – both in her realms and in English-speaking republics – had never known another monarch and she had become commonly referred to as "the Queen". Referring suddenly to Camilla as "the Queen" when "the Queen", i.e. Elizabeth, was the top news article for about two weeks after her death would have caused large amounts of public confusion. Although Camilla has been the Queen since the moment Queen Elizabeth II passed, I think they decided to use Queen Consort to ease that confusion. It is therefore not surprising to me at all that they're beginning to use her proper title, now the public is pretty much used to "God Save the King" etc. NB: She has been using the title Queen since it became her's; for instance, her book club was renamed "the Queen's Reading Room" (https://royalreadingroom.uk/). Jèrriais janne (talk) 23:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

No one is speculating about anything. She is already referred to as Queen Camilla in the coronation invitation and in the official coronation edition of the Bible. All consorts of kings have been simply referred to as The Queen, not only in Britain, but in all other countries as well (Queen Letizia of Spain, Queen Rania of Jordan, Queen Silvia of Sweden, etc.). Once the change in her title is confirmed at the time of the coronation, the page will be moved accordingly to reflect both the common and official use of her name. That such change would be "drastic" is just speculation on your part. In fact, I don't see why the wife a king simply being called queen could be drastic anyway. Keivan.f^Talk 18:41, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Mhm. Thanks for the info. BillClinternet (talk) 00:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

You are wrong. She is Queen just as he is King. Like it or not. 2A02:C7C:D86B:D500:212C:68EC:EF1C:D3D1 (talk) 09:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

If another RM is opened on this matter (that's if one's is needed), I hope to be made aware of it. Same, with the page's intro. GoodDay (talk) 02:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

When the palace referred to Prince Harry's children as Prince Archie of Sussex and Princess Lilibet of Sussex the RMs for those two pages were abruptly closed and the pages were immediately moved. Once she has been referred to as "The Queen" there will be no argument left in favor of the current page title as secondary sources will quickly pick it up. Keivan.f^Talk 02:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Why all this? just because someone hasn't seen the coronation invitation yet: "King Charles III and Queen Camilla". Seems to me that hard-working Wikipedians could be doing something more productive. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Though I won't put up much of a fuss over it. By waiting until the coronation to have the page name changed. It would appear as though we'd be suggesting that the coronation will magically change her public title from Queen consort Camilla, to Queen Camilla. When in fact, she's been Queen Camilla since the death of her mother-in-law. GoodDay (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

That is what I said all along. Her "title" may be "The Queen Consort" at the moment but she has always been entitled to be known as "Queen Camilla". Just like Albert who was titled "The Prince Consort" but was known as "Prince Albert" not "Prince Consort Albert". It's just that people understandably need tangible evidence to accept this and we now have that in the form of the coronation invitation, etc. But there's no need to rush. Once she is crowned on 6 May, there will be no ground left for anyone to oppose a page move. So, it's better to wait until then instead of getting involved in endless debates. Keivan.f^Talk 16:54, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

In fact, Albert was known as Prince Albert because he was the son of the monarch of Saxe-Coburg. Seventeen years after their marriage, Victoria added the title of Prince Consort by letters patent.

Goodday, when an archbishop "consecrates" someone by putting holy oil on their body and a crown on their head, that's pretty close to magic. TFD (talk) 23:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

His status as a foreign prince is not really relevant. Philip Mountbatten was born Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark, yet he was not formally known as "Prince Philip" in the UK between 1947 and 1958. My point is, that no one has ever been known as "Queen Consort [Name]" or "Prince Consort [Name]". Not even the palace refers to Camilla as such. She's either "The Queen Consort" (although that's presumably going to change) or "Queen Camilla". Keivan.f^Talk 03:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Albert was only called Prince Albert because he was a prince of Saxe-Coburg, otherwise he would have been Mr. Saxe-Corburg. Philip did not use his foreign title of Prince because he renounced it before his marriage.

Indeed the consort title follows the name. It's similar to Princess of Wales. It's Kate, Princess of Wales, not Princess of Wales Kate or Princess Kate.

AFAIK the palace has not referred to Camilla as Queen Camilla. There's probably confusion because the coronation invitation suggests that will be her title in the future, when we can revisit the topic. TFD (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The coronation invitation is issued by the palace, not by any other entities. So in essence they have already referred to her as "Queen Camilla". Keivan.f^Talk 19:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

She has always been entitled to be known as "Queen Camilla", in exactly the same way that before Charles' accession she was entitled to be known as "Princess of Wales" (but was never referred to as such). Many reliable secondary sources have noted that the coronation invitation omits "Consort" but the majority have not yet dropped the descriptor in their own reporting. When they do, we can change the article title. Most editors here seem to expect that the change in usage by reliable secondary sources will occur at the time of the coronation, but we won't know for sure until it actually happens. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

She has always been entitled to be known as "Queen Camilla". True, but that's not what half the community thought when the last RM took place, because they needed tangible evidence for it and now we have it. Now that this issue is resolved, the only remaining matter is to determine the frequency with which she's referred to as either "The Queen Consort" or "Queen Camilla". This matter will be settled once her title changes to "The Queen" after the coronation. And I have no reason to believe that secondary sources will refuse to call her "Queen Camilla" or anything like that. We saw that recently when Archie Mountbatten-Windsor's title changed to Prince Archie of Sussex. There's not a single source that does not call him Prince Archie at the moment. Keivan.f^Talk 19:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

On my part, I never denied that she was entitled to be known as “Queen Camilla”. That was not the pertinent question. The pertinent questions for me where two: (1) Do the majority of reliable secondary sources introduce her as “Queen Camilla”; and (2) does she, eg through the royal website, name herself “Queen Camilla”. Subsequently, reliable secondary sources have already routinely named her “Queen Camilla”, and a number of things indicate that she names herself “Queen Camilla”, the latest and strongest being the coronation invitation. We’ve past the point of seeing secondary sources refusing to call her “Queen Camilla”, that’s already moot. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Coronation invitation says "Queen Camilla" (this is not a move request!)

That fact ("Queen Camilla" on invitation) has been widely publicized now. Thus it is not necessary or good information for our readers that we continue to repeat "Queen Consort" twice in the lead. Thus I emphatically disagree with this reversal. We have to abide by nothing that is obsolete today. I will restore what Keivan and I have tried to do to update the lead, unless someone can give us a valid reason not to. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:39, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you and Keivan and you'll get no arguments here. GandalfXLD (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

In principle, I also disagree with my reversal. However, the same edit has been reverted multiple times before me, leading me to believe that there isn't quite consensus for the change yet. The lead as it is written is the result of an RfC. I wish to update the article to reflect her change in status (if we can even call it that, considering she's been Queen since her husband became King). I don't intend to revert that edit again, assuming there is consensus to do so.

Regardless, my personal opinion is in agreement with you, so count me in for a consensus to remove should it appear. Estar8806 (talk) 19:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the main problem with all those reversals is that many eager reverters aren't up-to-date on what media is reporting now. The coronation invitation should reasonably have put a stop to all the multiple-"Queen-Consort" advocates. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

They may not be. But I would caution all of us, many of the sources I've seen have reported the change to be occurring "after the coronation". While, The Independent quickly adopted the change, and The Times and People have been using "The Queen" and "Queen Camilla" (respectively) for some time now, the BBC has continued to use "Camilla, (the) Queen Consort" [1]. Not to say that we should prioritize the BBC over other sources, I've seen this continuity reflected in several other sources, including Today [2]. I think that there's an argument for keeping it as it is (until the coronation) or changing it now. I personally favor the latter argument, but I think the notion that those reverting the edits are "eager" and "aren't up-to-date" isn't necessarily completely true. Estar8806 (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Also I should mention, BP hasn't made any changes to the official website or how they refer to the Queen in other contexts. It's become an emerging trend, particularly since the late Queen's death for us to rely on the Palace for any changes in titles, without respect to our other policies, which we assume will fall in line with any changes by the Palace. TL;DR The Palace hasn't formally changed anything, we shouldn't jump the gun, is a fair argument, particularly considering our recent reliance on primary sources regarding royal titles.. Estar8806 (talk) 20:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

You may have misunderstood the reason for this new section. This is not about renaming the article. It is about what it says it is about in my section opening. Nothing else. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

No, I'm aware as to what your point is. I'm simply pointing out that sources still continue to use Queen Consort. Not that I've read through the RfC that caused for the lead to be phrased is at is, but I assume at least part of the change was for consistency with the title. Estar8806 (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Why point out what nobody has challenged? It has no relevance on what the updated lead should say now. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

We never should have defined her as "Queen Consort" because such capitalization is severely outdated (or, worse yet, deferential) orthography; in matters of style as well as content, Wikipedia should look up to modern media and especially academia. Ideally it should say "Queen of the United Kingdom" because the rest of the sentence says "as the wife of King Charles III", so "consort" is superfluous. At the very least it should be "queen consort", not only because we should not be capitalizing common nouns, but also because it no longer appears to be her official title anyway. Surtsicna (talk) 19:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

It never has been her official title, only how she was styled. But how is capitalisation "outdated orthorthography? What's outdated about it? Vabadus91 (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• Why does everyone posting on this subject on this page feel the need to open a new thread as though they are making a new point? The coronation invite has already been raised in the open thread above (5 threads up - from yesterday). I, and others, have been closing the threads to keep this in one place but as fast as one thread is close some comes along to raise their "new" point. Can we keep it in the one place please. DeCausa (talk) 20:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

No, not for those reasons.

We start new sections when something specific needs to be discussed, whether or not it's been mentioned in text in other threads, and especially if it's being ignored or overlooked by many. This needs to be discussed now as a specific item. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The post you opened this thread is the exact point being discussed 5 threads up. It was being discussed now. There is nothing new in what you said, but it was said yesterday. DeCausa (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

No use in explaining what the creation of new sections is all about if you aren't even going to read it. I'll try again: This needs to be discussed now as a specific item under it's own specific heading. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:39, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if it's laziness or ego but it was being discusse now as a specific item. YOU JUST DUPLICATED POINTLESSLY. DeCausa (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Your remark about laziness and ego looks like a personal attack, and you should also stop SHOUTING. Step back before your behavior becomes an issue! This page is for discussion of article content, not for us to bash each other. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree. It should read "is Queen of the United Kingdom". Look at Alexandra of Denmark, Mary of Teck, and Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. Queen, Queen, and Queen. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:10, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Don't need to convince me. I was & still am in favour of changing the page title & the intro, to bring it in line with other current queens consort BLPs. GoodDay (talk) 21:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I second you. AKTC3 (talk) 22:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry AKTC3 I misclicked! Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 01:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

It is just odd to refer to Camilla as Queen Consort. It needs to be changed. MicroSupporter (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

It was odd to refer to her as Duchess of Cornwall when she was the wife of the Prince of Wales. Unfortunately, it's not up to us to correct her title used in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

The coronation invitation says, "The Coronation of Their Majesties King Charles III and Queen Camilla" will take place on 6th May, 2023. A straightforward reading is that Camilla will be crowned as Queen on 6th May. It has not happened yet, which is why the Palace, reputable news sources and Wikipedia continue to use her current title of Queen Consort. TFD (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Such a contrived, not to say concocted, theory is not how it works IRL. She is being called Queen Camilla now, on the wedding invitation and in other respectable places. That means she is also known as Queen Camilla, which then belongs in the lead. We are only talking about the lead here, not moving the article. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's how language works. She will be crowned as Queen Camillia. And no, reliable sources are not calling her Queen Camilla, which is another reason this article doesn't. TFD (talk) 20:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I am actually seeing a lot of reliable sources refer to her as Queen Camilla. AKTC3 (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I’ve found something here that’s titled Her Majesty the Queen on the Buckingham palace website when I click on the link it’s says Access denied and that I’m not not authorized to access this page seems rather unusual from Buckingham Palace. Here’s link

https://www.royal.uk/her-majesty-the-queen

there’s a possibility it could be the Queen Elizabeth old page but it’s seem weird.

