Jump to content

Talk:Queen Camilla

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Limyx826 (talk | contribs) at 16:08, 10 September 2022. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Lady of the Garter

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

Anne is a Royal Knight and Alexandra is a Royal Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter. That's not the case for Camilla. Keivan.fTalk 22:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keivan.f The idea that Princess Alexandra is a Royal Knight Companion – and thus appends KG to her name – comes from a Debrett's article published at a time when the Princess Royal and Princess Alexandra were the only female royals in the Order. The Palace claims that Alexandra is a Lady Companion.[1] The Sunday Times lists her as a Lady of the Garter.[2] This College of St George Archives Blog lists her as a Lady of the Order.[3] There are two possible answers to this: Debrett's was wrong to say Princess Alexandra is included with the Royal Knights Companion and she should append LG to her name and not KG (it is correct for Princess Anne as she specifically requested to be invested as a Royal Knight Companion), or all Royal Ladies are included with the Royal Knights, but are not the same, and append KG instead of LG.
The Duchess of Cornwall should be treated the same as Princess Alexandra (or vice-versa).OhDidgeridoo (talk) 23:29, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@OhDidgeridoo: Good point. But, I don't think Debrett's has made a mistake regarding Alexandra's situation. I just checked her up to date biography on the Royal Family's website. The very last sentence on her biography reads as follows: "Princess Alexandra was created a Dame Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order (GCVO) in 1960, and made a Knight of the Order of the Garter (KG) in 2003." It specifically says that she was made a knight, and not a lady, similar to Princess Anne apparently. So it contradicts the Palace's earlier statement from 2003 when it said she was made a Lady Companion. Now with Camilla, she has been named a Lady of the Garter. I haven't been able to find a source that calls her a knight. Until then, her article should be left as it is, because anything else could be considered original research. We cannot simply assume that Anne or Alexandra's case automatically applies to all the other ladies without having a source to back it up. Additionally, I'll add a footnote to Alexandra's page regarding the Palace's contradictory statements about her knighthood. Keivan.fTalk 02:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Royal Ladies of the Garter have the post nominals LG after their name. Royal Gentleman have KG. Heidi bradshaw (talk) 10:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ "New members of the Order of the Garter announced". royal.uk. 23 April 2003. Retrieved 19 June 2022.
  2. ^ "Order of the Garter full list". The Sunday Times. 16 June 2008. Retrieved 19 June 2022.
  3. ^ "Ladies Companion of the Garter". College of St George, Windsor Castle. 28 February 2010. Retrieved 19 June 2022.

Changes in lede following the death of Elizabeth II

The lede has been updated from:

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

to

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

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

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

Thoughts? WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that this page has already been moved to "Camilla, Queen of the United Kingdom". She has indicated on multiple occasions that she wants to be known as Princess Consort, not Queen. Has there been any official statement yet of what she's to be known as? The relevant paragraph under 'Titles, styles, honours and arms' implies not.
And BTW, it's a lead, not a lede. — Smjg (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Palace statement already refers to her as Queen Consort https://www.royal.uk/ BeaujolaisFortune (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. ISTM that's simply the way she's being referred to in this instance, and doesn't constitute an official statement of what she's to be known as.... — Smjg (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think everyone is taking it that way: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/royal-family/queen-consort-meaning-camilla-prince-charles-b1944724.html BeaujolaisFortune (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Camilla, Queen of the United Kingdom" implies that she is Queen regnant. I think the example of other queen consorts should be followed and the name of the article reverted back to "Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom". M. Armando (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hot take: the article is fine where it is for now. In a little while, we'll discuss at tedious length where it should be in the end, and that'll be Queen Camilla. DBD 20:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this page, as well as Charles, William and Catherine's, should be locked to ALL editing. The number of changes being made in the past few hours have been RIDICULOUS. And I'm always reading about how there should be uniformity and continuity between similar pages (ie Kings, Queens, etc) and yet these changes couldn't be further from that. If they were, then Charles's should be "Charles III of the United Kingdom and Camilla's should be "Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom". This community can be so unbelievably frustrating.JasonKurth (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC) JasonKurth[reply]

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

I do not agree with this. This excludes the other 14 countries of which Charles III is also King. Jèrriais janne (talk) 23:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Counterexamples: Carl XVI Gustaf, Felipe VI, Letsie III, Mswati III, Tupou VI. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 21:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I notice you conveniently leave out the fact that the other 37 currently reigning monarchs use some version of the "Name X of Country" format. JasonKurth (talk) 22:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC) JasonKurth[reply]
@JasonKurth Unfortunately, that would create a very long title indeed, given that Charles III is King of 15 sovereign states. Jèrriais janne (talk) 22:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

my thoughts exactly - see the Wiki page about the Quuen Mother "Elizabeth Angela Marguerite Bowes-Lyon (4 August 1900 – 30 March 2002) was Queen of the United Kingdom and the Dominions of the British Commonwealth from 11 December 1936 to 6 February 1952 as the wife of King George VI." 2003:C2:71D:7B00:30E9:30A5:BE2C:ED98 (talk) 22:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't agree more. LapseOfLuxury (talk) 18:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Same here. I truly believe the reason people are not refering to her as 'Queen Camilla' is because
a) people are still in denial and many didn't want her to be Queen Consort in the first place, but 'Princess Consort', and
b) so many people have only ever known a Queen Regnant and do not kow the difference, or lack the capacity to understand that Camilla is not in charge.
EmilySarah99 (talk) 03:07, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Requested move 8 September 2022