King4852 (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

That sort of thing happens sometimes on that website. The site does say that it is being updated and information may not be current. TFD (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

That page was on Queen Elizabeth II. In fact, we had to change the external links on her page at the time of her death because details about her were moved to a new address (https://www.royal.uk/queen-elizabeth). Keivan.f^Talk 00:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

The Royal family website has just uploaded information https://www.royal.uk/news-and-activity/2023-04-27/roles-to-be-performed-at-the-coronation-service-at-westminster-abbey. It said The King and The Queen.... Directly from the website.... 2A00:23C6:F11:6B01:91B4:5C32:916C:E49B (talk) 22:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

4th paragraph. "This will be followed by The Procession of The King and The Queen" 2A00:23C6:F11:6B01:91B4:5C32:916C:E49B (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Reversals are being made again on this without the talk page being used. The RfC referred to here became obsolete when the coronation invitation was published. I have written to both editors and asked them not to make such changes without up-to-date discussion. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing Please provide a link to where new consensus was reached after the RfC. —C.Fred (talk) 03:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

This talk section. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I do not see consensus, especially given there are multiple threads on this page interwoven about the topic. Until new consensus clearly emerges, the old one should be respected. —C.Fred (talk) 03:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I am sorry, C.Fred, that there seems to be a misunderstanding. I am only talking about the clear consensus we have had in this section of talk, not about the many earlier sections, which seem to me to be obsolete. Also, in my experience, up-to-date consensus can be achieved in regular talk, not only by RfC. Am I wrong? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Where is it? Several editors have referred to it, but I can only find discussions about moving the page. This section is not about that. That has been made very very clear. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Camilla, Queen Consort/Archive 10#RfC on description in lede. It will be appropriate to change the lede when it is appropriate to move the page. BilledMammal (talk) 03:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

That RfC is obsolete as of the subsequent publication of the coronation invitation which is when it became necessary for Wikipedia to acknowledge the indisputable fact in the lead of her article that she also is called Queen Camilla (in several other reliable media also). You and one other person have reverted against the consensus achieved at that time and in this talk section to include the aka. Please be more careful that you are up to date, not months behind, before reverting, and discuss before you revert! Discussion occurs on talk pages, not in edit summaries. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

The invitation is a primary and non-independent source, and even if it wasn't it is just one source; when sources prefer "Queen" over "Queen Consort" then we can switch both the lede and the article title. BilledMammal (talk) 07:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

And as I mentioned above, the invitation refers to a future event when it is assumed Camilla will be crowned by the Archbishop of Canterbury as Queen Camilla. TFD (talk) 11:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Camilla's title

An Rfc determined that Camilla's title is Queen Consort, not Queen. See Talk:Camilla, Queen Consort/Archive 10#RfC on description in lede (closed 16 December 2022).) Since then a number of editors have continued to argue against the consensus and change the text in the lead.

Based on the invitation to the coronation on May 6, it appears that Camilla will become known as Queen Camilla. I suggest that we have a moritorium on the wording until that date, only 17 days away, when, assuming that is the case, there will be no disagreement about changing the text.

Alternatively, if any editors consider that that is too long to wait, please consider setting up a new RfC rather than reverting the text. ~~~~ TFD (talk) 03:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

An RfC by Wikipedians does not determine what anyone is, what titles they hold, and that one is obsolete now anyway (see above). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors determine content based on policy and guidelines. If you disagree with their consensus, you can pursue dispute resolution, such as a new RfC or posting to BLPN. TFD (talk) 18:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

You wrote "An Rfc determined that Camilla's title is Queen Consort". I repeat, Wikipedians, in RfC discussions or otherwise, do not determine what people are or what their titles are. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

will become known as Queen Camilla: many of us, more than you and one additional editor, do not agree with that interpretation and several reliable media are calling her that now. Your actions, in my opinion, are an example of what we are not supposed to do according to WP:OWN. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

AFAIK no rs call her "Queen Camilla." except in reference to her coronation. And no, it's not WP:OWN, because other editors are also reverting you. TFD (talk) 18:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

All of us should be well-informed as to what WP:OWN is and what it is not. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

It is not for you to decide when an RfC is needed or should be considered, nor when not to revert supported by consensus. There is consensus above in this talk section that she is also know as Queen Camilla today, and that belongs in the lead now, not when you desire. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I do not see a consensus. TFD (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Sometimes we can't see what we do not wish to see. Nine people agree with me in this section, if I'm counting OK. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

TFD has it right and your accusations that their actions constitute wp:own and making false accusations based on that are out of line, to put it mildly. North8000 (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote (and even if it were, I don't see a majority in favour of making any change now). Consensus is about policy and guidelines, and the applicable policy tells us to follow usage in the majority of reliable sources. What she is merely entitled to be called, or what previous consorts were called, or what editors expect she will be called in the near future, have absolutely no bearing on the matter. Only actual usage matters, and while that usage is starting to change in a few sources, "consort" has definitely not been dropped by the majority yet. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Those sources are already enough, though, to add Queen Camilla to the lead's info. That's all I've suggested. The vehement resistance to that from some users is hard to understand. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources, such as The Independent say that her title will change to Queen following her coronation.[3] TFD (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Actually, that source only says that her title is expected to change, which is still firmly in WP:CRYSTAL territory. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what her title is. It could be "The Queen" or "The Queen Consort". She is entitled to be known as "Queen Camilla" and she's already referred to as such. The recent newsletter from the College of Arms clearly shows that. Keivan.f^Talk 03:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

That’s another convincing source. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the College of Arms is an independent source. BilledMammal (talk) 07:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Independent sources do not determine Camilla's style. The King does. And secondary sources are already following: 1, 2, 3, etc. Keivan.f^Talk 07:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Some independent sources are; others aren't: 1 2 3. And Charles determines which style he prefers; independent and reliable sources determine if we follow his preference. BilledMammal (talk) 07:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

The question has always been whether "Queen Camilla" was being used in secondary sources and whether it was common. It has been used in independent secondary sources. No one can deny that. And it's the style approved by the palace and preferred by her, otherwise her charity would not have been name "The Queen's Reading Room" and the name "Queen Camilla" would not have appeared on the coronation invitation, official coronation souvenirs, the coronation edition of the Bible, the College of Arms' newsletter, etc. Not to mention the other aspect of it which is WP:TITLECON. No living queen consort's page is titled in this manner. Keivan.f^Talk 08:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

It has been used in independent secondary sources. No one can deny that. Which is why the question is, as you say, whether it's common. When WP:COMMONNAME supports this article being titled "Camilla, Queen" then we will change the lede. BilledMammal (talk) 08:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Note that reasoning such as otherwise [...] would not have been [...] and [...] would not have appeared [...] is WP:OR. And the titles of other consorts' articles are irrelevant (for now) because a majority of reliable sources do not (yet) refer to Camilla in the same way as they do those other consorts. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not WP:OR when the BBC has reported on it. Nearly every single newspaper/news agency noticed the sudden change in her style. And since she has already been referred to as "Queen Camilla" in secondary sources WP:TITLECON applies. Thus, the argument that she's not treated in the same way as the other consorts is moot. Keivan.f^Talk 08:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

That BBC article reports on the change of style, sure, as did many others, but it does not back your claim that it is her preference because otherwise [...] which appears to be pure OR. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

It has been put out by the institution that represents her. So it was clearly someone's preference. The only thing that matters is that it has been used officially now. And it has been picked up by secondary sources. Keivan.f^Talk 08:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

See Headlines: "News headlines—including subheadlines—are not a reliable source. If the information is supported by the body of the source, then cite it from the body." Most if not all of the supposed examples of the term "Queen Camilla" used in reliable sources are actually headlines: the text of the articles refer to her as "Camilla, Queen Consort." Many publications also used "Princess Diana" as a headline, but as we know that was not her title. TFD (talk) 11:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

No, it has been used in the body of articles and reports and as well, it's not only the headlines 1, 2, etc. And, yes, many publications used "Princess Diana" and many use "Princess Catherine/Kate" at the moment, neither of which are technically correct. "Queen Camilla" is correct; it has been used by the palace (thus found its way to secondary sources) and has historical precedence. Keivan.f^Talk 14:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I had not come across its use in reliable sources before. I note that CNN also refers to Princess Diana and Lord Jeffrey Archer, so I wouldn't expect them to get it right. I expect that the usage will become more common following the coronation. Where was it used by the Palace? TFD (talk) 18:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

"Princess Diana" is incorrect anyway. No British princess is entitled to be known as "Princess [Name]" unless they are born into the royal family (detailed article by the BBC before anyone throws around WP:OR accusations). That is not the case for queens consort; for example nobody can dispute the fact that Alexandra of Denmark was "Queen Alexandra". And it was the palace that issued coronation invitations for Charles and Camilla and put forth the official coronation souvenirs programme which is managed by the Royal Collection. Not to mention the official coronation edition of the Bible, and the College of Arms' newsletter which granted the arms of "Her Majesty Queen Camilla". So the name is accurate and pretty common and consistent with the title of other articles on royal consorts. But, it's apparent that you want a change to occur on the Royal Family's website. Fine, but as I stated earlier, the fact that she's styled "The Queen Consort" does not mean that she cannot be referred to as "Queen Camilla". They are not mutually exclusive. Keivan.f^Talk 01:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Suppose you are right. Before Charles succession to the throne, Camilla was entitle to be called Princess of Wales, but chose not to use that title and instead her Wikipedia article merely said she was married to the Prince of Wales. Following Charles' succession, Harry's children became prince and princess but chose not to use those titles and so their Wikipedia articles omitted them. What's different here? TFD (talk) 02:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

The situation is not even comparable. When Elizabeth II was alive, Camilla was always styled "The Duchess of Cornwall". None of the entities mentioned above (some of which are affiliated with the royal household), and no secondary sources ever referred to her as "The Princess of Wales". That is not the case here. She's styled "The Queen Consort", but she has been referred to as "Queen Camilla" officially in different instances. This situation is not the same as the one concerning Harry's children. The dispute here is concerning Camilla's title, not rank. She is a queen consort; whether you refer to her as "The Queen Consort" or "Queen Camilla" makes no difference. The issue with Harry's children was that their rank as prince/ss had not been acknowledged publicly. Keivan.f^Talk 16:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

The only "official" references I have seen are in the coronation invitation and the grant of arms. The first is about a future event and the second, which is an article from the College of Arms, refers to a warrant from Charles, but I cannot find a copy of it. I suggest we wait 12 days, when it is expected that Camilla's title will change. TFD (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

The Guardian reported, "From the coronation on, it will be officially Queen Camilla." ("King Charles’s coronation invitation confirms use of title of ‘Queen Camilla’" Tue 4 Apr 2023.) Note at the end it says, "This article was amended on 5 April 2023 to clarify that the title of Queen Camilla will be used after the coronation, not before."

I understand why some editors might have been confused and hope that this clarifies the matter.

TFD (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

There's going to be a feverish race to edit the article as soon as crown touches hair. F5 F5 F5! Gugrak (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I suspect they may change the title on the coronation day itself so broadcasters can refer to her as Her Majesty Queen during the coronation either that or the day before the coronation. King4852 (talk) 18:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Editors should avoid editing the article until we can see what the WP:COMMONNAME is. It is possible that reliable sources will continue to prefer Queen Consort over Queen. BilledMammal (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Editors should try to remember that this talk section is about mentioning "Queen Camilla" in the lead (now) as an aka, not about changing the name of the article (yet). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

That article did not age well I guess. Because "Queen Camilla" is in use pretty much everywhere. In fact, the same outlet reported yesterday that the Royal Mail will be applying a special postmark from 28 April to 10 May, to mark the coronation, which reads: "Coronation of Their Majesties King Charles III and Queen Camilla 6 May 2023". Keivan.f^Talk 00:53, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

No one questions that she will become Queen Camilla upon her coronation. Assuming that happens editors will agree to change the article to reflect her new title. Only eight days to go! TFD (talk) 01:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

The coronation Order of Service clearly lists Queen Camilla as The Queen. I have attached a link, can we drop this consort nonsense now. GandalfXLD (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

We will, following the coronation, assuming she assumes the title at the coronation. See "Why Camilla will be crowned during King's coronation - and why it seems her title will change to Queen after the coronation." (Sky News Friday 28 April 2023) TFD (talk) 16:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Hatnote

I have restored the hatnote, not because I was plugging Sue Townsend's book, but because that's not the way Wikipedia works. The crucial issue is not whether the hatnote is "worthy" or even whether the article on the book is notable, but because people searching for the article on the book might well do so by its title, and would be directed here by the redirect, so the hatnote is legitimate. Some people may consider that the book is not notable, but if so this should be raised at the article on the book, not at this article. PatGallacher (talk) 11:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

The number of people looking for the book would be minuscule compared to the number of people looking for this article, and yet you think it appropriate to put the book at the top, immediately below the title? Are you blind to the intrusion of hatnotes? Someone actually looking for the book will find it in the See also section. Nearly everybody else should be allowed to read the article without being forced to read about this book. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

The hatnote is totally unnecessary, and the book should not even be mentioned in the "See also" section. A mention in Template:Camilla, Queen Consort along with other cultural references is enough. Keivan.f^Talk 21:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

"Not worthy" is an absolutely ridiculous reason to remove it. What on earth is that supposed to even mean? It doesn't have to be "worthy". Hatnotes are an absolutely standard and necessary means of disambiguation from a near identical article name or disambiguation page. That's the only criteria. See Also is irrelevant. This isn't about seeking an article with related information. DeCausa (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

It is a ridiculous hatnote. It's intrusive and of vanishingly small value.Gugrak (talk) 04:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:SIMILAR tells us When two articles share the same title, except that one is disambiguated and the other not, the undisambiguated article should include a hatnote with a link to the other article. It is not necessary to create a separate disambiguation page.

There isn't an exception because we don't think the topic is worthy - if the book is not notable then take it to WP:AFD. BilledMammal (talk) 23:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

That is not the part of the guideline that applies here because the two pages do not share the same title at the moment. WP:AMBIGTERM is the correct one which states {{redirect}}, or a related template, can be used when an ambiguous title is redirected to an unambiguous title or a primary topic article. "Queen Camilla" is not an ambiguous title IMO. Keivan.f^Talk 03:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes. No plausible reader knows about a book, a satire on Queen Camilla, and doesn’t know of Queen Camilla. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

There is a level of ambiguity; while the primary topic is the Queen Consort, another (presumably) notable topic is the book. Hatnotes are simple navigational aides; we put them everywhere that a reader might end up in a location that they did not intend. We shouldn't start complicating that by discussions of whether the hatnote is "worthy"; navigational assistance is always worthy. BilledMammal (talk) 03:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

That guideline overreaches even with the flexibility of “should”. It is utterly absurd to believe that a commercial product that uses a common meaning for its name title, for the commercial marketing benefits entailed, automatically gets a top-of-page advertisement.

It is also BLP issue to put on the top of a biography, ahead of the lede, supplanting the lede, a link to a relatively obscure satire on that person.

Improving Wikipedia does not mean blindly following obscure rules. Hatnotes are a nuisance in cluttering prime real estate, especially when benefiting no one. No reasonable reader looking for that 2006 satire is going to astonished that entering “Queen Camilla” into the “Go” title auto-complete box is going to be astonished that they arrive at the biography of Queen Camilla. Obviously, they already know the book. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

They're not going to be astonished they ended up here, but hatnotes aren't to prevent astonishment; they're to help the reader get to the article they are looking for. BilledMammal (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Per SmokeyJoe This is a pretty clear example of where we shouldWP:IGNOREALLRULES. Gugrak (talk) 05:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. The closest I could find to guide us is from an essay, What about other content?, which says that comparisons with other articles may be helpful. In this case, there are many articles about persons, places and things that have books written about them, yet hatnotes are not typically used. Instead, if those books are significant to the topic, they may be included in "Further reading." TFD (talk) 00:52, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Do have any examples? I looked for some, but I haven't been able to find any and I suspect those that do exist will be due to error, not conscious decision. BilledMammal (talk) 07:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I haven't seen any biographies that have hatnotes for books about the subject. However I concede this case is unusual because both the title of the book is the same as the subject and it has its own Wikipedia article. There is for example a book called Hillary Clinton by Catherine Wells (2007), but there is no article about it. TFD (talk) 11:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

It's even more unusual because in the cases where the book does have the same name and does have an article there are normally enough topics using that name that we have a dab page rather than a two-dab primary - for example, Napoleon and the numerous works of the same name. One exception is Vladimir Lenin, which has a hatnote to Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (poem).

It's unusual, but I think that is just more reason to follow policy; there are many other unusual circumstances that could justify an argument against using hatnotes, and if we start allowing such arguments we are going to waste a lot of time debating whether we should be including basic - and so far uncontroversial - navigational aides. BilledMammal (talk) 12:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion on how to refer to Camilla in her brother's article

Editors may like to contribute to the discussion at Talk:Mark Shand § Referring to his sister Camilla. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

BBC Coronation Trailer

The BBC's trailer for the Coronation TV coverage refers to the Coronation of King Charles and Queen Camilla. I presume that this counts as a reliable source and so we can go ahead and change the title of the article now.

I would also add that there are hundreds of other references to Queen Camilla across other Wikipedia articles but it only seems to be this one that people are being silly about keeping the consort suffix. :195.213.41.254 (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I suspect Buckingham palace will update Queen Camilla Title on the day of the Coronation or the day before from Her Majesty the Queen Consort to Her Majesty the Queen. King4852 (talk) 18:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

As the Guardian pointed out in the article I linked to above, "the title of Queen Camilla will be used after the coronation, not before." TFD (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

At the minute it’s speculation when Buckingham palace will update the Website.

nothing is confirmed as of yet.

my logic is only based on the fact they’ve used Queen Camilla in the invites for the coronation which would suggest she will be Queen during the coronation ceremony itself. King4852 (talk) 11:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

What the Guardian wrote a month ago is neither a verse from Bible nor carved in stone. The title is in use pretty much everywhere. In fact, the same outlet reported yesterday that the Royal Mail will be applying a special postmark from 28 April to 10 May, to mark the coronation, which reads: "Coronation of Their Majesties King Charles III and Queen Camilla 6 May 2023". Keivan.f^Talk 00:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Statements in reliable sources are reliable, conclusions made by editors based on their interpretation of primary sources are not. In any case, as Camilla will be crowned Queen at her coronation (which literally means crowning), it makes sense to refer to the coronation of Queen Camilla. In the same sense if we talk about man landing on Mars, it doesn't mean a man has actually landed there, because we are discussing a future event. TFD (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't alter the fact that the title "Queen Camilla" is in use in multiple secondary sources. And unlike the landing on Mars, her rise to the rank of a queen consort has happened already. Keivan.f^Talk 22:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

References to Camilla

Throughout this article Queen Camilla is referenced as Shard, shoud we not be referencing her as Queen or Queen Consort or just Camilla in line with others in the royal family? For example, The Princess of Wales is not referred to as Middleton when metioning her throughout her page Jord656 (talk) 11:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I’m seeing The Queen referred to as Shand only before her marriage to then-Prince of Wales. I think it’s due to her legal name and reference before becoming British royal family member. AKTC3 (talk) 12:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

The usage in the article complies with Changed names in the Manual of Style. TFD (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 29 April 2023

Camilla, Queen Consort → Queen Camilla – I intended to open this RM earlier with the intent that it be closed by the day of the coronation, but I have arrived a little late. Regardless, “Queen Camilla” has become the WP:COMMONNAME of the subject, being used by reliable sources such as CNN [4], People [5], Vogue [6], and ABC [7]. Most importantly, gov.uk has referred to her by said name [8] and she has been referred to as just “The Queen” in the coronation liturgy [9]. And of course, all this supports the long held presumption that she will just be “The Queen” and “Queen Camilla”, post coronation. Less than a week out from that date, I see no reason to not follow the changes sources have made. Cheers! Estar8806 (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Note - I've just noticed that the sources I provided do not appear in mobile view, but they do in desktop view. I'm unsure of how to fix that so if anyone does know it would be greatly helpful if you could do so. Thanks. Estar8806 (talk) 21:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support The Authorised Liturgy for the Coronation Rite of King Charles III has been published by the Church of England and she's referred to as "The Queen". Combined with the use in secondary sources, it's apparent that "Queen Camilla" is now the accurate and common name (WP:COMMONNAME). This is also consistent with how the pages on other living queens consort have been titled, namely Queen Saleha, Queen Rania, Queen Noor, Queen Mathilde, Queen Paola, Queen Máxima, Queen Sonja, Queen Letizia, Queen Sofía, and Queen Silvia (WP:TITLECON; WP:CONSORTS). Per the consensus reached at the last RM for Charles III's page, the "of the United Kingdom" part is not necessary, since her husband is head of state in 15 countries not just the UK and her status is acknowledged as his consort in other realms (ex. Canada). And as Estar8806 said, the RM will most likely be closed by the coronation day, so I guess no one should be worried about it being premature. Keivan.f^Talk 21:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support - Although my personal preference would be "Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom" & her husband's page title "Charles III of the United Kingdom" ;) GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support - It is about time this article is moved now that the palace has acknowledged it. I say we also change “Queen Consort” to simply “Queen” in the lede as well.

AKTC3 (talk) 22:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Reliable sources say that her title will probably change from Queen Consort to Queen upon her coronation in seven days time. See for example "Why Camilla will be crowned during King's coronation - and why it seems her title will change to Queen after the coronation." (Sky News Friday 28 April 2023) The sources supporting the proposal refer to her future title and few if any reliable sources currently refer to her as Queen Camilla. In the meantime we should use "Camilla, Queen Consort," which is both her correct and common name. TFD (talk) 23:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

That article is a day old, and was published before the order of service for the coronation became available. Also, no one said anything about moving the page now. It takes seven days for it to run its course anyway, which means that by May 6, it will be at the title it ought to be at. Keivan.f^Talk 23:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

This is no different from the invitation: it is talking about a future event when it is expected Camilla will be enthroned and assume the title "Queen Camilla." Note the liturgy says "For use on Saturday 6th May 2023." It even begins, "The Liturgy will be." Furthermore it's synthesis to draw conclusions based on your own interpretation of sources.This article has been moved twice but in each case based on reliable sources.

The Royal Family website and official lists of royal family members in the other Commonwealth realms continue to refer to her as Camilla, Queen Consort. I assume they are in a better position to know what her title is than Wikipedia editors. TFD (talk) 00:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

So the Church of England, which incidentally Charles is the supreme governor of, has no idea what it's talking about! We should wait for official list of royal family members in other Commonwealth realms to get updated. Based on that logic Camilla's page should not have been even moved to its current title when Charles's mother died, because the Government of Canada was referring to her as "The Duchess of Cornwall" for days after Elizabeth II's death. And Camilla will not be assuming the title of "Queen Camilla". She already is "Queen Camilla". Her title will simply change from "The Queen Consort" to "The Queen". Keivan.f^Talk 02:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

That's WP:OR. She will still be referred to as the Queen Consort in common parlance due to the recency of the Queen's death for a long time to come. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

What you just said is WP:OR. Here's the Constitution Unit making it clear. Not to mention that she's already referred to as "The Queen" by the Church of England. Keivan.f^Talk 20:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

They make no mention of "the Queen" as her title in that article, just "Queen". ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:39, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, see the gov.uk source I provided. It consistently refers to Charles & Camilla as "Their Majesties King Charles III and Queen Camilla". So clearly the government, along with other sources are not only referring to her as Queen Camilla in future tense, but in the present as well. Queen Camilla is both correct and common. And in any case, official names are trumped by common names almost every time. Estar8806 (talk) 02:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

First, Camilla, Queen Consort, is the common name used in reliable sources. A number of editors have claimed it is not, but have provided little evidence. Mostly it is used in headlines and references to the coronation.

Anyway, reliable sources have explained that it is likely her title will change on May 6. If they are wrong, you need a source that her title has already changed, not arguments which is synthesis. Are you seriously claiming that her title was changed from Queen Consort to Queen by the issuance of a program from the Church? Wouldn't one expect an official announcement from the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Palace?

In any case, once her title is changed, we can add information about how and why this was done. No doubt reliable sources will further explain this in times to come. TFD (talk) 02:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Little evidence? I provided six sources in my nomination statement, you've provided one so far. If anyone, it's certainly not us who've provided little evidence. Mostly it is used in headlines and references to the coronation. - CNN, People, and Vogue use "Queen Camilla" throughout in the articles I've provided. In regards to the second half of that statement, you're right that "Queen Camilla" has only been used regarding the coronation. But it doesn't matter why/in what context a name is used, it is used nonetheless.