Camilla, Queen consort of the United Kingdom → Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom – WP:CONSORTS and to be in line with other European queens consort: Queen Silvia of Sweden, Queen Sonja of Norway, Queen Máxima of the Netherlands, Queen Mathilde of Belgium and Queen Letizia of Spain. Richiepip (talk) 21:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise that "Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother" was her formal title? U-Mos (talk) 06:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Usually Queens dowager become known only as "Queen X", like her predecessor, "Queen Mary". This "sort of" formal title came to be for the reason I expressed. Do not ignore the other examples. M. Armando (talk) 08:40, 10 September 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose - there are subtle, specific reasons why she is likely never to be referred to as “Queen Camilla” (her later marriage to Charles; the history & popularity of Diana; she is not the mother to the heir etc.). Instead, the Palace are using - as planned - a new title constitutionally: Queen Consort. This is strongly signalled by today’s new official Royal profile. It would be foolish for Wikipedia to pre-empt any change in how she is referred to prior to the Coronation. Therefore I support the proposal to move to Camilla, Queen Consort for the reasons given by RAVENPVFF. This should be reviewed if later is she does indeed start to be referred to as “Queen Camilla” but I personally expect this is extremely unlikely for the reasons outlined. BeaujolaisFortune (talk) 16:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely, I fully support this change instead for all the reasons you have said. Benjamin Bryztal (talk) 13:10, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait and see It seems premature to do this until the formal situation has clarified further. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 18:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to Queen Camilla. I see no reason why Her Majesty should be treated differently than any other Queen Consort. EmilySarah99 (talk) 03:12, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support move instead to Camilla, Queen Consort: as others have pointed out, this is her official title, and has precedent in Albert, Prince Consort, and the fact that the former Queen Consort, Mary of Teck, does not have Queen in the title at all. Camilla does not have similar status to the late Queen, and is not known as Queen Camilla by the public, but is almost exclusively referred to as Camilla, Queen Consort or the Queen Consort. Benjamin Bryztal (talk) 13:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Her title is “Queen Consort” according to HM the Queen (RIP) and HM Charles III. — https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/08/camilla-to-be-crowned-queen-beside-king-charles-iii-at-his-coronation Marginal12345678 (talk) 22:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your article does not support that notion: it specifically says "Queen Camilla, as she will be crowned" Jèrriais janne (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original proposal. We shouldn't use the word "consort" when we don't for any other equivalent person. This seems fairly open and shut, unless a very strong alternative common name emerges.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ALL of their titles (Silvia, Letizia, Sonja, Mathilde, Maxima) are Queen Consort. Are you suggesting we change all of them? All of the previous ones were Queen Consort (Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, Queen Mary, Queen Alexandra) also. She is only currently being described as Queen Consort so as a) not to confuse her with Elizabeth II and b) to make clear that she is not the reigning queen, as Elizabeth II was. JasonKurth (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct. She is Her Majesty The Queen, not Her Majesty The Queen Consort! Keivan.fTalk 22:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The Queen Consort" is apparently correct, in fact – see the updated Royal Family web page. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 23:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to argue with that, but as User:Killuminator pointed out that could be due to the Palace trying to disambiguate between the deceased Queen and Camilla. None of the previous queens were ever HM The Queen Consort. I'll keep an eye on the updates. Right now, however, there's a case for the title "Camilla, Queen Consort". Keivan.fTalk 23:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The unwillingness to use common sense and understand context is wildly frustrating. I really wish the people who edited these Royal pages had actual knowledge of how Royal titles and styles worked. Where is Marlene Koenig when we need her? And you can shove your condescending "in fact". 2600:1700:432D:8630:A4AF:AE45:F504:8B3C (talk) 23:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why was my comment removed? I’ll fix it when I get home :) sorry if I messed up any other comments. I’m on this dang mobile phone. cookie monster 755 23:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My comment and one by Unlimitedlead had been deleted. It seems both were deleted by mistake so I have pasted them below Mgp28 (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a clear example of WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST (even though it's a guideline for deletion discussions, its content applies here IMO). Just because certain pages about other figures have been titled in a specific way, that doesn't mean that this page should necessarily follow the same format. Again, she's not only the Queen of the UK. Thus, "Camilla, Queen Consort" or "Queen Camilla" would be the only reasonable options. Keivan.fTalk 23:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Unfortunately, because I actually strongly agree with you about "Queen Camilla", though NOT "Camilla, Queen Consort"), it is NOT a clear example of WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. That item is NOT saying that Wikipedians should simply ignore all long-established precedent and all related logic (and if it were saying that, which it isn't, there would be plenty of justification for ignoring it, per WP:IAR among other reasons, but also per such things as WP:CONSORTS, which is both an official guideline and covering this precise area, whereas OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is a mere essay, and in a completely different area, and being interpreted to mean something which it doesn't actually say).Tlhslobus (talk) 23:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. This is according to WP:CONSORTS where royal consorts are referred to only by their current title and name (i.e. Queen + name);