Second, why should we expect an official announcement from the Archbishop or the Palace? What if it simply never comes? They've referred to her as Queen Camilla in the coronation invite, and there is absolutely no way the Church of England would publish a liturgy calling her "The Queen" and "Queen Camilla" without consent of the Palace. Estar8806 (talk) 02:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Official announcement on what? She has been "Queen Camilla" from day one, because according to English common law the wife of a king is a queen. And this is not synthesis. Here's the Constitution Unit making it clear:

Q: Is Camilla now Queen Camilla?

A: Yes, under common law the spouse of a King automatically becomes Queen, and the matter was put beyond doubt by the Queen [Elizabeth II] in her Accession Day message of 5 February 2022 when she said ‘it is my sincere wish that, when that time comes, Camilla will be known as Queen Consort as she continues her own loyal service.’ ... In normal parlance, Camilla should be known simply as ‘Queen’: it is not usually necessary to use the term ‘Consort’ to distinguish between a Queen who – like the two Elizabeths – ruled in their own right, and those Queens who bear the title following marriage to a King. Elizabeth II’s own mother was never during her husband’s reign customarily, if at all, referred to as ‘Queen Consort’. Keivan.f^Talk 03:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

All major, reliable newspapers in the UK have begun using 'Queen Camilla' in some capacity, whether or not it is related to her and the King's coronation is irrelevant.

• https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/28/royal-mail-issues-four-stamps-mark-king-charles-iii-coronation
• https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/04/28/the-queen-consorts-hairdresser-and-friend-jo-hansford/
• https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/royal-family/coronation-guide-timeline-events-charles-camilla-b2329346.html
• https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/camilla-queen-charles-coronation-wedding-inner-circle-xgn7lv0m9

Jèrriais janne (talk) 10:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

And yet, sources are still using the name now. You're right, many are holding on until after the coronation, but others are also using the name Queen Camilla now. And as Keivan said, the page won't be moved until coronation day anyway so the argument that this is too son is moot. Estar8806 (talk) 00:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't see many sources calling her Queen Camilla. Mostly when that title is used it is in headlines (which are not considered rs), while the article itself will use her current title of Queen Consort. TFD (talk) 00:17, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

You’re partially right. The sources I listed either say “Queen Camilla” throughout, while still using “the Queen Consort”. The two titles can exist together. Estar8806 (talk) 00:20, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Some "reliable sources" also refer to her as Queen Consort Camilla. That's journalese, abbreviating terms especially in headlines. But mostly she is referred to as Camilla, Queen Consort. And common name only applies if the correct name is rarely used. But in this case it appear to be the common name. In any case, CNN, Vogue, People and ABC News are not my go to sources for royal titles, otherwise we'd have Princess Diana and Lord Jeffrey Archer, which CNN actually uses. TFD (talk) 02:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

That's fair. How's The Times [10] and The Independent [11] (And of course, the literal Government of the United Kingdom, and the Church of England). Estar8806 (talk) 02:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, The Times has made it known in a leading article that they're referring to Camilla as "the Queen" to illustrate a point, so there could be a potential WP:NPOV issue there. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

See "King and Queen Consort meet MPs, peers and staff at Westminster Hall reception" (Flora Bowen, Independent May 2 2023). The invitation says the reception was to "to celebrate the forthcoming Coronation of Their Majesties The King and The Queen Consort."[12] So when talking about Camilla following the coronation, sources call her Queen, when referring to her in the present, they call her Queen Consort. Three more days to go! TFD (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

@TFD: Remember you had asked for an official announcement? Well, here it is: https://twitter.com/davidtorrance/status/1653801546658742277?s=20 A royal warrant has been sent by the King and put out by Lambeth Palace which represents the Archbishop of Canterbury. Keivan.f^Talk 17:33, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, that seems conclusive. So she will become known as Queen Camilla commencing at 12 AM on the 6th of May. I don't know why we have had all these discussions. We should just follow what the Palace, experts and reliable sources called her rather than get into arcane arguments about common law and historical precedent. TFD (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support - As per the grounds stated by Estar8806, Keivan.f and AKTC3. IlkkaP (talk) 05:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support as of 6/5/2023 - It’s now becoming clear that Camilla will be known as the Queen and will be referred to as Her Majesty the Queen from the 6th May 2023. She has also in sources been referred to as Her Majesty Queen Camilla or Their Majesties King Charles and Queen Camilla when referring to both the King and Queen.

Camilla became Queen when her husband became King at 15:10 on the 8th September 2022 as per English common law.https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/research-areas/monarchy-church-and-state/accession-and-coronation/planning-next-accession-and

Camilla Position will always remain Queen Consort as the wife of the reigning King but officially we will start to her been referring to as Queen Camilla or Simply just the Queen which is consistent with how previously Queens Consorts were referred to. King4852 (talk) 07:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support - I supported this from the beginning. Queen Consort is a position, it was never a title. The title has always legally been HM The Queen, The Queen, and Queen Camilla. Hopefully we can put this behind us. GandalfXLD (talk) 09:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support for 6/5/2023; weak support for now. It is clear that the palace, representing Camilla, consider her to be Queen (no “consort”), and this is part a question of a BLP issue of a person determining their own name. Separately, enough reliable secondary sources have dropped the “consort” including many reputable sources commenting directly on the dropping of the consort. “Officially”, this is to happen 6/5/2023. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  People get to determine their own name, but "Queen" vs "Queen Consort" isn't a name, it is two forms of the same title, and there is no aspect of BLP that tells us people get to choose their title or which form of the title is used. BilledMammal (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Support. It is all but clear that the Queen Consort will be referred to as "the Queen" or "Queen Camilla" after her coronation. Most especially, the invites say "the Coronation of Their Majesties King Charles III and Queen Camilla". Therefore, from 6 May 2023, the article title should be changed to reflect that.

The Telegraph: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/04/28/the-queen-consorts-hairdresser-and-friend-jo-hansford/

The Independent: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/royal-family/coronation-guide-timeline-events-charles-camilla-b2329346.html

The Times: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/camilla-queen-charles-coronation-wedding-inner-circle-xgn7lv0m9

The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/28/royal-mail-issues-four-stamps-mark-king-charles-iii-coronation (though their page for her says still 'Camilla (Queen Consort)' Jèrriais janne (talk) 10:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Your first source only uses Queen in the headline; per WP:HEADLINES we consider this unreliable and don't use it. In the body, it uses "Queen Consort". Further, your sources aren't representative of the preference of the others. For example, in the past week there have been ten Guardian articles using "Queen Consort", compared to three using "Queen"; in the Independent there have been thirty-nine using "Queen Consort", compared to seventeen using "Queen". The Times has had equal preference for "Queen Consort" and "Queen" over the past week.

On the basis of this, I oppose this proposal. BilledMammal (talk) 19:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

• Neutral - I prefer consistency, but I can't see a strong case for either side in regards to that, as we have both Albert, Prince Consort and Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 11:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Albert was known as "The Prince Consort" and his title did not change to the best of my knowledge. Every queen consort in British history, including Camilla, has been entitled to be known simply as "The Queen". I have already listed all the other living queens consort, and I think we do not need to make an exception out of this article's subject. Also, "Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother" was Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon's actual 'title' (note that we don't have "Queen Alexandra The Queen Mother" or "Queen Mary The Queen Mother"). She would have been known simply as "Queen Elizabeth" as a dowager queen if her daughter had not been named Elizabeth as well. Keivan.f^Talk 15:04, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I know, I know, you don't need to keep telling me this: you've said it twice already. I have supported "is Queen of the United Kingdom" in the opening sentence, but I've no strong feelings on the title. You've also missed the point on the "Queen Elizabeth" title; was focusing on the "Queen Elizabeth", and not so much on the "Queen Mother" bit: i.e., we don't have "Elizabeth, Queen Consort", we have "Queen Elizabeth". Thought the reason why we don't have "Queen Alexandra The Queen Mother" and "Queen Mary The Queen Mother" would've been obvious; because they aren't queen mothers. So yes, both "Camilla, Queen Consort", and "Queen Camilla" are correct; it's just that I don't care which is used. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

What I told you elsewhere doesn't matter. Arguments should be laid out here for readers to see. And you're wrong with your assertion that Queen Alexandra and Queen Mary were not queen mothers (see British queen mothers, Alexandra of Denmark#Queen mother (1910–1925) and Mary of Teck#Queen mother (1936–1952)). Queen mother is not a title, it's a rank (like queen regnant, queen consort, queen dowager). What title a queen mother chooses to use varies depending on circumstances. Though, you're entitled to your opinion; if you truly feel neutral about this then so be it. Keivan.f^Talk 16:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, you're quite right about the queen mothers. Having a lazy brain day. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

And further, the stronger argument should be for consistency with living Queens consort elsewhere, not deceased former British consorts. So we have Queen Sonja of Norway, Queen Silvia of Sweden, Queen Máxima of the Netherlands, Queen Mathilde of Belgium and Queen Letizia of Spain. By that logic, this article's title should be Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom, but since her husband is simply Charles III, I figured that there wouldn't be support to have "of the United Kingdom" for Camilla either. Estar8806 (talk) 15:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

While Albert held the same role that Camilla does now, his title was different. Princes consort are not afforded a royal title ex officio, as 'King' always trumps 'Queen' in power. Members of the Royal Family need to have a title, because they have no surname. Albert was given the title 'Prince Consort', but Prince Philip was not; he was made Duke of Edinburgh instead. Queen Anne's husband was simply called 'Prince George of Denmark' as he was a prince of Denmark.

Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon was also just known as Queen Elizabeth during her husband's reign. However, you can understand the confusion which would have occured from having two Queen Elizabeths, even if one was a queen dowager and one a queen regnant. The decision to style her Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother is sensible, but doesn't really set a precedent, as no other queen dowager has held that title. Queen Mary, for example, was known as Queen Mary until her death [13]. She did not become "Queen Mary The Queen Grandmother". Jèrriais janne (talk) 23:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

• Strong oppose for now, per WP:CRYSTAL. This has never been about what she is entitled to be called, only about what she is actually called by reliable secondary sources. Even supporters of the move are peppering their responses with presumptions, all buts and other conditional phrasing. We shouldn't be second guessing what the sources will do in the future, however likely it seems. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  Are you actually claiming secondary sources don't use "Queen Camilla". Did you even read the sources I provided.

  From CNN (image caption) Queen Camilla in the Blue Drawing Room at Buckingham Palace.

  From People Queen Camilla also wore the late Queen Elizabeth's pearl drop earrings set with a sapphire and ruby. (emphasis on the fact this is in past tense)

  From The Independent The coronation of King Charles and Queen Camilla is taking place just a week from now.

  From The Guardian Four new stamps and a special postmark are being issued to mark the coronation of King Charles and Queen Camilla

  None of these say "Camilla is entitled to be Queen" or "Camilla will be Queen after the coronation". Nor do any of them use conditional language, all of them use "Queen Camilla did/will do X", or some other mention of her as "Queen Camilla" without conditional phrasing. Estar8806 (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  And also, there's no dispute about the fact she will just be "The Queen" beyond the Coronation, see the Liturgy [14]. Estar8806 (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  I'm saying that the change has not yet occurred in the significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources (my emphasis) required by WP:COMMONNAME. Rosbif73 (talk) 17:12, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  The change has pretty much occurred in all secondary sources, especially in the new articles that are being published. You cannot possibly bring up the sum of online articles from months ago to argue that "Camilla, Queen Consort" is more common (which incidentally is not; it's either "Queen Camilla" or "The Queen Consort"). Based on that logic, Charles III's page should be at Prince Charles, because he held the title for 70+ years and obviously there are more sources available calling him with that name. We go with the name that is common for the subject and preferred either by them or the institution that represents them per MOS:IDENTITY. Keivan.f^Talk 17:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  I beg to differ. The change has been mentioned in many sources, but the significant majority continue to use the term consort in their recent reporting (note the use–mention distinction). Rosbif73 (talk) 17:34, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  The change you are referring to, is the change in her title from "The Queen Consort" to "The Queen". On the other hand, she has been "Queen Camilla" legally from day one (sources already given), a name that is now in use in secondary sources. So it's not even a question of entitlement. She's already referred to as such. Keivan.f^Talk 17:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  There remains a dispute until Buckingham Palace announces a change. See WP:CRYSTAL. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:47, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  Well, it seems that the change has been announced: https://twitter.com/davidtorrance/status/1653801546658742277?s=20 Keivan.f^Talk 17:30, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support - As per @Keivan.f. DDMS123 (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
• Stongly Support First of all, I don't understand why the previous objectors said that there is no reliable source to prove that "Queen camilla" is the correct title. In fact, Buckingham Palace has officially used "Queen camilla". The official coronation invitation issued by Buckingham Palace has already used "Queen Camilla". Secondly, the official coronation memorabilia produced by the Royal Collection Shop also uses "Queen Camilla". Finally, The Liturgy for the Coronation, revealed by Buckingham Palace and the Church of England yesterday, officially refers to Camilla as "The Queen". Not to mention that CNN, The Times and even the official website of the UK government call her "Queen Camilla". Isn't the above three official sources reliable enough?

The official coronation invitation from Buckingham Palace: https://www.royal.uk/news-and-activity/2023-04-04/the-coronation-invitation

Royal Collection Trust:https://www.rct.uk/about/press-office/press-releases/official-commemorative-range-to-mark-the-coronation-of-their#/

The Liturgy for the Coronation:https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2023-04/23-24132%20Coronation%20Liturgy%20Commentary.pdf page29: The coronation of The Queen — Preceding unsigned comment added by KGOO510 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

As soon as Buckingham Palace Drops the Word Consort on this page https://www.royal.uk/the-queen-consort

This issue will have been settled in the most conclusive fashion and we will largely be able to template the page based on other Queen Consorts of the United Kingdom to bring consistency to the page. King4852 (talk) 07:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/davidtorrance/status/1653801546658742277?s=20 Royal Warrant by the King. Is it convincing enough? "The King has directed by Royal Warrant that as of 6 May 2023 the prayers for or referring to members of the Royal Family should be altered so that instead of the words “Camilla the Queen Consort” the words “Queen Camilla” should be inserted." KGOO510 (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

They now have Jèrriais janne (talk) 08:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

WAIT as we don’t often use common name for royals (hence why Diana’s is not just “Princess Diana”. When it becomes more clear that Camilla primarily makes formal use of this style (which she is entitled to unless letters of patent change) we should move SecretName101 (talk) 20:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support, no reason style should change just for Camilla, she should be treated like any other queen consort EmilySarah99 (talk) 08:40, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

She’s also been referred to as the Queen here https://www.royal.uk/coronation-guide King4852 (talk) 06:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Support

She has been referred to as The Queen on todays coronation guide published by The Royal Family Official Website

https://www.royal.uk/coronation-guide 2400:ADC1:165:A00:28C8:6A4C:9508:A209 (talk) 06:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

She has also been referred as The Queen in Coronation Service posted by official royal family website

https://www.royal.uk/sites/default/files/documents/2023-05/The%20Coronation%20Order%20of%20Service.pdf 2400:ADC1:165:A00:28C8:6A4C:9508:A209 (talk) 06:47, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

In the Coronation service published by Buckingham Palace she is referred to as Her Majesty the Queen https://www.royal.uk/sites/default/files/documents/2023-05/The%20Coronation%20Order%20of%20Service.pdf King4852 (talk) 06:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

It’s official https://www.royal.uk/the-queen King4852 (talk) 07:47, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

https://www.royal.uk/ It has happened. She is officially recognized as the Queen. AKTC3 (talk) 07:51, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

@Estar8806 support per nom. My understanding of the relevant guidelines (and I can modestly claim some understanding!) is that a living consort's biography is titled Title Name of Place - except for the Commonwealth realms. DBD 14:18, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Another source: Wesminster Abbey. "Westminster Abbey has today released the words and music of the Vivat acclamations which will be sung at the Coronation of Their Majesties The King and The Queen on Saturday 6th May.The words which will be sung at this Coronation are: Vivat Regina Camilla! Vivat Regina Camilla! (Or ‘Long live Queen Camilla! Long live King Charles!')" — Preceding unsigned comment added by KGOO510 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Even considering just the most recent sources, usage hasn't switched over to "Queen Camilla" yet; 100 results for "Queen Consort" in the past week, compared to 98 for "Queen". Further, the proposed title is less WP:PRECISE and WP:RECOGNIZABLE; it doesn't clearly establish that she only holds her position by being married to a King. BilledMammal (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  A difference of two results is negligible. WP:PRECISE? Really? There has only ever been one woman called Camilla who was a queen. And WP:RECOGNIZABLE, really? That makes no sense.

  And on your final point, every other queen consort is presently at the wrong title by your logic. And article titles are not descriptions of their subjects. Estar8806 (talk) 19:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  And given that, per WP:COMMONNAME, we need a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources, to change the title, even if it was two results in favor of the proposed title it wouldn't be enough. The fact that reliable sources continue to, slightly, prefer the existing title is strong reason to not move the article. BilledMammal (talk) 19:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  Because neither has a significant majority (in news sources), the title should go with whatever the official name is, or whatever name best fits the WP:CRITERIA. And in any case, "Queen Camilla" absolutely trounces any other name in terms of Google Trends.[15] Estar8806 (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  That position is not supported by our guidelines, and we don't follow google trends - and we certainly don't follow google trends results from only the United States.BilledMammal (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  I knew you were going to point out the error I made by forgetting to change it to worldwide. So I did, and you're just plain wrong, Queen Camilla still wins by a mile [16]. And I don't know where you got the idea we don't follow google trends, it's been used in more RMs than I can remember. Estar8806 (talk) 19:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  Then again, a simple google search of "Queen Camilla" returns 53,300 results [17]. A google search of "Camilla, Queen Consort" returns only 20,800 [18]. Queen Consort Camilla, returns 22,300 [19]. Estar8806 (talk) 19:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  We don't use it for the same reason we don't use simple google results; they don't reflect usage in reliable sources, and we are required to base our titles on usage in reliable sources. BilledMammal (talk) 19:45, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  NB: We are not. WP:5P5: "Wikipedia has no firm rules". We are not 'required' to do anything. WP:IAR states that "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." That isn't to say WP:COMMONNAME or WP:CRITERIA are not important, but article titles do not have to conform to them if there is a good reason to not do so. Jèrriais janne (talk) 23:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  Ignoring the end of that sentence:

  When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly.

  — WP:COMMONNAME

  "Queen Camilla" meets all five criteria. It is recognisable – anyone will know what "Queen Camilla" refers to, if they are "familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area". In fact, I would argue, they are less likely to know the distinction between a Queen consort and Queen regnant. "Queen Camilla" is more natural, and more likely to be found in common speech, than "Camilla, Queen Consort". It is precise, given there is no other Camilla who has been a queen. It is concise, whereas "Camilla, Queen Consort" is not concise as it is "longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects". Finally, it is consistent with articles of other members of the royal family, for whom their official title is used (e.g. William, Prince of Wales), and other Queens consort, which follow the (e.g. Queen Letizia of Spain). Jèrriais janne (talk) 23:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support the liturgy, invitation and the recent announcement of ceremonial roles all style her as "Queen Camilla" or "The Queen". The "Queen Consort" nonsense is finally coming to an end. Richiepip (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  See WP:OFFICIALNAME. The fact that the official form is changing to "Queen Camilla" isn't a reason for us to move to article. BilledMammal (talk) 19:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  Except, it is and has been in the past. OFFICIALNAME/COMMONNAME is occasionally ignored in regards to royalty where appropriate. Otherwise we would have Princess Diana, Prince Harry, Prince William, Princess Anne, Prince George, King Charles and Queen Elizabeth as article titles. Estar8806 (talk) 19:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  No argument for why ignoring it here is appropriate here has been made; no argument for why "Queen Consort" is inappropriate has been made, and no argument can be made because it is an accurate title, even if the palace might prefer otherwise. (We also can't have Prince George, King Charles, or Queen Elizabeth because the most recent ones aren't the primary topic.) BilledMammal (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  You're right, those are ambiguous. But by your logic the others should be moved to those titles as primary topics. Estar8806 (talk) 19:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  Something being the primary topic allows us to have the article at that location, but we only move it to that location if doing so would be supported by our guidelines and policies - otherwise, we just have a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. BilledMammal (talk) 19:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  You're citing guidelines and policies without naming any but COMMONNAME, which really doesn't support either title strongly over the other. Both names are used in reliable sources. Queen Consort may have a slight edge, but "Prince Charles" undoubtedly still has an edge over "Charles III" simply because that title was used longer, and "Queen Consort" has been used longer.

  Let's actually look at the WP:CRITERIA, shall we:

  Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize. Both names are equally recognizable, so this is a nonreactor.

  Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English. - This one is hard to prove either way, since it relies on what readers are likely to look/search for, again could go either way.

  Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. Also a nonfactor.

  Concision – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. Obviously supports Queen Camilla.

  Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Again supports Queen Camilla. In line with Queen Sonja of Norway, Queen Silvia of Sweden, Queen Máxima of the Netherlands, Queen Mathilde of Belgium, Queen Letizia of Spain and Queen Rania of Jordan. Estar8806 (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  You're citing guidelines and policies without naming any but COMMONNAME - above, I cited recognizability and precision. BilledMammal (talk) 19:56, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  You're right, I should've been more clear. COMMONNAME is the only policy you cited that could remotely support keeping the present title. Estar8806 (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  I disagree, and even if they don't COMMONNAME is sufficient. Also, please stop WP:BLUDGEONING this discussion; you've replied to every single oppose and neutral !vote, often in great length. It's time to let other editors contribute. BilledMammal (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  Not only does the articles linked in the initial move proposal indicate WP:COMMONNAME is changing, WP:OFFICIALNAME is changing as well, and as Estar8806 pointed out, this is often ignored for royalty, see WP:TITLECON. Richiepip (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  The articles linked in the proposal are cherrypicked. If you see my oppose above you will see that sources continue to prefer "Queen Consort". BilledMammal (talk) 19:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  You literally claimed that we cannot support a name based on google search results, but now you're trying to use your original argument (using google search results). Really? Estar8806 (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  We cannot support a name based on simple google search results. We can support it based on specialized google search results, such as google scholar, google books, and, as I am doing here, google news search results. BilledMammal (talk) 19:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  And yet the Google news results that you put forward do not support your own argument. A difference of 'two' results can be dispensed with. It shows that both names are common. In that case, WP:TITLECON should prevail as the article's name should be consistent with all other articles on living queens consort. Your argument that the name is not recognizable is simply untrue. There has been only one queen in history named Camilla and it's this person. And there's no need to throw in "consort" anywhere in there either. Queen Letizia and Queen Rania are two examples that come to mind. Keivan.f^Talk 20:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  Being consistent with all other articles on living queens consort is arbitrarily narrow. We should be considering all consorts, and when we do it is clear that the title is not inconsistent; Anna Orbeliani, Queen Consort of Imereti and Albert, Prince Consort are two examples that come to mind. BilledMammal (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  Do not cherrypick if you want to bring deceased consorts into this. Because there are dozens of articles on queens consort that do not have the word "consort" in their titles: Maria Komnene, Queen of Hungary, Marie of Brabant, Queen of France, Marie of Lusignan, Queen of Aragon, Marie of Luxembourg, Queen of France, Maria of Portugal, Queen of Castile, Maria of Aragon, Queen of Castile, Maria of Serbia, Queen of Bosnia, Maria of Aragon, Queen of Portugal, Mary Tudor, Queen of France, Elizabeth of Sicily, Queen of Hungary, Elizabeth Stuart, Queen of Bohemia, Elisabeth of Austria, Queen of France, Elisabeth of Bavaria, Queen of Germany, Elisabeth of Carinthia, Queen of the Romans, Elizabeth of Hungary, Queen of Serbia, Elisabeth of Bavaria, Queen of the Belgians, etc. Keivan.f^Talk 20:25, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  There are. But the point is that using consort here is not unique; it is not inconsistent - and thus WP:CONSISTENT is not a reason against using the more common and more accurate title. BilledMammal (talk) 20:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  Two pages are not enough to make a strong argument against using a policy. The page on Anna Orbeliani itself is not consistent with articles on other Georgian queens and was moved without discussion. Also, "Camilla, Queen Consort" is not the more common and more accurate title. She's referred to as "Queen Camilla" or "The Queen Consort" in sources, and the former is perfectly accurate and common. Keivan.f^Talk 20:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:NCROY. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  Which part exactly? Keivan.f^Talk 20:43, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  Article titles are not normally prefixed with "King", "Queen", "Emperor" or equivalent. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  That's not the right part; that's for monarchs. WP:CONSORTS is the part that sets the guideline for consorts, as quoted by Richiepip below. Keivan.f^Talk 21:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  I see no reason why that part should not apply to consorts. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  Frankly, our personal reasonings don't matter. If you're unhappy with how it's been set up, you're welcome to open a discussion and change the guideline that affects pages on all queens consort (not that it hasn't been attempted). Until then, it is what it is. Keivan.f^Talk 21:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  Can you point to any other article on a consort prefixed with Queen without "of {Place}" suffixed to the name? (The Queen Mother doesn't count.) ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