  2. But omitting the name "of the United Kingdom" as she is not only the queen consort of the United Kingdom, but equally of 14 other countries, i.e. of Australia, of Canada, of New Zealand, of Jamaica, of the Bahamas, of Grenada, of Papua New Guinea, of the Solomon Islands, of Tuvalu, of Saint Lucia, of Saint Vincent and Grenadines, of Belize, of Antigua and Barbuda, and of Saint Kitts and Nevis. It would be too long to include all those country names after her name, so it is a sensible compromise to omit these names in their entirety, as has also been applied to Charles's page ("Charles III" instead of "Charles III of the United Kingdom").
  3. The term "Consort" (thus "Queen consort + name") should not be included in the name (but only "Queen + name"), otherwise this would be a violation of WP:CONSORTS (unless she is official titled with that, which is not the case). As stated by JasonKurth, it would be ridiculous to suggest that we change all titles on Wikipedia to reflect whether they are "Regnant" or "Consort". Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 23:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Unfortunately, because I completely agree with you about moving to "Queen Camilla"), Queen Consort IS her official title -see here (just as it was also the official but rarely-used title of the late Queen Mother until George Vi died, see the above-mentioned Guardian article), but that does NOT mean that we should use it in our article's title, for many reasons such as that it appears contrary to WP:CONSORTS, that it it is not expected to be the one that will normally be used, and so on... (Incidentally, the Queen Mother's article is NOT called "Eilzabeth, Queen consort of the United Kingdom", even though that was once her official title, though I'm not sure that that non-precedent is all that relevant in this case, given the different circumstances, etc). Tlhslobus (talk) 01:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to Queen Camilla per Mr. D. E. Mophon above (as qualified by what I added at the end of his argument). I might add that if we keep the word "consort" we will also waste yet more editors' precious time on the vexed question of whether the C should be uppercase (because it's her formal title) or lower case (because in practice she is known as Queen) with the above-mentioned Guardian article seeming unsure, as it uses both. Using Consort, thus breaking with our established precedents and with our WP:CONSORTS guideline (which is reasonably clear about Queen Camilla, or at least Queen Camilla of Wherever, and NOT Camilla, Queen consort of wherever) for reasons difficult to fathom, would also risk leaving the impression (either now or eventually or both) that this part of Wikipedia is controlled by the lunatic fringe of (Diana-worshipping and other) Camilla-haters who are trying to hint that she is not a 'proper' Queen, something which just might do quite a bit of unnecessary damage to Wikipedia's reputation (indeed I suspect part of the reason for the current confusion may be because Camilla-haters (not necessarily always of the Diana-worshipping variety) inside and outside the Palace may have been causing the Palace to send out somewhat mixed messages for quite some time, and it may be a few weeks before common sense prevails). We probably don't have this specific problem with "Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom", but it does risk damaging our reputation in the 14 other realms where she is Queen, and it does make us look weird (thereby violating at least WP:IAR and the related 5th Pillar of Wikipedia WP:5P5, and quite likely other rules too), since nobody expects her to be called "Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom" when there is no other famous "Queen Camilla" to make such cumbersome disambiguation necessary. Tlhslobus (talk) 00:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Queen Camilla, there is no consistent standard for royal consorts, so Keep It Simple Stupid, there is no other person this title could possibly refer to. PatGallacher (talk) 00:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is a guideline for royal consorts, WP:CONSORTS, and that seems to support "Queen Camilla ..." (without "consort"), at least as I understand it, but does seem to imply "Queen Camilla of Wherever", though, if so, that last bit should probably be ignored (at least per WP:IAR and the related 5th Pillar of Wikipedia WP:5P5, and quite likely other rules too) for commonsensical, practical, and reputational reasons. Tlhslobus (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to Queen Camilla — it is brief; there is no confusion with any other similarly named person; it is in keeping with all other article styles on queen consorts. --Vabadus91 (talk) 00:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I should also add that "queen consort" is not a title, just a description of the "type" of queen that she is. Her title is "Her Majesty the Queen". Changing the title of the article to "Camilla, Queen consort" would be like move Elizabeth's to "Elizabeth II, Queen regnant". Camilla is now the Queen and she has that title because she is a queen consort; it is not the case "queen consort" is itself a title, any more than "queen regnant" is.
    I would be wary of putting too much store in media descriptions. They called Diana, Princess of Wales "Princess Diana", which was never her title or style. The references to her as queen consort are, I believe, deliberate in order to avoid confusion with Queen Elizabeth, who is still who we think of when saying simply "the Queen", and perhaps to emphasise to a public not versed in protocol that she is not the reigning monarch.