  Territorial designations are not used for British monarchs (George III onwards) or their consorts (unless maiden names are used); ex. the page on Prince Albert is not at "Albert, Prince Consort of the United Kingdom" and this page is not at "Camilla, Queen Consort of the United Kingdom" per community consensus reached at this RM. Additionally, the consensus reached at the last RM for Charles III's page also made it very clear the "of the United Kingdom" part is not necessary, since Charles is head of state in 15 countries. Not to mention that Camilla's status is acknowledged as his consort in other realms (ex. Canada); i.e. she's not queen consort only in the UK. That's not the case for other queens whose husbands reign over a single sovereign state. Keivan.f^Talk 06:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  So, in other words, you can't point to any other article. Therefore, there's no precedent for renaming this article as such. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 10:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  Since when have we named articles based on 'precedent'? There's no such thing in our policies. And I mentioned two pages that do not use territorial designations; this page and that of Prince Albert. Camilla's article needs to be consistent with that of her husband as well. She's not only queen consort in the United Kingdom, and the community opposed to having any territorial designations added to her page title in the previous RM. It's as simple as that. Keivan.f^Talk 14:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  WP:TITLECON. Right, so the title of this page is already consistent with Albert. I see nothing in WP:NCROY that says anything to justify your statement that Camilla's article needs to be consistent with that of her husband. She was born in the UK to a UK family, so her being not only queen consort in the United Kingdom shouldn't be a concern. No prior consort is titled "Queen {Name}" without anything after the name, so Camilla of the United Kingdom makes much more sense as an alternative title that takes into account her country of origin, per WP:CONSORTS. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  Albert was a male consort and titled "The Prince Consort". Camilla is about to be consecrated as "The Queen" at her coronation. So her being not only queen consort in the United Kingdom shouldn't be a concern. I'm sorry, but it is a concern; and this RM clearly demonstrates that the community thinks the same. Charles was also born in the UK to a UK family. Doesn't mean that he's not King of Canada or Jamaica. Also, WP:NCROY says nothing about taking into account a consort's country of origin, unless the person is already known in English as "{Name} of {Place}". It recommends using the current and most recent title for living consorts. Keivan.f^Talk 21:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, and Camilla is a female consort titled "The Queen Consort" as of this writing. The coronation is not until Saturday, so, at the moment, the title is correct. No, it's not a concern, no more than Alexandra of Denmark or Mary of Teck should be of concern. Camilla is of the UK, nobody has any doubt about that. Charles is head of state, so that opens a different can of worms. I just think it's good practice to be consistent and maintain the "{Name} of {Place}" format for consorts if "{Name}, {Title}" can't be applied. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:27, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  But, the pages on "Alexandra of Denmark" and "Mary of Teck" are at their maiden names. Camilla's maiden name is "Camilla Shand", not "Queen Camilla", "Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom", "Camilla, Queen Consort", or "The Queen Consort". And yes, Camilla is British, but she's consort to a monarch that reigns over 15 realms, and if we are to use her 'current' name and title as a living consort, the page should be titled with respect to her role as a consort in all those 15 nations, not just the UK. Keivan.f^Talk 23:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, because the first was foreign and the second was descended from foreign nobility. Neither is true of Camilla, so Camilla of the United Kingdom would have to do, as it's the only territorial designation she officially has now (I think having "Queen" in the title would be redundant, much like how it is for monarchs). Yes, but she's still a subject of her husband, a British subject. Her role as consort in other nations is neither here nor there. If Camilla was Canadian, I would support having "of Canada" in her article title. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 23:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  "Camilla of the United Kingdom" generally implies she is of royal birth within the United Kingdom (eg. Alexandra of Denmark was a Princess of Denmark; Mary of Teck, a Princess of Teck, etc). Either Camilla Parker Bowles or Camilla Stand would be the title in the circumstance you're proposing.

  But that's for deceased consorts. Living Queens consort are titled "Queen {Name} of {Place}". You claimed above to be seeking consistency, that consistency already exists, you're in fact the one trying to make this article inconsistent by trying to omit the title of "Queen". Yes, "Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom" is what WP:NCROY would require, but that same guideline would require Charles III of the United Kingdom, which has been rejected. Thus, "Queen Camilla" would be consistent with both her husband and living Queens consort. Estar8806 (talk) 00:30, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  It's true that many articles about queens consort used their maiden names, for example the six wives of Henry VIII. But that complies with common name. Reliable sources are more likely for example to call her Anne Boleyn. It also makes disambiguation easier, since there are no no ordinal numbers or territorial designations. There were approx. five other Queen Annes in the UK and several others in other countries. For consistency, I would agree with renaming the article. Camilla Parker-Bowles (not Shand), but doubt most editors would agree. TFD (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  WP:NCROY states "Living or recently deceased royal consorts are referred to by their present name and title, as with Queen Letizia of Spain and Queen Rania of Jordan", well, in this case, that is Queen Camilla. Richiepip (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  In that case it would be "Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom", which is not what you're proposing. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

  The quotation from the policy mentions nothing about territorial designation. Richiepip (talk) 02:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  So why then are those two articles not named Queen Letizia and Queen Rania? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 10:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  Because the article on Rania's husband is at Abdullah II of Jordan. The only two queens whose pages lack consistency with those of their husbands are Queen Silvia and Queen Letizia and there is a strong case for moving both, because the community recently rejected the idea of reintroducing territorial designations and upheld WP:CONCISE. Keivan.f^Talk 14:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think that policy can appropriately apply to consorts, as their very title is dependent on a territorial designation of some sort, either deriving from their parentage or their marriage. It's an integral part of their identity as consort. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  WP:NCROY is not a policy, it's a guideline. WP:CONCISE, however, is a policy that applies to all pages. And no, a queen's title is not dependent on a territorial designation. Each queen consort is known simply as "The Queen" or "Queen [Name]" in their respective country of origin (Silvia, Letizia). The addition of territorial designations is to help with disambiguation on Wikipedia. That's it. And the pages on Letizia and Silvia do not require such form of disambiguation because there have not been any other queens who bore those names. Not to mention that a monarch's title also derives from their parentage and has links to the state they reign over. That's not ground for moving Felipe VI to "Felipe VI of Spain" when the current name is concise and recognizable. And this is not my opinion; this was decided at an RM that covered that page. Keivan.f^Talk 21:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I was referring to the guideline. Each queen consort is known simply as "The Queen" or "Queen [Name]" in their respective country of origin - that is not what I'm arguing. My point is that their title is symbiotic with that of their spouse, whose territorial designation they borrow and without which they cannot be queen. That's it. No, it's not just that, it's a helpful description, much like "Duke of Edinburgh" is helpful for Prince Philip's article title even though he's the primary topic for that name. And the pages on Letizia and Silvia do not require such form of disambiguation because there have not been any other queens who bore those names. Both Queen Letizia and Queen Silvia are redirects, in case you forgot. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  They indeed borrow their husband's rank, but not any territorial designations. For example, Silvia is simply "The Queen". It is not wrong to refer to her as "The Queen of Sweden", but that is not her actual title. That was not the case for Philip, a prince with a specific royal dukedom, similar to his sons Andrew and Edward. He was "The Duke of Edinburgh"; that was his title not a territorial designation ("Philip of Greece and Denmark" would be a form of his name that includes territorial designations). Btw, I'm not necessarily against using a territorial designation, but if the page on Silvia's husband can be at Carl XVI Gustaf, her page can be at "Queen Silvia" in my opinion. A clueless reader looking at the name "Carl XVI Gustaf" would not necessarily come to the conclusion that he is "of Sweden" unless they read the article; because the symbiotic relationship you referred to equally exists between a monarch and their country. But, that principle has been overridden in favor of WP:CONCISE in recent RMs. Keivan.f^Talk 23:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to Camilla, Queen of the United Kingdom. I just don't like the idea of prefixing articles with "Queen", especially since we don't do so for other monarchs or British consorts, with the glaring exception of Victoria for reasons I begrudgingly accept, and the Queen Mother whose title is very much an eccentric case. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 23:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  The prefix "Queen" does not appear in the articles for non-British consorts either (Ingrid of Sweden who was Queen of Denmark is an example). It's just that currently we have one format for living consorts and another for deceased ones. As I pointed out earlier there was an attempt years ago to have the prefix removed but it failed back then. As long as the convention does not change, we should stick to the established pattern of using a living consort's current title. Keivan.f^Talk 17:30, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  Recent British monarchs and their consorts are not referred to as "of the United Kingdom" as, uniquely, the British monarch is also, equally the monarch of more than a dozen other realms. Jèrriais janne (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support - Also as per @Keivan.f. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 21:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support It seems that going forward, Camilla will be referred to simply as the Queen. The title Queen Camilla also seems more natural than Queen Consort Camilla. Векочел (talk) 21:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Her official website still lists her title as "Queen Consort", so that's what we should be using for the title. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  Even the official website has referred to her as The Queen elsewhere: This will be followed by The Procession of The King and The Queen which will be led by the Marquess of Anglesey, the Duke of Westminster, the Earl of Caledon and the Earl of Dundee …. And it was previously announced that her page will be updated on coronation day, the day on which this RM will probably be closed and this matter can be put to rest. Keivan.f^Talk 23:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  Would you be so kind as to provide the source that says Her Majesty’s page shall be updated? Thanks! Would be much appreciated :) AKTC3 (talk) 05:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

  @AKTC3: The Guardian: The royal website will be updated post-coronation to reflect Camilla's change in title, with queen consort being replaced with Queen Camilla, the palace said. Keivan.f^Talk 15:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

  It will likely be Her Majesty the Queen therefore dropping the word Consort. King4852 (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

  ‘Preciate it! AKTC3 (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

  https://twitter.com/davidtorrance/status/1653801546658742277?s=20

  The King has directed by Royal Warrant that as of 6 May 2023 the prayers for or referring to members of the Royal Family should be altered so that instead of the words “Camilla the Queen Consort” the words “Queen Camilla” should be inserted 223.16.62.17 (talk) 17:05, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support. I'm amazed it's taken this long for Wikipedia to catch up with the rest of the world and refer to her as Queen. -85.255.236.86 (talk) 07:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• Wait: there is evidence to suggest that the "most official" sources (i.e. Buckingham Palace or the BBC) will change terminology on 6 May, and it seems particularly appropriate for us to coordinate the page move accordingly. At any rate (as has been explained in the past), article titles about royalty and nobility uphold a slightly different standard to what might be the most common form of the name as used in the media – which is how we ended up with the present title in the first place. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 11:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  Given the royal warrant pointed out by others, I support moving this page to "Queen Camilla", but on Coronation Day. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 21:06, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support. That's her title, now being used by the Palace. This "Queen Consort" nonsense has only been used up to now to avoid confusion with the late Queen. The sooner it dies a death the better. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  You are 100% correct but it seems there are a few wokes in Wikipedia who will never accept her as the rightful Queen because they loved her predecessor as Princess of Wales for some reason as so have a strange vendetta against the current Queen. -85.255.236.89 (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  She's not "the rightful" anything. She's not the successor of the Queen. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  As the wife of a king, she's by law a queen. So were Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, Queen Mary, Queen Alexandra, etc. This has nothing to do with Elizabeth II. Keivan.f^Talk 21:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  That's just legalese, nothing more. She's not the queen in the same way as Elizabeth II. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  Of course. Nobody said that she's the sovereign. The title for a queen regnant or queen consort, however, is usually "The Queen". And Camilla is referred to as "The Queen" in the order of service for the coronation. Keivan.f^Talk 23:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, that's all it is ultimately, a title. Like "first lady" in the United States. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 23:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  The fact that she is legally Queen is not "just legalese", it simply common law. You may be right that her being "The Queen" is simply a title. But then again, so is Prince of Wales, Princess of Wales, Duke of York, Duke of Edinburgh, etc. Estar8806 (talk) 00:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  She's not the successor of the Queen who died, that's what I mean. Camilla is a de jure queen, not a de facto one, in other words. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  Can you please provide the Case law in common law or something from a legal textbook that sets the title of the ruling monarch. TFD (talk) 22:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support per RS and the fact it makes more sense as a page title Yeoutie (talk) 03:05, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support The time has indeed come. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support, per SergeWoodzing, time to close this and change the title. Even the Prime Minister is using the honorific 'Queen'. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:38, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support*, No other female consort on Wikipedia is referred to as "Queen Consort", just "Queen". It is time to move the page. Coronation invitation even says Queen Camilla, and a spokesperson of the Royal household mentioned the transition I think.MicroSupporter (talk) 15:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support We don't need to discuss anymore, the king has issued the Royal Warrant. It's offcial: Queen Camilla".The King has directed by Royal Warrant that as of 6 May 2023 the prayers for or referring to members of the Royal Family should be altered so that instead of the words “Camilla the Queen Consort” the words “Queen Camilla” should be inserted.The full text of the Royal Warrant can be found in this tweet:https://twitter.com/davidtorrance/status/1653801546658742277?s=20 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.16.62.17 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  This literally says "From 6 May 2023", ie in the future, not now. In what possible world is it a source that supports this change today? Gugrak (talk) 02:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Gugrak This change is not being proposed to be made today. The change will be made (if the RM passes) at least one week from when the RM was opened (eg. it would be closed on 6 May 2023. The "support" !votes are not support for the change at the exact moment they are commenting, but from 6 May (ie. when the source says her title will be changed). Estar8806 (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

  It's still worth pointing out, as evidenced by the attempts to update the page based on this RFC and the Warrant Gugrak (talk) 17:17, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

  Then there is no real point to the move request. There was no move request for example after Sunak won the Conservative leadership to replace Liz Truss, even though the succession was not immediate. There are of course always editors who jump the gun on title changes, then get reverted. That doesn't mean the other editors never wanted Sunak to be described as PM because for some reason they didn't like him, but just wanted his title to follow sources. TFD (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support as per the royal warrant issued on 3 May 2023. Her title is Queen Camilla. Yeungkahchun (talk) 23:58, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  Her title is Queen Camilla "from 6 May 2023". Gugrak (talk) 02:12, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

  I don't understand the logic either. The fact that something will happen in the future does not mean it has already happened. And it's not as if there was any ambiguity in the royal warrant or in any of the other reliable sources that have explained her title. TFD (talk) 03:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

  Because it is not a clear-cut matter. For example, the Prime Minister referred to her as "The Queen" at yesterday's PMQs. The change in her title will be reaffirmed on 6 May. Otherwise, she has been "The Queen" legally since the moment her mother-in-law died (not that she's her successor, but in her role as a consort). Keivan.f^Talk 18:23, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

  He actually didn't, he said "the King and Queen". She's still the queen consort regardless of any title change. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:28, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for confirming what I just said. He said "The King and Queen", not "The King and Queen Consort". And how many more times should I repeat that no one is saying she's a successor to Elizabeth II? I even wrote that in my previous comment. She is a queen consort and her title is "The Queen". So are Silvia, Letizia, Sonja, Mathilde, etc. all of whom are queens consort and all of whom are known as "The Queen". It doesn't mean that they are sovereigns because "The Queen" can be used for both queens regnant and queens consort. Keivan.f^Talk 21:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

  Because that's clearly what "The Queen" implies, much like how "The Duke of Edinburgh" implies the successor to Prince Philip, which it is in that case. Her title is "Queen Camilla", not "The Queen" until Buckingham Palace says otherwise. Those other spouses you mention are obviously referred to as such in their own language, given that none of them are referred to as "The Queen" by anglophone media. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:37, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

  Okay. Let me get this straight. You're trying to argue that the page should not be moved, but you literally said straight out Her title is "Queen Camilla". Even if she were just to be called "Queen Camilla" (and not "The Queen" or "The Queen Consort") then that would still be the proper title for this article.

  And you're also simply incorrect, the coronation liturgy has said "The Queen", and royal.uk has said "The Queen"[20]. Estar8806 (talk) 22:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, there's no contradiction in that all. I'm basing my argument on WP:NCROY, which discourages the use of "Queen" in article titles. Buckingham Palace hasn't yet formally announced any change of title from "The Queen Consort", no matter what those links may claim. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 02:41, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  "The Duke of Edinburgh" does not imply successor to Prince Philip. Philip's successor was Prince Charles, and when he became king he created Edward "Duke of Edinburgh". And "The Queen" does not imply successor to a queen regnant. Alexandra of Denmark, daughter-in-law of Queen Victoria, was titled "The Queen". That doesn't mean that she was her successor. Keivan.f^Talk 23:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

  If it's not her title, why does the Palace, Parliament and British media refer to her as "Camilla, Queen Consort?" No one referred to the late Queen as "Elizabeth, Queen Regnant." Instead they would have said "Queen Elizabeth is the queen regnant." Notice titles are capitalized, which positions are not. TFD (talk) 00:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  "Duke of Edinburgh" remains the same substantive title, so the implication is there. Yes, the current holder isn't the immediate successor but that's irrelevant to the point. It's the same dukedom, whereas Camilla's isn't the same queendom. As for Alexandra, that may be so but it's also irrelevant since her article isn't titled Queen Alexandra. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 02:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  Neveselbert. In point of fact it isn’t the same Dukedom. The third creation (1947) of the Dukedom of Edinburgh passed to His Majesty the King (when Prince of Wales) upon the death of the first holder, HRH Prince Philip, on 9th April 2021. When His Majesty the King acceded to the throne on 8 September 2022 the Dukedom was merged in the crown, and the title thus became extinct.

  The title was recreated on 3 April 2023, and the current Duke of Edinburgh, HRH Prince Edward, is the first holder of this, the fourth creation of the Dukedom. Svs02 (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, that's what I mean, it's the fourth creation of the same dukedom. Whereas Camilla's title isn't the nth creation of the same queendom. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  The royal family webside is update. Camilla is the Queen

  https://www.royal.uk/the-queen KGOO510 (talk) 07:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

@Keivan.f:, in Sunak's statement, he referred to sending best wishes to "the King and Queen, ahead of the coronation." The coronation of course will confirm Charles as King and and Camilla will be crowned as Queen. Had he referred to her as Queen Consort, it would have implied that she would be crowned with that title.

Furthermore, what any PM says is not a reliable source. A better source is the UK Parliament, which reported the royal couple's visit the day before: "Their Majesties the King and Queen Consort visit Parliament ahead of the Coronation". Do you think they don't know what Camilla's title is?

TFD (talk) 00:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

And the Church of England has referred to her as "The Queen". I presume they also know what her title is. Besides, these arguments are becoming pointless and repetitive. Nobody is saying that Camilla is not a queen consort or that she's a successor to Elizabeth II. She's the wife of a king, and as such she's entitled to be known as "The Queen". And she will be referred to as such from 6 May onwards. Keivan.f^Talk 02:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

No, Buckingham Palace is the sole authority on her title and they are yet to formally announce such a change. If and when they do so, I'll concede the point. But we shouldn't be soothsaying before then. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 02:59, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

She will be anointed as "The Queen" per the order of service. Are you seriously suggesting that this was put together without the palace's consent? Keivan.f^Talk 03:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

No, she will be anointed as queen, not "The Queen". The anointment relates to her position, not her title. It doesn't matter whether there was consent or not, it's still not a formal announcement from the palace. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 03:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I think that capital "T" "The" is only used for substantive rather than courtesy titles. Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, for example was not referred to as "The Queen." If a king divorced and remarried there would be two queens consort. TFD (talk) 10:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

@TFD That is indeed incorrect; and a search though the London Gazette demonstrates that. Here's George VI referring to his wife as "The Queen" and here's the entry for a ceremony at the Court of Saint James at which "Her Majesty The Queen" and "Her Royal Highness The Princess Elizabeth" were present. Keivan.f^Talk 19:08, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

And in the event of a king's divorce there wouldn't be two queens consort. The divorced consort reverts back to using her previous title. Catherine of Aragon became "The Dowager Princess of Wales" once she got divorced. Keivan.f^Talk 19:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The word "the" is not usually captialized in HM the Queen and not used at all when the actual name is used, e.g., "HM Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother." Note this differs from the usage for her daughter, who was "HM The Princess Elizabeth." In fact the same is true for the king or queen regnant. No sources would say for example, "Next year, The Queen Camilla will visit" Washington."

Catherine of Aragon was not divorced from Henry VIII, the marriage was annulled which means legally it never took place. She retained the courtesy title of Princess of Wales because she had been married to Henry's late elder brother when he was Prince of Wales. Dowager means widow, which is a clear reference to her late husband, not Henry.

Anyway, you need a reliable source that says Camilla's title is "The Queen," otherwise it is just OR. TFD (talk) 23:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

There are so many things wrong with this. Actually, "the" is capitalized in formal titles, all you have to do is look at the court circular, or even just the royal.uk website. As a Princess, Elizabeth was HRH, not HM. No sources will say "The Queen Camilla" because that's grammatically incorrect. The Times has referred to Camilla as "The Queen" for several months, and other sources in the nomination also use "The Queen". Estar8806 (talk) 23:46, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

It only seems wrong because you are unfamiliar with the actual rules. Why do you think it is grammatically correct to refer to "The Princess Elizabeth," but not "The Queen Elizabeth?" It's because "The" is part of the title of princesses with substantive titles. In fact it is grammatically incorrect to capitalize "The" in "HM The Queen," but could appear in archaic writing. Note the UK parliament uses lower case "the" for the king and queen, as do most sources.

Again, you need sources for any changes you want to make to the article.

BTW,the coronation is only four hours away and it appears that Camilla's title will be changed at some point during the day and reliable sources will begin referring to her as Queen Camilla perhaps even earlier. Hope that takes a weight off your mind. TFD (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes I apologize for failing to provide sources but here's a few, along with those above. [21]

[22]

[23]. Also, I may have misspoken by claiming grammatical incorrectness. But in any case, "The" is almost always capitalized, in the Court Circular [24], by Parliament [25], in the London Gazette [26]. In any case that capitalization is irrelevant to the article title. But I'm glad we're in agreement that her title will change tomorrow, which was the whole point with the timing of this RM. It was not my intent to have the page moved ahead of the coronation, which is why I proposed this when I did (and I think there's been some confusion in that regard). Estar8806 (talk) 00:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

No, you have provided a source that "The Queen" is a queen's title in the UK. Anyway, if you feel strongly, then get the Manual of Style changed, because it would apply to countless articles. TFD (talk) 04:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

The BBC has done a detailed article on the order of service and in it, Camilla is clearly referred to as "The Queen": Their Majesties The King and The Queen arrive at the West Gate. A fanfare is sounded. All stand. Keivan.f^Talk 06:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

“Buckingham Palace has published the Order of Service for the Coronation of Their Majesties The King and Queen, which will be held in Westminster Abbey at 11:00am today, Saturday 6th May.” “The Coronation of The Queen

The Coronation of The Queen will follow that of The King in a similar but simpler ceremony in which she will be anointed and crowned and presented with her own items of regalia.” From order of service published by Buckingham Palace.