    For Camilla to have "Queen Consort" (capitalised) as a title rather than simply a description of what she is — like Prince Albert, husband of Queen Victoria — the King would have to create it as a title by letters patent. He hasn't done so and hasn't indicated that he will. She is simply "Her Majesty the Queen" (who is a queen consort rather a queen regnant), and "Queen Camilla" is therefore the appropriate name for this article. Vabadus91 (talk) 04:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to Queen Camilla - See other current consorts Queen Letizia of Spain, Queen Sonja of Norway, Queen Mathilde of Belgium, Queen Silvia of Sweden etc. 2007DodgeRam (talk) 01:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to Queen Camilla — when no disambiguation is needed, no reason to impose it. There is also the problem that “of the United Kingdom” is not in her actual title. Moonraker (talk) 02:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to Queen Camilla - as mentioned, she is Queen Consort of multiple realms. LtGen (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://twitter.com/RoyalFamily/status/1567928275913121792
  • Support move to Queen Camilla as the first choice, Camilla, Queen Consort as the second choice. This page is so active I cannot even submit my comment. Anyway, I support Queen Camilla, as it's common, recognizable and is actually closer to her actual title (The Queen) then the current base name. Also per consistency as other consorts don't have the term consort in it and they are just called Queen, i.e. Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother not Queen Consort Elizabeth The Queen Mother. Edit 1: the official website of the British royal family list her here as The Queen Consort. Edit 2: Keivan.f makes a good point regarding the "consort" title or title without consort. This is so recent that it's going to take time to find the right base title that is both accurate and correct. However, based on past precedent, it should be at Queen Camilla. cookie monster 755 03:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • CookieMonster755, You're absolutely right. But, she is entitled to be known as "Queen Camilla" as well, just like the previous queens and consorts (Albert, Prince Consort has always been referred to as Prince Albert). There's also the possibility that the website is trying to distinguish her from Her Majesty The Queen (i.e. Elizabeth II). The changes to their website have not been finalized so I think we should wait for the final results. Keivan.fTalk 02:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keivan.f I agree with you that it is possible that the current website is just calling her Queen Consort as a transitional title due to the recent nature of her mother-in-law. I personally support Queen Camilla as it is the most recognizable title and is correct because she technically is just Her Majesty The Queen. I do not like the current base name, it's awful. My first choice is Queen Camilla, second is Camilla, Queen Consort per the arguments above and per consistency with other living consorts of monarchs and her grandmother-in-law, Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, not Queen Consort Elizabeth The Queen Mother. My argument is basically citing WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONSISTENCY. cookie monster 755 03:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:GoodDay, Just to clarify, are you supporting "Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom" or simply "Queen Camilla"? Because she's queen in 14 other realms and I cannot see why the UK should be held in a higher regard compared to the other sovereign states. Her husband's article is also at Charles III, and is likely to remain at that title as he's ruling over 15 countries, not just one. Keivan.fTalk 02:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per consistency with other consorts.24.15.214.201 (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There has been historical controversy over whether she would take the title "Queen consort" or "Princess consort", primarily related to Diana. Given this, I expect reliable sources to prefer to refer to her as "Queen consort", rather than "Queen", and looking at news articles from the past 24 hours this is holding true; twice as many refer to her as "Queen consort" than "Queen".
Given WP:COMMONNAME, this move is not appropriate. However, I do not have an opinion on the disambiguation. BilledMammal (talk) 04:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose per WP:TOOSOON. I completely understand, and sympathize with, the "consistency" argument in favor of this move. Yes, a queen consort is generally referred to as a queen, but we simply don't know yet whether the same will hold true here. None of us know whether the Royal Family's use of "The Queen Consort" as an official title on its webpage is intended to mark a break with past precedent or simply to acknowledge her formal title, without signaling a departure from the more simple "Queen" title in practical use. Nor is it our role to determine this: we should wait and see whether this is clarified by reliable, encyclopedic sources in the coming days. Ad interim, the present titling is perfectly appropriate. Marquisate (talk) 05:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose The article title should stay until we get new information and then we can make a judgement. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 06:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose The British media is totally united in calling her "Queen Consort" and not "Queen". It doesn't matter what she might be called if she lived in Denmark or Norway, she is the Queen Consort in the United Kingdom. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 06:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The British media referred to Diana, Princess of Wales as "Princess Diana," which we know to be wholly inaccurate. The palace are referring to Camilla as The Queen Consort because that IS her position, as is the same with every other wife of a ruling king. 81.140.89.191 (talk) 09:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Diana was not a royal consort. Women who marry princes are not allowed to use the prefix "Princess" before their names. The Royal Family always works on precedent, and as far as the precedent goes, all the previous queen/prince consorts were absolutely entitled to be known as "Queen/Prince X" (not "Queen/Prince Consort X"). Examples are Queen Alexandra, Queen Mary, Prince Albert, etc. Keivan.fTalk 16:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to Queen Camilla (no reference to United Kingdom) per reasons given above - consistency with usage for queens consort in other countries and previous queens consort in the UK. JayZed (talk) 07:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The Royal household and the press are using Queen consort, and Camilla has previously expressed opinion against being called Queen. I don't think therefore there is a strong case for Queen Camilla, convention is not a strong argument c.f. COMMONNAME and BLP matters - remember this is a living person, not a deceased Queen. |→ Spaully ~talk~  08:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to Camilla, Queen Consort as she is Queen Consort of multiple countries. --Spekkios (talk) 08:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with you, Spekkios, but it sounds like your vote would actually be Oppose in this case (regarding whether to support/oppose move to Queen Camilla). Correct? Iandaandi (talk) 16:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I oppose "Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom" and "Camilla, Queen consort of the United Kingdom". I much prefer "Camilla, Queen Consort" over "Queen Camilla", but I would settle for the later if it meant not using the two longer titles.--Spekkios (talk) 20:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to simply Queen Camilla per the article naming WP:CRITERIA: recognisability, naturalness, precision, concision, and consistency. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom or Queen Camilla. Consort should be omitted as per Wikipedia's naming conventions and when looking to other European queens. Mhapperger (talk) 10:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to Queen Camilla on the United Kingdom or Queen Camilla. All British Queen Consorts are styled in exactly the same way as a reigning Queen, The Queen Mother, Queen Mary, and Queen Alexandra, all styled Her Majesty The Queen, The Queen and Her Majesty. Consort is only being used now to avoid confusion with Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.GandalfXLD (talk) 11:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @GandalfXLD I'd agree with this assessment of the situation. remember that most of Elizabeth's subjects globally have only ever known her as monarch and never known a King and Queen consort. Furthermore "the Queen" has been used colloquially to refer to Elizabeth II for a long time. I imagine this media trend, including from Palace Communications is to avoid confusion and allow the public to adjust to the new & unfamiliar situation. Jèrriais janne (talk) 13:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per the guidance of WP:CONSORTS. Camilla is married, however, to a reigning monarch of 15 distinct sovereign countries. Therefore, contradicting the strict guidance of mainspace style, Camilla, Queen of the United Kingdom would not adequately reflect her status as queen consort of multiple dominions. Therefore, we should move to Queen Camilla. Lunaroxas (talk) 14:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as the titles used for the Queen consorts of history should be used in this aswell Jibran1998 (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal of "Consort", in conformity with existing usage and guidelines. The disambiguator "of the United Kingdom" seems questionable. William Avery (talk) 16:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to Queen Camilla and drop 'consort'. As the wife of the King, she should simply be called HM The Queen. Her being a consort should have no effect on her official title. HolaQuetzalcoatl (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Since Buckingham Palace and various other reliable sources are currently using the title 'Queen Consort', as quoted by several other users in this discussion, should we not also use this until a WP:COMMONNAME (which may or may not align with WP:CONSORTS) is established? There's no reason why an article can't be moved twice, after all.A.D.Hope (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose She is Queen consort, not Queen Camilla. Charles himself just now referred to her as his Queen consort. Thurlow0391 (talk)
  • Support move to Queen Camilla. Yes, she is a Queen Consort (as opposed to a Queen Regnant) but that is a description and not a name. There are no other notable Queen Camillas so no need for dab. Bermicourt (talk) 19:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Camilla, Queen Consort seems best to me. Srnec (talk) 20:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Camilla, Queen Consort—blindlynx 20:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom. The name consort only exists to clarify rank of one who marries the heir, as opposed to being the heir. That's all it's meant to do. It's not meant to be a scarlet letter painted on the wife of the monarch because she was previously married and divorced. Bodding (talk) 22:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. For clarity, here’s an attempt to articulate what I think is the case (to help identify where disagreement is?). She’s the Queen (by law by virtue of marriage to the King). She’s a queen consort (description of her role, as opposed to a queen regnant). But she’s also, in addition to the above, “The Queen Consort” (which seems to be the actual title she’ll be using for the time being, e.g. [1]). The last of these three is the equivalent of Albert being “The Prince Consort” by letters patent, or William being “The Prince of Wales” by virtue of Charles saying so on TV. It’s up to the sovereign what people’s titles are, and it’s pretty clear her title is, specifically, Queen Consort. Charlie A. (talk) 20:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Queen Camilla or Camilla, Queen Consort (someone count the votes and get it done, the current article title is horrible) 2A00:23C7:B285:5801:9879:AAD6:8A20:2FA8 (talk) 23:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose She is not just Queen Consort of the UK, she is also the Queen Consort of Australia (and a dozen other countries), so "of the United Kingdom" is just incorrect and should be dispensed with out of hand. What previous consorts were called is frankly irrelevant, this should be about HER common name/title, and her situation is quite unusual in recent history. AFAIK, the media and the palace are consistently referring to her as "Queen Consort", so we should just move the article to Camilla, Queen Consort which is sufficiently precise, as there are no queen consort's called Camilla AFAIK. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:04, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No other King or Queen has had such a title in their page header. Most definitely to be used in the article, but she is not going to be called Camilla, Consort of His Majesty Charles the third, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of His other Realms and Territories King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith in common conversation is she? Many other queen consorts have been queens and empresses of other nations, and have still gone by, and their Wikipedia articles are known as Queen so and so. EmilySarah99 (talk) 03:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Camilla, Queen Consort, per sources above which suggest a unique stylisation. Can be revisted if sources/official material standardises to "Queen Camilla" in time. U-Mos (talk) 03:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • UPDATE - The RM at Charles III has closed as "no move". GoodDay (talk) 05:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to Camilla, Queen Consort, per sources above, esp. [2]. Bayonet-lightbulb (talk) 06:29, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose the move. She is Queen Consort, the name of the article should not be misleading. Multiple sources are saying that she is Queen consort, see people.com, royal.uk. She is not a Queen, Queen is a ruler, she is the wife of king. She was only made Consort by some decree. She was not Princess of Wales, mind you. Camilla, Queen consort of the United Kingdom seems OK. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Kirill C1 (talk) 07:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Queen" is just a short version of "Queen consort" if you will. "consort" is only there to make clear that she is not the reigning monarch, but that is made clear in the first line of the article. Every other queen in British history was always just adressed as Queen. And by the way: Camilla was Princess of Wales (even listed in the article); she just chose not to use it out of respect to Diana. Mhapperger (talk) 10:08, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that it is in the article does not mean that it should not be in the title of the article. Kirill C1 (talk) 10:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to Queen Camilla per reliable sources:
  1. ""Queen Consort" refers to the spouse of a ruling king and would mean "Queen Camilla" as her future title." BBC News, 6 February 2022
  2. "Once vilified as a marriage wrecker – not least by Diana, Princess of Wales – Queen Camilla, as she will be crowned, will take her place by the side of King Charles III at his coronation." The Guardian, 8 September 2022
  3. "As such, Camilla will now be known to the public as Queen Camilla, and addressed as “Her Majesty”." The Telegraph, 10 September 2022
  4. BBC News have a page for "Queen Camilla" - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cjnwl8q4negt
Firebrace (talk) 11:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From The Guardian article "It had been Queen Elizabeth II’s “sincere wish”, stressed in a message published on the eve of her 70th accession day in February this year, that Charles’s wife would be known on his accession to the throne as Queen Consort", "Camilla has become Queen Consort on her husband’s accession to the throne" (bold mine). So this source supports other name of the article. Kirill C1 (talk) 11:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong and time will prove it. Firebrace (talk) 11:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first BBC url has article with title "Queen backs Camilla to be Queen Consort on Jubilee". And there are Wikipedia rules regarding future (such as WP:CRYSTALBALL). On the second BBC url - the topic - there are articles titled "Camilla, the new Queen Consort" [3], there is "But for many years the debate continued over whether she would ever be known as Queen. While legally entitled to use the title, the official line had been that she would instead be known as Princess Consort, as a way to appease those who blamed her for the breakdown of Charles's marriage to Diana"; then article [4] with title "What kind of a king will Charles be?", where you can read "His wife Camilla, now Queen consort". Kirill C1 (talk) 11:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to Queen Camilla I support it because per the sources and reasonings mentioned already. Kevin Talk 11:04, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There seems to be a determined effort on the part of officialdom that she should be called "queen consort", not "queen". Whether it's because of Diana, or because she is a divorcée, I don't know, but the news media are all sticking with "queen consort" (see The Independent on her signing the proclamation, for example). Even the king, in his first address to the nation, was careful to say "she becomes my queen consort", not "my queen". If and when officialdom and the media start regularly calling her "Queen Camilla" – as opposed to saying "she will be known as" – it will be time to move the article, but that time has not yet come. Scolaire (talk) 11:12, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. QUeen consort is first choice, Queen Camilla is second choice. Ebbedlila (talk) 12:49, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The media and royal family has consensus that she is the Queen Consort, not Queen Camilla.Noonan2 (talk) 13:09, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support move to Camilla, Queen Consort. Personally I agree with multiple users above that Her Majesty should be titled Queen Camilla as precedent in Wikipedia and the reasons as stated by PatGallacher. However I also agree it is too soon to decide what the page title is until current situation settle down. As stated by multiple users above Her Majesty is not only the Queen Consort of the United Kingdom but also the Commonwealth so the current title "Camilla, Queen Consort of the United Kingdom" is wrong. Limyx826 (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 September 2022

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

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

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --N8wilson 🔔 01:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's abundantly clear that she is referred to as Queen Consort simply to differentiate her from the late Queen Elizabeth II.
The statement released by the palace started by addressing "The Queen passed away" and then went on to state the King and the Queen Consort will remain at Balmoral. If they were to refer to Camilla as the Queen in the statement, it would cause confusion. I think people will be less likely to use Consort when they address Camilla when she is crowned alongside the King at the coronation. 81.140.89.191 (talk) 07:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure this is correct. There was huge historic sensitivity (basically because of Diana) about her being ‘Queen’. I think she is likely to always be referred to as Queen Consort as she was not his first wife, nor mother own the heir, and married him in later life. Her official title is also unlikely to change now it’s “formalised” on their royal site - i.e. it would be weird to change it next year following the coronation. BeaujolaisFortune (talk) 13:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I too beleive this as the reason why she is being refered to at Queen Consort now. Especially with so many people being antsy around her being known as queen anyway. In my opinion, we should distinguish Elizabeth, as Queen Regnant insted of the other way around, as historically, most queens have been consorts. The next two monarchs will be male (as it stands), so it will be some time before we see another queen regnant. Hopefully by then, people will understand the difference by then. I for one, think she should be known as Queen Camilla, but understand why the news and official outlets refer to her as consort. EmilySarah99 (talk) 03:28, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

“Her Majesty The Queen” NOT “Queen Consort”

Anyone who knows royal titles is aware that Queen consort is a position NOT a title. Her title is “Her Majesty The Queen” like the queen consorts before her (Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, Mary of Teck, Alexandra of Denmark, etc). The websites only call her Queen consort to differentiate her from the late Queen. Nevertheless, protocol has always been the wife of The King is titled “The Queen.” That title as shown in the “Titles, styles, honours and arms,” section should be changed to reflect that. AKTC3 (talk) 01:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AKTC3, Yes, but that's how she's been referred to on the royal website at the moment: https://www.royal.uk/queen-consort. Keivan.fTalk 02:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The official website for Her Majesty lists her as The Queen Consort. The title should be either Queen Camilla or Camilla, Queen Consort. cookie monster 755 03:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the royal website states Queen consort. I do beleive them doing this is a way to make the public understand the differences between consorts and regnants. However I'm not sure we should follow it as gospel, since no other monarchs have had a royal website. We may have to wait until the coronation to understand exactly what they are trying to do. EmilySarah99 (talk) 03:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can all agree that it's confusing!
More news stories are appearing that seem to indicate it will be her title (https://time.com/6211954/camilla-queen-consort-meaning/) (https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2022/09/08/camilla-queen-consort-meaning-explained/8028017001/).
The original statement from Queen Elizabeth in Feb. 2022 was that it was her “most sincere wish that, when the time comes, Camilla will be known as Queen Consort as she continues her own loyal service.” (https://twitter.com/RoyalFamily/status/1490083061060575237) Iandaandi (talk) 04:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe Queen Elizabeth was signifying her intent for Camilla's spoken title to be Queen Consort, i.e. "Her Majesty Queen Consort Camilla." She was signifying her wish that Camilla be shown the respect as wife of the reigning King and be referred to as his Queen. It's widely known that the King's wife is a Queen Consort to differentiate her from a monarch - but no Queen consort in history has been referred to as "Consort," and I feel we should not set this precedent for Camilla, either. If you watch the coronation of King George VI and Queen Elizabeth (the Queen Mother) - people will see that when the BBC refer to the Kings consort they refer to her as "Her Majesty The Queen." 81.140.89.191 (talk) 07:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article is indicative of what British usage will be concerning Camilla--"Queen Consort Camilla", not "Queen Camilla". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 12:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They’re just trying to break her in gently cos of Diana and all the history the queen has to endure. She’s still HM the queen. Having in her biog title ‘queen consort… as the wife of King Charles III’ makes it redundant. Of course any ride of a king is a consort. Looking at other queen consort pages they all show them as queen. Not queen consort. See Queen Sofia of Spain. Queen Noor of Jordan. And countless others historical including all of the English wives of kings. ALL are detailed as queen. Not queen consort. 

Foxyjohnuk (talk) 22:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wife** of a king. Not ride. Typo. Foxyjohnuk (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen bestowed the title Queen Consort at the time of her Platinum Jubilee. This was to ally any confusion with the title Queen, which she cannot hold as a commoner. Hence Prince Phillip. He was also a foreign national, he was never known as King. Gary Holbrook1 (talk) 07:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're just making up things I guess. No, Philip was not known as king because he was a foreigner, it was because husbands of reigning queens have never been called King (see Denmark or the Netherlands, or even Queen Victoria's husband Prince Albert). Mhapperger (talk) 10:11, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is quite wrong. Queen Elizabeth did not bestow any title on Camilla, she simply said that she wished for Camilla to be known as Queen Consort when Charles becomes King. You are confusing a Queen regnant and a Queen consort. A Queen regnant is a female member of the royal family who is next in line to the throne and inherits it by right of succession. A Queen Consort is a title held by the spouse of a reigning King and holds no constitutional powers - she is simply the King's wife. When a woman marries a member of the royal family, she is elevated to his rank and in accordance with common law, is entitled to the use of the feminine version of all his titles and styles. If he is a prince, she becomes a princess (though - she is not styled Princess [name] but rather Princess [husbands name]). It matters not if she is a commoner or someone of nobility. Phillip did not become King because a man does not inherit titles from his wife upon marriage. To be called King he would need to be in line to the throne which he was not. 81.140.89.191 (talk) 12:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a descendant of Queen Victoria, Prince Philip most certainly was in the line of succession in his own right, albeit way down the list. But this has nothing to do with why husbands of Queens regnant are not called kings, while wives of Kings are called queens. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 12:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 September 2022

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

She is styled as Her Majesty and is titled as The Queen Consort. This is not a place for personal opinions. cookie monster 755 02:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottishFinnishRadish: sorry, I didn’t know it would do this. Please italicize the “to be announced” after the coronation in infobox! :) Bbraxtonlee (talk) 02:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Keivan.fTalk 02:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for picking up my slack. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. :) Keivan.fTalk 02:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Queen consort, in the intro (capitalization discussion)

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

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

The title of the article should to be updated to title case: Camilla, Queen Consort of the United Kingdom. Mainstream news outlets (here's one, but there are many others) are reporting that this was intended as her title and are using title case. [1]Iandaandi (talk) 05:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The mainstream media doesn’t get everything right, and I would only follow what is being published by the BBC and other British broadcasters at the moment. Also, she’s not only the Queen (consort) of the UK. There are 14 other countries in which she’s queen. Keivan.fTalk 05:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Consort should be capitalized. The BBC does it as here, here, and the Guardian does it here. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 06:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand this section is about the capitalisation of consort. I agree that it should be capitalised. WIkipedia Manual of Style states “Royal styles are capitalized (Her Majesty; His Highness); exceptions may apply for particular offices.” I am not clear why an exception applies here. Her official title, according to the Palace website just updated, is Her Majesty the Queen Consort https://www.royal.uk/queen-consort BeaujolaisFortune (talk) 13:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/News/queen-elizabeth-iis-death-camilla-queen-consort/story?id=89517042)

Religion

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

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

Title as Queen.

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

Buckingham Palace, the source of all authority in matters concerning titles of British royalty, used "Queen Consort" in the royal statement concerning the matter: here. Wikipedia has no authority in the matter. This headline illustrates how Camilla will be addressed--not as "Queen Camilla", but as "Queen Consort Camilla". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 12:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this will change once Queen Elizabeth II death has settled down. Just listening to the BBC now they asked the Royal Correspondent how we should address Camilla, and he stated that without a doubt she is Queen Camilla. He said that currently they need to draw a distinction between Camilla and the late Queen Elizabeth which is why they are quoting consort when referring to Camilla. Historically the wife of a King has always been a Queen consort but the word consort is not used when addressing her. Until the palace change the way in which they address Camilla, we are going to have to agree that her title for now is "Her Majesty the Queen Consort" as per the royal website. 81.140.89.191 (talk) 12:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, it would cause confusion to refer to her as "Her Majesty the Queen" or simply "The Queen" as both titles have refered to Elizabeth II for the past odd 70 years. Once the funeral, and coronation pass, the consort addition may be dropped from conversation. EmilySarah99 (talk) 03:38, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In all fairness, the palace has not referred to Camilla as Queen Consort Camilla. The only reference to her from the palace has called her "The Queen Consort." We have no idea currently whether or not the palace will refer to her as Queen Camilla, The Queen, Queen Camilla the Queen Consort etc. 81.140.89.191 (talk) 12:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Palace have now updated their website with more content and it looks like she will indeed be referred to as Queen Consort: https://www.royal.uk/queen-consort BeaujolaisFortune (talk) 13:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That update is from yesterday. It is clear that they are trying to distinguish her from Her Majesty The Queen (i.e. Elizabeth II). As the other user suggested, we should wait until everything is settled. Keivan.fTalk 16:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a former precedent to add the word "Consort" as a formal part of the title - see Albert, Prince Consort. -Shivertimbers433 (talk) 19:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That precedent doesn't apply here, because the rules around courtesy titles are different for women than they are for men. Queen Victoria gave her husband the title of Prince Consort; it wasn't automatic. A man who is married to a woman who holds a title in her own right (e.g., Queen, Duchess, etc.) doesn't get a courtesy title from his wife's title. A similar thing happened with Prince Philip, incidentally - he was originally just HRH The Duke of Edinburgh (title given by George VI right before Philip and Elizabeth's wedding), until the late 1950s when Queen Elizabeth gave him the title of Prince, see List of titles and honours of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.
However, a woman who is married to a man who holds a title is entitled to use the feminine version of the title, and the feminine title for the wife of His Majesty The King (as Charles now is) is Her Majesty The Queen. This has been the case, as mentioned elsewhere on this page, for at least the 3 most recent queens consort (so going back to 1901), and much further back than that, too. Alpaca92 (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Talk page archives

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

Done. Capitalisation of "consort" needed to be removed to match the current artcle title. U-Mos (talk) 04:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! I missed the capitalisation change. You're hired. :-) Thanks. 06:42, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

Regarding Archie and Lilibet as prince and princess

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 September 2022

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

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Queen_Camilla&oldid=1109561545"