The order of service refer to Camilla as the Queen issued by Buckingham Palace. Is this convincing enough?

https://www.westminster-abbey.org/abbey-news/buckingham-palace-publishes-order-of-service-for-the-coronation-of-the-king-and-queen 223.16.62.17 (talk) 02:26, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose "Queen Camilla" should be a disambiguation page, there being Camilla (mythology), a queen of the Volscians. And Queen Camilla (novel) -- leaving at least 3 entries for a disambiguation page -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 03:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  Absolutely not. The mythological figure was not even a real queen and the novel is on the subject of this page. Keivan.f^Talk 03:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Keivan.f: can you stop wp:bludgeoning the discussion? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 03:15, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  Maybe you should follow that advice yourself as well. Keivan.f^Talk 03:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  Oh come on, I haven't responded to almost every single comment disagreeing with me like you have done. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 03:19, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  To be fair — Keivan.f is not merely contradicting opposing viewpoint but rather giving reasoning other than mere contradiction… AKTC3 (talk) 06:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  That still counts as bludgeoning especially when you're repeating the same points. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  I have not repeated the same points simply because those who voted "oppose" were not consistent in their arguments to begin with. Keivan.f^Talk 19:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  You have essentially, just let the process play out without cross-examining every person who opposes. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  It's not cross-examination; it's called debate. And those who have opposed haven't fallen behind in leaving their own comments; you included. Keivan.f^Talk 20:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  I disagree, since Queen Camilla would be a secondary title for the mythological figure. Not normally how one might search for that. A "see also" at the top would suffice. That said, I still think we should hold off on renaming the article, unless something has changed in the last few hours (having been keeping up on the developments regarding Camilla, so not sure if it has been made clearer if she will formally use the title "Queen Camilla" as her primary title). SecretName101 (talk) 05:42, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  I think the Royal warrant comes incredibly close. But it is still unclear whether that is the title they want used in all primary contexts, or if it was just the title preferred specifically for the prayer and not for other circumstances. SecretName101 (talk) 05:58, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  Regardless of whether it is intended to apply to contexts other than prayers, the Royal warrant is a primary source. We are supposed to be considering actual usage (not just mention) in a significant majority of independent, reliable secondary sources. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  @A primary source indicating WHAT? If it only indicates that it will be how she is referred to in prayers, than that is no reason to move. If it is the title she will be formally referred to primarily, it is. That matters a whole lot to determine actual usage. SecretName101 (talk) 22:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  Camilla, Queen Consort is by far the most viewed page out of any of the three you've cited for a potential disambig. [27] It's a textbook definition of a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Estar8806 (talk) 11:42, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support, but wait. Obviously her (used) title will change on the date specified in the royal warrant. When that happens, move. Not before. Charlie A. (talk) 09:08, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

There is overwhelming support for a move now, yet those few who insist on waiting until tomorrow get they way regardless. Wikipedia at its worst. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:59, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote, and whoever closes this RM will look at policy-based reasoning, not a numerical count of support vs oppose. And the usual duration of an RM is at least 7 days anyway. Rosbif73 (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Strong Support Totally agreed. Her Title is Queen of the United Kingdom. The Coronation is tomorrow. Absolutely Wikipedia at its worst. Yeungkahchun (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Since the move request says it will be completed after the coronation, you cannot assume that support votes are for moving the article before her title changes, since that was never the question. TFD (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support and holy freaking cow, lol, this is about as WP:POINTy of a discussion as I've seen in years. Red Slash 21:03, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support and MOVE NOW The Royal Family website has updated her title to Her Majesty The Queen

• Support and MOVE quickly. The Royal Family website has updated,refers camilla as The Queen. Wiki is still Queen Cosort, which it is worst. https://www.royal.uk/the-queen — Preceding unsigned comment added by KGOO510 (talk • contribs) 08:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment The Royal Family website has dropped consort in favour of her legal title, HM The Queen. I request that the move to Queen Camilla happen as soon as possible. GandalfXLD (talk) 08:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed! No need to wait the 7 days now. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 08:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Now that her used title has changed over (as anticipated) it’s time to move the page. But the (conspiracy) theory that keeping the page at her previously-used title until and unless the change actually happened was all just bad-faith/non-npov is a bit weird. Charlie A. (talk) 09:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

The reason for keeping her then current title rather than her future title was that is common usage. Similarly we didn't start calling Rishi Sunak PM before he assumed the office and continued to call Liz Truss PM even after she announced her resignation. The argument for an immediate move was not that her title would change but that it had always been Queen Camilla. TFD (talk) 11:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support as of a few minutes ago (the point this RM should actually have been opened). U-Mos (talk) 11:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  There wouldn't have been any point to have a move request after she assumed her new title, since no one would have opposed a move request. TFD (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yep; if it wasn't for the endless premature discussions that preceded this moment, the move would be uncontroversial and would probably have been able to take place more swiftly than it will :) U-Mos (talk) 11:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  I don't know why we're assuming it would have been uncontroversial- it probably wouldn't have been. It may be uncontroversial to the vast majority of us here and to more of those who opposed this than not, but there are certainly some who's oppositions are not based on timing but rather an argument of WP:COMMONNAME. Estar8806 (talk) 11:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  And at this point a there's nothing wrong with a slightly early closure. If you want to put this up on WP:CR, I don't see why not to. Estar8806 (talk) 11:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  @The Four Deuces The point is that this is not a “new title”. HM the Queen has been her title since September 2022. That wikipedia continues to be so laggardly in recognising it, and that the reasons put up against doing so continue to be so appallingly pettifogging, does not reflect well on the site. Svs02 (talk) 11:51, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  Well that may be technically/partially true, she was officially and commonly called Queen Consort up until the last few weeks, where a shift has occurred. It would have been OR then to call her "Her Majesty The Queen", a case which is not now. Estar8806 (talk) 11:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  Basically the article followed reliable sources. Previously the article did not call her the Princess of Wales although that might have been her title, and Prince Harry's children were not called prince and princess until he decided to use them.

  While various editors have made arguments that her title was queen, it's all been based on their personal opinions rather than expert opinion. Ultimately, the King as the fount of all honours can decide what titles people hold. That's one of the advantages of being King. TFD (talk) 13:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Commemt There are many haters here. Page movers and admins are delayed to change name per she was crowned as Queen. Don't be jealous - as you never get royal life. Yes I'm a core fan of Princess Dinana and I dont like Camilla. But Wikipedia is Wikipedia personal is personal. Should not be biased. Shame! 2001:44C8:4653:61FB:8468:F727:182C:BC39 (talk) 11:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME and [28]. --SHB2000 (talk) 11:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom. This is overdue. Zacwill (talk) 12:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: I have no opinion regarding the title, the page had been moved to Queen Camilla of the United Kigdom and then a cut and paste moved performed to rename to Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom. I repaired the cut and paste moves and had not noticed this move discussion in progress. Considering that no resolution had been reached, it would be reasonable to move this back to original title until this discussion concludes. older ≠ wiser 12:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  I've gone ahead and put in a request at WP:CR simply because I don't think there'd be any opposition to a slightly early closure, assuming there is consensus which I think there probably is. Also pinging @Keivan.f and @U-Mos due to their participation in the discussion about the cut-and-paste move that appears to have been lost. Estar8806 (talk) 12:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what happened, but it appears the edit history for the talk page is still at Talk:Queen Camilla of the United Kigdom which has been deleted. I'm not able to restore it as I get a database error due to the size of the history. older ≠ wiser 13:04, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  I left a message on the admin who deleted the page's talk, I don't know if he will be able to do it? Or if someone higher up will have to? Estar8806 (talk) 13:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks Estar, and apologies Bkonrad for assuming you had made the deletion. I've also requested an uncontroversial reversion to Camilla, Queen Consort while this move request concludes. U-Mos (talk) 13:17, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  The other admin seems to have successfully merged the histories and deleted the old pages and fixed whatever was broken. It might be best to drop the revert request just in case the closure request gets executed first, and we wouldn't want the page to be reverted against consensus. The present title may not be what we want, but hopefully the request I put in will be taken up soon. Estar8806 (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  The procedual matter of reverting the current move should occur in advance of the move request ending (especially as any closer will have to read this ridiculously lengthy section). If it doesn't, either an admin at RM or me will simply remove it. U-Mos (talk) 13:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support, because she's crowned “Queen Camilla” and for consistency with other current queen consorts:

• Queen Mathilde of Belgium
• Queen Máxima of the Netherlands
• Queen Sonja of Norway
• Queen Letizia of Spain
• Queen Silvia of Sweden

— Michael! (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

D-day anniversary 'celebrations'

article currently reads 'In June 2014, Camilla and Charles attended the 70th anniversary celebrations of D-Day in Normandy'.

celebrations is an inappropriate word, I suggest commemorations instead. 195.213.213.219 (talk) 14:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done Keivan.f^Talk 15:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Chronic ear infections

If a chronic problem like this is indeed an issue to the extent that its discussed as such in RS then it should be covered in article in that context and sourced appropriately, not by reference to a single instance where she missed some engagements for a very mundane and commonplace reason. Gugrak (talk) 01:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

She had it in 2005 and she had a more serious episode in 2012. There are other sources that mention it, but I don't think we need to list every single one of them. That being said, it is still a health issue. Keivan.f^Talk 02:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The sinusitis and ear infections are different things. If we have sources that discuss this as a chronic health issue that's one thing. Listing individual instances of different infections that everyone gets is not significant. Lumping them together without RS demonstrating that there's an ongoing issue is WP:SYNTH and as a health issue verges on being a BLP problem Gugrak (talk) 03:01, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Two similar infections seven years apart isn't chronic. Taking two sick days in twenty years is not evidence of ill health. TFD (talk) 03:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2023

Camilla will be known as queen after the coronation 2A02:C7E:3A14:B200:38CC:C1DA:33D4:5E99 (talk) 13:23, 5 May 2023 (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. Callmemirela 🍁 13:42, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Title

Her title "Camilla, Queen Consort" can now be changed as the coronation of Their Majesties takes place tomorrow. The Queen Consort of the Netherlands is "Queen Maxima of the Netherlands" so Camilla should be "Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom". 50.235.180.174 (talk) 14:09, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

There is already a discussion in progress. AKTC3 (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2023

Please remove the (fake) signature for Queen Camilla. She is not Camilla R (regnans), and would not have claimed that she is. Not even tomorrow! She does not reign, but is only Queen Consort. 2407:7000:9561:9700:7CCA:5873:182C:97C3 (talk) 04:48, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Please change the putative signature on this page “Camilla R” to nothing (remove it). Queen Camilla (after coronation) will not be Camilla R, meaning Regnans. She will not rule in any sense, but just remain Queen Consort. This “signature” is clearly a fake. You might want to block whoever posted it. 2407:7000:9561:9700:7CCA:5873:182C:97C3 (talk) 05:00, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

It appears she is signing Camilla R, and it stands for Regina, not Regnans. Gugrak (talk) 05:18, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

That's right; see signature source 73.93.5.246 (talk) 05:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

R stands for Regina, which means queen in Latin. In fact, the majority of queens consort sign their name that way, including Queen Letizia of Spain. Keivan.f^Talk 05:26, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Coronation Invite & Royal Website Updates to Queen Camilla

They've officially dropped the use of consort on the site and invitations. I think it's about time the wiki follow suit. 173.212.65.254 (talk) 08:33, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree. She is now referred to as The Queen on the official royal family website therefore her page should reflect as such. Any attempt to dispute this is just a thinly veiled attempt to discredit her as Queen. 81.140.89.191 (talk) 10:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2023 (2)

Queen of the United Kingdom 123.243.85.139 (talk) 11:19, 6 May 2023 (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.

Estar8806 (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Title

Somebody need to correct the title. It should read kingdom. not kigdom.

Saved by God's grace (talk) 12:26, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

All done. MicroSupporter (talk) 12:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Spelling error

I moved the page from Queen Camilla of the United Kigdom to Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom due to a spelling typo. MicroSupporter (talk) 12:33, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

The move should be reverted while the RM is still open. BilledMammal (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I have made a request (as uncontroversial) to that effect. U-Mos (talk) 13:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Article title and Commonwealth realms

Fair enough re: the move to Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom; BUT for a few years now we've avoided using "of the UK" for contemporary members of that family. To match Charles III, surely this should be at Queen Camilla - it's not like it's ambiguous (apart from quite an obscure book). DBD 13:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

The move was made against the discussion (to move the page to Queen Camilla) in progress and will not remain in effect. See #Requested move 29 April 2023 above. U-Mos (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Constant changing

Why after the coronation are we seeing constant changes from Camilla, Queen Consort to Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom? 81.140.89.191 (talk) 14:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

There is a move request above to rename the page Queen Camilla. The recent move ignored that process, so has been reverted. U-Mos (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC)