Talk:Queen Camilla

No mention of her descent from Alice Keppel, King Edward's mistress? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.159.35.30 (talk) 03:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Archive1, Archive2, Archive3, Archive4

Proposed move for this article and for other articles on Wives of Royal Peers see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles). Mac Domhnaill

Re proposed move: see bottom of page. FearÉIREANN 01:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Royalty?

Why on Earth did she not have a front row seat at the recent memorial service for Princess Diana? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.223.12 (talk) 22:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The article explains why she did not attendFlaviaR 18:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Was she linked to the Royal Family in any way when she was brought up as a very young child?

Rejected by Royal Family?

What evidence is there that marriage between Charles and Camilla was ever discussed back in the early 70's and that Camilla was rejected by the royals as being unsuitable? It is my understanding that Camilla wasn't interested in marrying Charles at that time, that she was pursuing Andrew Parker-Bowles. I think a firm reference for this statement is required.68.72.107.16 15:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Remember, also, that Queen Elizabeth II did not attend part of the wedding. I do not believe she is very fond of Princess Camilla either. Tarheelz123 (talk) 23:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Partner or mistress?

Someone keeps changing the description of Camilla as being Charles's partner for many years before they married to being his mistress. Strictly speaking, since Charles's divorce around 10 years ago, she was not his mistress. Nor was she his mistress before he married. Therefore the term "partner" is more appropriate, as it covers all the time they were together before they were married, not just a small proportion of it. Please keep it on the more accurate "partner". Many thanks, jguk 13:17, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

• I would she was his mistress during the time of Charles' marriage to Diana, however, partner is a more appropiate term given their long relationship before his first marriage, and subsequently after. Astrotrain 14:27, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't think the term 'mistress' required the man to be a married man. [Dictionary.com] defines 'mistress' as "A woman who has a continuing sexual relationship with a usually married man who is not her husband and from whom she generally receives material support." I think Mistress might be more appropriate as 'partner' suggests business partner.

I say this without any malice towards her - I just think it would be more correct.DavidFarmbrough 09:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

While Camilla continued to be with Charles while he was married, did he give her material support? Other than a few token gifts, I was under the impression that the bulk of Camilla's income came from her own husband or some inheritance. She might have been his mistress between 1980 and 1995 (or '96?), but not before nor after. "Partner" is an appropriate term, then. I have heard it used before to describe long-term unmarried couples, both gay and straight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.164.87.123 (talk) 07:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Problem with 'Partner' is that it's a rather twee vogue word. Having said that, whatever description is used, the article makes the relationship clear, so there should be no confusion. DavidFarmbrough 11:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The term "partner" is preferable because it is more neutral and less judgmental. Viewfinder 11:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and yet this issue is coming up again. --Cameron* 08:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate References

Removed statements that I felt were inappropriate: "strumpet". Psy Guy 18:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Rosemary

I'm sure I read something recently about her not having had the name "Rosemary" from birth, but I can't remember the detail. Or did I imagine it? (Old age doesn't come alone.) I'll bet one of those clever wikipedians knows... Deb 21:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Title Princess of Wales

Have added to that Camilla is indeed the Princess of Wales BUT may as well not be as its a Taboo Title.

Camilla is Princess of Wales by virtue of her marriage to the Prince of Wales. In the U.K., a woman takes the title(s) and status of her husband. But she has chosen not be be styled Princess of Wales, presumably out of respect for Diana, Princess of Wales.

Important to differentiate between TITLE and STYLE. She's TITLED Princess of Wales allright, but not STYLED as such, just as she holds the title Countess of Chester but no-one ever calls her that because it's a lower rank. No-one would usually call her HRH The Countess of Chester as that would belittle her true status unless for a specific reason BUT that does not stop her BEING the Countess of Chester.

It actually the style "HRH" that gives them the real status, being titled Duchess of Cornwall or even Baroness of Renfrew for that matter does not mean a lot. Look at Sophie Wessex, being HRH The Countess of Wessex does not belittle her at all. She is still a Princess of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and a Royal Countess, by virtue of being the wife of a Prince of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and a Royal Earl. User:Eddo

You're right but style also includes CHOICE of title (using princess, duchess, countess etc including HRH. HRH means she's royal (like with Sophie Wessex) but Duchess looks beyond that to show she's higher ranking than others eg sophie wessex It would belittle her because Camilla holds titles HIGHER than just a countess as she's a royal countess twice over, a royal duchess twice over and princess of Wales so it doesn't make that much sense referring to her randomly as a countess when she's normally a duchess, eg calling her Countess of Chester would imply thats her highest rank and therefore at first sight looks equal to Countess of Wessex so its better to call her duchess to show she's higher. For any other consort it would be silly to call a Princess of Wales The Duchess of Cornwall all the time because the Duchess title is below the Princess but this is an exceptional case because of public sensitivity. No other de facto princess of wales has called themselves Duchess of Cornwall have they? (unless they were in Cornwall I guess as Prince Charles is called Duke of Cornwall there, but even then maybe not.

I dont understand all the fuss over Princess of Wales. They are obviously admitting that she is in some way sub-standard to Diana.

That's one of the reasons that some people have a problem with it. It is certainly pandering to the sentiment of the ignorant (as in: unknowing; no actual insult intended) who cannot grasp that titles do not belong to just one person, but are merely given to each holder in turn.FlaviaR 18:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Order of Precedence

Taken from Royal Insight courtesy of www.royal.gov.uk

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page4287.asp (July 2005 Mailbox Page 2)

Q: Marc - South Africa I read that HM The Queen has just reviewed the precedence list to include The Duchess of Cornwall. Apparently, HRH The Duchess of Cornwall is only fourth on the list, after The Princess Royal and Princess Alexandra. I was under the assumption that due to her being the wife of The Prince of Wales, the Duchess is the second highest ranking woman in the Royal Family after the Queen. Why then is the Duchess only fourth on the precedence list?

In order to reflect the Duchess's wish to be called The Duchess of Cornwall rather than The Princess of Wales, The Queen took the opportunity to clarify the precedence list for members of the Royal Family.

The Duchess's place in this list reflects the fact that she is a Duchess and not a Princess; thus she comes after The Princess Royal and Princess Alexandra. (END)

I think Royal Insight has made a mistake. By virtue of her marriage to a prince of the United Kingdom, Camilla automatically takes her husband's titles and thus she IS a princess. To my knowledge, only princes and princesses are entitled to the style HRH. If tradition were to hold, as de facto Princess of Wales, she should take precedence as a female directly after the Queen. Something was done here to change the traditional precedence, for what purpose is anyone's guess. Surely, when Charles ascends the throne, Camilla will be the top-ranking female in the U.K.ScottyFLL 01:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Not sure how this works at all - why is she fourth on the list because surely before would come at least The Queen, Countess of Wessex, Princess Royal, Princess Beatrice, Princess Eugenie, Duchess of Gloucester, Duchess of Kent, Princess Michael of Kent, THEN Princess Alexandra and if DoC is aft her thats surely a long way form 4th! I don't know a lot about this, I altered it initially thinking that fourth meant after Queen, Wessex and Princess Anne but if after Princess Alexandra I'm a bit lost! Thanks. (jayboy2005)

Anne is because she is the daughter of a monarch. Alexandra is because she is the granddaughter of a monarch. It terms of granddaughters of a monarch, Alexandra is senior due to age over Beatrice, Eugenie, etc. Spouses of royal children are usually according to title. Sophie is a mere countess and wife of the third son so she is way down. If I remember correctly the Queen gave Alexandra her status ahead of Camilla as an indication of her personal affection for her cousin, who was widowed some time back. Camilla and Charles were OK with the arrangement, took no offence at Charles was glad to see his often forgotten cousin honoured that way. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

A few points: 1) Spouses of royal children are not according to title. They take their precedence from their husband. This would be true of both Camilla and Sophie. The wife of a Prince of Wales has always been ahead of royal daughters. My understanding was that until quite recently, Sophie was being given precedence ahead of the Princess Royal, although this may not have been justified by precedent, and perhaps has changed; 2) Alexandra is not senior due to age, that's nonsense. If you get to do that for women, shouldn't her brother the Duke of Kent be senior due to age over Prince Harry? That's not how it works. 3) Does the Queen just get to alter the Order of Precedence by decree? My understanding was that it was, in some sense, set by statute. At least some sort of formal instrument would be required to give Alexandra and Anne especially high precedence. Can anyone point to such an instrument? The royal family is really getting annoying with all this "We'll just handle this how we feel like it" nonsense with "Lady Louise Windsor" and "HRH The Duchess of Cornwall," and now this. john k 18:46, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

The BBC reported that it was Queen's personal decision to Princess Alexandra the status and that it was because she was the oldest living granddaughter of a sovereign apart than the Queen herself, and so was superior in precedence to other granddaughters like Beatrice, Eugenie and Louise. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:26, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

No, the Queen decided to change the order of precedence to put Princess Alexandra ahead of the others. The standard order of precedence would be something like...

1. HM The Queen
2. HRH The Duchess of Cornwall
3. HRH The Princess Royal (or HRH The Countess of Wessex)
4. HRH The Countess of Wessex (or HRH The Princess Royal)
5. HRH Princess Beatrice of York
6. HRH Princess Eugenie of York
7. Lady Louise Windsor
8. HRH The Duchess of Gloucester
9. HRH The Duchess of Kent
10. HRH Princess Alexandra, the Hon. Lady Ogilvy (or HRH Princess Michael of Kent)
11. HRH Princess Michael of Kent (or HRH Princess Alexandra)

If Anne and Alexandra now rank ahead of the Duchess of Cornwall, it is not because this is how precedence normally works, it's because the queen made special provision to allow them to have higher rank than they should normally have. john k 23:36, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

(Note: The granddaughter of the current sovereign will always rank ahead of the granddaughter of a former sovereign, unless something is done to change it). john k 23:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Intro paragraph... again...

I was thinking: Since "The Princess Charles, Duchess of Cornwall" is incorrect, and just "The Duchess of Cornwall" doesn't seem to provide enough specification, why not introduce her as "Her Royal Highness Camilla Rosemary, Duchess of Cornwall"? Don't go yelling at me saying it is an inappropriate and unconventional style; gazettes have referred to princesses-by-marriage as such. Here are several examples:

When appointing the Duchess of York as a Dame Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire, it says:

To be a Dame Grand Cross of the Civil Division of the said Most Excellent Order:

Her Royal Highness Elizabeth Angela Marguerite, Duchess of York. [1]

When appointing the Countess of Wessex as a Dame of the Order of St John:

As Dame

Sophie Helen, Her Royal Highness The Countess of Wessex [2]

So, what does everyone think of this proposal? --Matjlav^(talk) 23:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

You've shown the Gazette using two completely different styles — why is one correct and not the other? Proteus (Talk) 11:29, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Both are correct. I'm not saying one's incorrect. --Matjlav^(talk) 22:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Well you proposed using one rather than the other; what made you make that decision? Proteus (Talk) 14:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Wait, wait, wait... I'm confused now. Which is the "one" and which is the "other." I have a feeling there's a misunderstanding. --Matjlav^(talk) 19:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

"HRH First Names, Rank of Title" (QETQM) is not the same as "First Names, HRH The Rank of Title" (Sophie). (Anyway, I take issue with "Since "The Princess Charles, Duchess of Cornwall" is incorrect", since it's not (apart from the fact that it should be "Princess of Wales" rather than "Duchess of Cornwall", at any rate, but I doubt that's what you meant).) Proteus (Talk) 19:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

True, but I think they're basically showing the same thing. And though those are the only two examples I can find of a royal being called this way, I can find other equivalents in non-royal peeresses. For instance: [3] (The Right Honourable Mary, Baroness Soames); [4] (the Right Honourable Margaret, Baroness Strickland of Sizergh); [5] (Her Grace Lavinia Mary, Duchess of Norfolk)

And there are countless more examples. There are also examples (which I don't want to look for right now) that say the other, "Mary, The Rt Hon. Baroness Nowhere." And whether you agree with it or not, I think that since it's a convention now on WP not to say Princess Charles, that we have to go with these alternatives.

However, since now we omit styles, we will simply say "Camilla Rosemary, Duchess of Cornwall" at the beginning of the page. I wish some more people would start paying attention to this, though. --Matjlav^(talk) 01:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

The Article is already called "Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall", and her full names are in the intro sentence within parenthesis. There is no need to start the article "Camilla Rosemary, Duchess of Cornwall", as is also the style usually adopted by widowed or divorced peeresses. She is "The Duchess of Cornwall". Her names already follow, and is also in the article title. Eddo 23:22, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

HRH

Why, has someone removed the style of Her Royal Highness, it is correct no matter what ur feelings are for her. Mac Domhnaill 22:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia has changed policy on the issue. Instead of using styles up front, where were always going to be provocative, it was decided after a detailed discussion and overwhelming consensus to replace all royal styles by a styles infobox on the page. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I removed the style to bring the article in line with the consensu in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). Gugganij 21:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The removal of the style was reverted with the argument that it contained relevant information, which is in fact not the case, since you can find this information later in the article. Gugganij 16:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

But in order to make it even clearer in the article I added the relevant information a second time in the article. Gugganij 16:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

"Princess of Wales!!"

i think it is redicilous that she is not called HRH The Princess of Wales because she is the Princess of Wales. Okay, Diana WAS popularly HRH The Princess of Wales but she is not any more and she made a full ackowledgement to this in the presence of witnesses. There is also much controversy over whether or not she should be styled HM The Queen when the Queen dies. It is a propostorous notion to simply style her HRH The Princess Consort as it simply downgrades her status in the Royal family, and all this because of Diana (who was herself an adulteress). It's similar in suggesting that Camilla should not be called Charles's wife, because that's what Diana would have been. She is the Princess of Wales by right and has a legal claim to being Queen on the Queen's death. The people cannot deny this and it is because of certain individuals with ignorance in respect to the history of the monarchy that she is being allowed to be downgraded in this way. comment by User:81.102.42.51

I thank it was a good idea not to style her as Princess of Wales, that title is associated with Diana, Princess of Wales and will always be associated with her for times to come. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.0.2 (talk) 07:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Yes, she is technically the Princess of Wales, but she is the one who decided she would be known as The Duchess of Cornwall. If, in the future, the public becomes more accepting of Camilla, maybe she will be Queen Camilla, but that is in the future. Let's wait and see what happens. Prsgoddess187 12:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• • • She will indeed be Queen, whether she uses the title or not. ScottyFLL 01:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

She has chosen not be to known as Princess of Wales, therefore she is "downgrading" herself. She obviously feels inferior to Diana.

• • We do not know how she feels. It is more likely out of respect for Diana, and her children, and for political reasons, that she has chosen to be known as Duchess of Cornwall. In the end her title is utterly unimportant - she is married to the heir apparent. ScottyFLL 01:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

She is not avtually downgrading herself, as the title of Duchess of Cornwall is equal to that of Princess of Wales, and always held be the same person. Mac Domhnaill 17:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• She is the one who decided what she would be called. She has not "downgraded" herself. She had taken into account the continuing popularity of her future husband's ex-wife, and chosen not to try to replace her, which speaks volumes about her character. If in the future she would rather be known as "The Princess of Wales" and eventually "Queen Camilla" that is her and her husband's decision.

I always thought that a princess ranked higher than a duchess.Why aren't they both styled TRH The Duke and Duchess of Cornwall, to avoid all the confusion over rank.

• That is a good point, but as he has been known as the Prince of Wales since 1958, it would be a little silly to change now. :) Prsgoddess187 16:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Err... I don't think Duchess of Cornwall is equal to Princess of Wales, it IS lower as a princess IS higher than a duchess, just because they were held by the same person doesn't mean they were equal, so yes, she is choosing a lower title deliberately. I think theyre still calling the prince "Prince of Wales" because he's been called that for a long time and reverting to a ducal title might be seen as a downgrade not befitting for the heir to the throne.

yeah she has decided not to be the princess of whales because that was diana's title and she does not want to offend the public i mean people liked diana so since she got maried to the prince right after diana's death it would have made people dislike her being called princess of whales and some people are saying she will be queen when prince charles succeeds the throne she will be queen consort which is the wife of a king not actuall queen same as the queen has a king consort you should look up the title queen consort on here and learn about it Charlieh7337 (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, "right after diana's death"? They married eight years after her death! Secondly, please, please, oh, please learn some punctuation and grammar. For the love of God. ^† DBD 08:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Picture naming

Anyone else think that maybe a more professional naming scheme should be used than "Dubya_n_royals"?

I agree. Could someone rename and relink the picture of President and First Lady Bush together with the Prince and Princess? Its current name seems a bit cheeky.68.187.198.235 19:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Princess of Wales list

Caroline of Ansbach, was Princess of Wales (1727-37), not (1714-27). She was George II's wife. GoodDay 23:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Well spotted. Feel free to correct the error. As you clearly know a lot about the topic please add in as much as you know to any article. FearÉIREANN 23:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I'm Completely wrong, Caroline was indeed Princess of Wales (1714-27), She was Queen-consort (1727-37). Please forgive me GoodDay 03:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

No problem. You made sure you were right. I respect that. I wish everyone else here was as thorough. Actually you have gone way up in my estimation for having admitted an error. You clearly take accuracy seriously. That is the sort of contributor WP needs. Stay on board. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 13:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed move

I've removed the proposed move link. This should be discussed centrally at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles). It would be a mess, and chaotic, to try to discuss the issue individually on a host of single pages, each of which could decide theoretically on a different contradictory policy. FearÉIREANN 01:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

maiden names for deceased consorts

The problems caused by not using maiden name (or pre-consort marital name if previously married) was shown clearly in this article. It spoke of Camilla, though de jure Princess of Wales, not using that title because of its association with Charles's first wife, Diana, Princess of Wales.

That is linguistic gobledigook. Diana, Princess of Wales was never married to Charles. That was her title after the marriage ended. If one was to refer to the lady in terms of her marriage one would have to use her marital, not post-marital title, which was the Princess of Wales. But writing that would produce more gobbledigook. It would involve saying that Camilla did not call herself PoW because charge was previously married to the PoW!!! That is why historians and genealogists use maiden names not marital or post-marital names for deceased royal consorts. Rather than getting caught up in complicated confusing sentences where a number of people may have had the same title, one uses the pre-marriage name of the deceased consort because it is unique to them and so avoids tangled sentences. Professional historians in that sentence would get around the problem by saying that Charles's first wife was Lady Diana Spencer. That avoids any confusion of marital and post-marital titles. I've changed the sentence to follow that standard historographical style. When in the future Camilla dies, she too in standard historographical naming will be referred to by, in her case her pre-consort name, Camilla Parker Bowles. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. However this will be controversial. I can just see the front page of the Daily Express on Monday "WIKIPEDIA DOWNGRADES DIANA'S ROYAL STATUS" !!!! Astrotrain 22:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

yup. lol Followed on Tuesday by WIKIPEDIA DEFENDS PAEDOPHILES WRITING ARTICLES FOR CHILDREN (another of our controversies at the moment), then on Wednesday LIBERAL LEFT USE WIKIPEDIA TO ATTACK BUSH, on Thursday WIKIPEDIA INSULTS HER MAJESTY BY DOWNGRADING UK IN HER ARTICLE, and on Friday HOW A GAY CONSPIRACY ON WIKIPEDIA THREATENS OUR CHILDREN. lol. Don't you just love the British tabloids (mid-market and red tops). Ireland has just had the repulsive Daily Mail launch an Irish version and in its first week it has tried to break in to a hospital to get photographs of a TV presenter who had given birth, smeared a TV personality who is a friend of mine over his marriage breakup by hinting at a non-existent affair and delivered semi-literate 'family values' rants. It is the journalism of the sewer. I may write as a journalist some times but some of my journalistic colleagues and their papers give me the creeps. Here endeth the lesson!!! FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• • I corrected the link for Diana. Lady Diana Spencer went to a semi-disambiguation page. Sent to D,PoW page. I agree that she should be reverted to LDS, but we can continue that on her page. Prsgoddess187 00:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• I have corrected Diana's title in one of the opening paragraphs as it is incorrect to refer to her by her maiden name 'Lady Diana Spencer'. While it is technically incorrect to refer to her as 'Princess Diana', she is popularly called that in the United Kingdom as she was a Princess and her name was Diana and it is perfectly acceptable to call her that - she even referred to herself as such during her lifetime.

the funniest comparison i've ever heard

The late comedienne Linda Smith once remarked that she like to think of Prince Charles & Camilla as Rod Hull & Emu! [6] Veej 07:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Member of the Royal Family

Who keeps starting off articles on royalty with the worthless line that 'so-and-so is a member of such-and-such Royal Family'. It is completely pointless.

1. Many people are members of Royal Family. Except for the most junior members who have nothing else of note to say about them, it is an irrelevant entry because it implies and equal status between all members of the family. Camilla is constitutionally a lot more important that Sophie, the Countess of Wessex or Lady Louise Windsor, who can also be described as members of the British Royal Family.
2. In writing articles the most important fact goes at the start. For Camilla being a member of the Royal Family isn't the most important fact. The important fact is that she is the wife of the Prince of Wales. So that has to be the opening line.
3. If we say she is married to a member of the Royal Family, then by implication she is one also. You no more have to spell it out when it is obvious than you have to spell out that George W. Bush is a man or Hillary Clinton is a woman.

Please stop starting articles with weak, irrelevant and pointless sentences. It only makes the article look as though it is the work of people who don't know how to write copy in an encyclopaedia. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

It may have been me who started this phrasing. I thought it better to say so-and-so is a member of such-and-such Royal Family, then state why they are a member. Obviously for less well known members it is important for readers to identify why they are Royal. It also allows us to link to the Royal Family page in the first line. You could also say it is important for royals those with titles that can also be held by non royals (eg Camilla is referred to as Duchess, not an obviously royal title) to be identified as royal upfront.

Although at the end of the day I am not really bothered whether it says it or not. But I am surprised you are just mentioning this now, it was like this for nearly a year!. Astrotrain 20:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

No prob. I am usually on vandalism watch and so looking at changes made in articles. I accidentally opened this article by mistake and saw the opening. I've already deleted that opening from here once and was annoyed to see it back. I can understand your logic but I think it a wrong way to start articles for senior royals. It would make perfect sense for minor royals for whom their only claim to fame is membership of the Royal Family. But where someone's claim to fame is not membership of the Royal Family but status within it, the line is pointless. (Sorry if I sounded a big gruff earlier. I've been trying to undo vandalism in one article for one hour. Whenever I try to preview the article it deleted the top two-thirds of the article. There seem to be strange things happening on WP tonight. Have we a bug or something?) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Sinister vs. Dexter

The section about the coat of arms incorrectly identifies the "sinister" side as on the "right", and "dexter" as on the "left". Not being sure whether it was the proper terms that had been mixed up, or merely the translations, I will leave it to someone else to correct. -Erolos 14:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Dexter and sinister are determined from the point of view of the person holding the shield on which the arms are embazoned (so are reversed from the point of view of someone looking at them - just like your heart will be on the sinister (left) side of your body's midline - absent situs inversus - but will be on the right side as I look at you). -- ALoan (Talk) 14:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Style

What if someone wished to acknowledge her as Princess of Wales? What if someone at court asked for the whereabouts or works of the Princess of Wales? Could they refer to her as such? If not, why not?

I have always wondered this, myself. I have the feeling that it would most likely be politely ignored, and treated as if you had called her what was publicly decided she would be called. Privately, it might even be appreciated, but there's no 100% way to know this.FlaviaR 16:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

There seems to have been a cleanup tag added, but no discussion why, so I've removed it Astrotrain 18:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Edits by 65.77.169.190

I am reverting these, because I do not think they are applicable as Diana is no longer living. Camilla has renounced the Princess and future Queen titles because of public opinion. Viewfinder 18:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

A number of fair use images with shaky fair use claims

I have tagged a number of images on this page as fairuse disputed. No rationale is provided and since the majority appear to be wire service (AP/Reuters) images it seems likely that there is no acceptable fair use rationale. Megapixie 03:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Christened Camilla Rosemary Shand?

This cannot be true - no one is Christened with a surname. Since no one is born with given names, it would be more accurate to say "born a Shand and subsequently Christened Camilla Rosemary." This will probably affect a lot of other biographical articles as well.TharkunColl 12:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for this bit of information re: christenings. It never occurred to me, but you are obviously correct.FlaviaR 16:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, nobody is "born" with any names at all. True, where Mr and Mrs Smith have a baby, the normal and overwhelming convention is for that child to also carry the surname Smith. But afaik there's no law that it must be so. Mr and Mrs Smith could have a son that they officially name "Peter Frederick Jones". Also, it's far from uncommon for people to have one name registered officially, and be christened/baptised with something different. For example, the Register of Births may have "Norman Patrick James Anderson", which is his legal name, but the baptism certificate may have "Norman James Patrick Anderson", or "Norman Patrick Anderson", or some other variant. Or the name on the birth certificate might be "Joseph Lucifer Morgan", but I can understand a priest refusing to christen a child as such and substituting a saint's name for Lucifer, e.g. Luke. Where there's any difference between the two versions, the name on the Register of Births is the one that counts as their officially registered and legal name. So, we really shouldn't generally be talking about whatever names our article subjects were "christened", but about whatever names they were "given". The only cases where baptism/christening details come into play is people from earlier ages, where often there simply is no birth certificate and we have to rely on their baptism certificate to come up with their date of birth and their name. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Page title wrong?

I'm not sure why this page is called "Camilla, The Duchess of Cornwall" when her title is "The Duchess of Cornwall".

I suspect that this confusion arises out of the re-styling of "The Princess of Wales" as "Diana, Princess of Wales" and of "The Duchess of York" as "Sarah, Duchess of York" after their respective divorces.

Charles is "The Prince of Wales" and Camilla is "The Duchess of Cornwall". Their given names are included in their articles and ought not to be in the titles: this is inaccurate. I believe it is not correct to refer to "Camilla, The Duchess of Cornwall" - even with the word "The".

Please correct me if I am wrong. -- Stevecov 15:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Happy to oblige. It's simply a matter of wikipedia protocol - it makes much more sense to identify Camilla by her name and title, because there have been simply dozens of Duchesses of Cornwall throughout history! Were Diana still alive and married to Charles, her article would be at "Diana, The Princess of Wales" - "The" denoting that she is the current Princess of Wales. Diana, having divorced and died, drops "The" because she's no longer the current Princess of Wales. Similarly, The Earl of Wessex is at "Prince Edward, The Earl of Wessex" because he's a prince (in his own right, unlike Camilla and Sophie), and the current Earl of Wessex // DBD 15:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this answers the question. You correctly identify that there can be only one holder of a title at a given time, hence "The Duchess of Cornwall". But there is a separate article named "Duchess of Cornwall", which refers to the title itself and its past holders. Logically speaking, therefore, the Camilla article ought to be "The Duchess of Cornwall" and not as presently. The existence of the other article negates the need to include her given name as part of her article's title. - Stevecov 18:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Consider these two articles: Prince Edward, Duke of Kent and Katharine, The Duchess of Kent, they are married and yet Edward does not have "The" as part of the article title. How many other inconsistencies are there out there? Also, I suppose we should create Camilla, The Princess of Wales as a redirect to this article. NoSeptember 19:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

this whole stupid "the" thing is absurd. I demand that we get rid of them all. john k 08:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Diana was so much better . . . ~i

Will she be the official Queen?

I cannot see why not as Henry VIII made his new wifes Queens,so it stands to reason-surely she cant be blackballed can she?

Camilla will, officially, be Queen consort, and could be referred to as HM The Queen, but, unless the pre-wedding, announcement is repealed, she will only ever be styled HRH The Princess Consort. And the announcement will likely only be repealed if public opinion is gauged to be in her favour. ^† DBD 18:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

What will she be known in the Realms, given she will be the first consort of a multi-crown King? Astrotrain 19:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Presumably the same as in the UK, Princess Consort. But the announcement doesn't specify, so it's anyone's guess. ^† DBD 19:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

She won't be the first. Anne of Denmark, Henrietta Maria, Catherine of Braganza, and others precede her. They were all Queen in each realm, so I don't see why Camilla should be any different. 91.109.173.82 (talk) 23:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Interestingly by doing some research, I have discovred that upon Charles Assension to the Throne, it would take an act of parliment to prevent Camilla becoming Queen, this is interesting because I would be very suprised if in the mood of a country where the Queen has just died and there is a new king whether the first thing parliment wants to do is announce the new kings wife is not queen.--Duncanbruce 20:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Will she get a dukedom or whatever for her own when charles will become king (like Prince Philipp as consort..), or will she simply be the "Princess consort"? 23.59, 8.4.2007 USerXeX

Well, the announcement deems to suggest HRH The Princess Consort - it'd be very strange for a female royal to be given a royal peerage... ^† DBD 20:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

@ Duncanbruce: Afaik, it's not a legal matter that a King's wife is known as the Queen, just an historical tradition and convention. The Princess Consort would have the same status as all the previous Queens Consort, the only difference being that she'd have a different title. No act of parliament can do anything about this, because royal consorts have no constitutional power. If Camilla (as Princess Consort) wanted to be known as Queen Camilla to properly reflect her actual status, but Charles didn't want her to have that public title, there's nothing she could do about that either. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Was she related to Diana?

I have noticed that Diana's mother and Camilla both share "Shand" in there name - is there any family connection other than marrying the same man ?

No, no family connection. Camilla's father was Bruce Shand, whereas Frances Shand Kydd, Diana's mother, is only Shand Kydd through her later marriage, to Peter Shand Kydd, who is no relation to the late princess. ^† DBD 19:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Camilla is more likely to be related to Charles than to Diana! Camilla's great-grandmother was mistress to Charles' great-great-grandfather. When they first met in 1970, Camilla Shand's chat-up line to Prince Charles is reported to have been "My great-great-grandmother was your great-great-grandfather's mistress, so how about it?" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4253953.stm Constantine 19:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You would have to source any family connection, original research is outside our scope, SqueakBox 19:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The Alice Keppel connection is well documented. The diagram on the BBC web page linked above is quite a good illustration of the links between Charles' and Camilla's families but I don't think there's anything here that warrants an edit to the current Camilla article. Constantine 23:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Go further back in history - to Charles II - and then both Camilla and Diana are related - both being descendents of Charles II (through different illegitmate children) but nonetheless they are both descendents of this king (as is Sarah, Duchess of York)

Camilla, Diana, and Sarah all share Charles Lennox, 1st Duke of Richmond (illegimate son of King Charles II) as a common ancestor. RosePlantagenet 18:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DocCam.JPG

Image:DocCam.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

References broken link

I think this article is good. On the references, though, the London Times link is broken. The article apparently is moved or not available online anymore. ?? --Ashley Rovira 15:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Religion??

what ist or was the religion of Camilla? Roman Catholic as her first husband? oder church of england? I'm asking because on TV (about the wedding in 1981 of Charles and Diana; Charles' girlfriends etc.) it was said that charles and Camilla could not marry in 1970th as she was catholic. This must be wrong, because otherwise Charles could not become King anymore (as he is now married to her). The reason would be the Act of Settlement 1701.

 Opinions to Camilla's religion?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.23.254.50 (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC) 

See [7], where some of the contributors appear to be well informed. Viewfinder 17:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Portrait Picture

I changed the portrait picture to the one provided by White House. Wikipedia rules stipulate that public domain photos must be used unless there are no alternatives. 99.228.13.46 06:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Parker-Bowles

When did Camilla "lose" her surname? Has anybody any info? Thanks! --Camaeron (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

When she remarried. She has her husband's surname, which is . Charles 04:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

As her new husband doesnt have a surname I wondered às to why she would lose her old one!? --Camaeron (talk) 15:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Women, upon remarriage, usually lose their previous husband's surname. This is what happened. Charles 21:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Her husband does have a surname. It's Windsor. --74.15.183.27 (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

They are both said to be Mountbatten-Windsor: The following people make use of, in current practice, or have made use of, the surname Mountbatten-Windsor. They are listed in the order of succession to the Crown.

• Prince Charles, Prince of Wales and his wife, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall ----Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 03:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Mistress vs partner x2

Taken from our BLP policy: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.

Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm".

This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material."''

Partner should be used as mistress is a negative and judgemental word. The Oliver Cromwell article does not use the word usurper even though it is a word that would befit his actions. --Cameron* 09:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It's less judgmental because it's not a synonym: Camilla was having sex with Charles while each was married to someone else, which is not quite the meaning of "partner", but is exactly the meaning of "mistress".

CNN says Mistress: <http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/04/09/royal.wedding/> "The memory of the drama haunts the big Saturday marriage, in which the prince exchanged marriage vows with Camilla Parker-Bowles, his longtime and publicly disliked mistress". She was clearly his mistress, documentedly and self-admittedly so, and there are no BLP issues involved. It's quite disingenuous to claim this is a BLP issue. Further, "mistress" is cited, as opposed to the exceedingly cutsie "partner". - Nunh-huh 09:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Try finding a royal.gov.uk or princeofwales.gov.uk source and I will be fully ready to insert the text again. --Cameron* 10:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. We don't only parrot official sites. The claim that this is a BLP issue is disingenous. "Usurper" is a judgment; "mistress" is a fact. By the way, you do know that the article is in the Category:Mistresses of British royalty? - Nunh-huh 10:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

One definition of usurper is: "to seize and hold (a position, office, power, etc.) by force or without legal right" how does this not apply?

It presupposes who has "legal right", which is of course a point of opinion and not fact.

The definition of mistress is: "a woman who has a continuing, extramarital sexual relationship with one man". Even if the Her Royal Highness were a mistress it should not be included per BLP, and per Wikipedia:Blp#Basic_human_dignity. Partner has been used in the article successfully, there seems no reason to change it to mistress other that mud slinging. --Cameron* 10:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

So we agree, then, with the rest of the world, that Camilla was Charles's mistress. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of BLP. Documented facts are included in articles, even if they are not particularly attractive, when they are important to the reader's understanding. That Camilla was Charles's mistress is rather an important fact. - Nunh-huh 10:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have been citing policies, not interpreting them myself. We ought to wait for further users to discuss the matter, as we are obviously not going to come to an agreement. --Cameron* 10:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You've been citing policies as though they pertained to the question at hand, and in so doing misinterpreting and misapplying them, and placing your interpretations as accusations in edit summaries . I suggest that if you think calling Camilla Charles's mistress is a violation of BLP, you report it at the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. It isn't. - Nunh-huh 10:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You suggest in your statement above ("Partner has been used in the article successfully") that "partner" was of longstanding; in fact you inserted it in the lede only today. "Mistress" has been part of this article throughout most of its history; the same is not true of "partner". - Nunh-huh 10:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to using "partner", but don't believe that "mistress" should be excluded because 1. the two words are not synonyms, and 2. mistress is more precise, in that it acknowledges violation of marital vows. "Extra-marital partner" could be a synonym for "mistress": "Partner" simply is not. 3. Charles admitted committing adultery in a televised interview while still married to his first wife. 4. The first wife also went on television and acknowledged that her marriage suffered because "there were three of us in this marriage, so it was a bit crowded." Although Charles said that his marriage had already broken down when the affair began (or resumed), Diana said that Charles's relationship with Camilla contributed to the failure of her marriage. Because Charles and Camilla are living, they are entitled to more "discretion" in print than is Diana, according to Wiki policy. So if the article can be written in a way that protects their privacy, without implicitly contradicting a documented assertion that we have no consensus to reject as inaccurate ("There were three of us in this marriage"), then we should do that. It would be easy if there had not been extensive media coverage, books written, and theses researched on both Charles's marriages and their public impacts: We could simply ignore the tabloids and pretend to know nothing of the affair (exactly as the media did during the Abdication crisis of Edward VIII/Duke of Windsor and Mrs. Simpson). But since all of that info is out there in legitimate texts (including assertions that the future Head of the Church of England was not married to Camilla in that Church or with the Queen as a witness because of the adulterous origin of the relationship), the affair and its impacts on Charles's first marriage are documented history. Moreover, it is indisputably relevant to the "notability" of Charles and Camilla's marriage that he is the first heir to Crown-and-Church who has wed outside of the Church -- which means that how he came to be the first is also fair game for this article. Good luck getting around all that. FactStraight (talk) 22:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

At some point the lede said something along the lines of "She was successively girlfriend, mistress, partner, and wife of The Prince of Wales" which covers it all very nicely. - Nunh-huh 01:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course, all this focusses on her relationship to Charles. A sexual relationship is not a one-way street. What if the boot were on the other foot: she was the Heiress Presumptive, and he was a commoner? We'd be referring to her by her title, and to him as "her lover". It amuses me that female lovers are called "mistresses", but male lovers just get the generic "lover", which could apply to either a male or female lover. How about we remove the sexism and just call her "Charles' lover". -- JackofOz (talk) 00:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Lover is great. I totally agree about the sexism. --Cameron* 16:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

A gender neutral term which embraces the same relationship as "mistress" is "paramour". It suffers from having become largely a literary word -- though it would not be inaccurate to use it in this case if it is preferred. The problem for those who object here is that "mistress" has not yet become purely a literary or historical term, even though some obviously think that it should; it remains in current usage. But that is a matter of linguistic history which it is not Wikipedia's function to "correct": there is no consensus that "mistress" may no longer be used to describe a female engaged in a sexual relationship with a married male. I do not object to "paramour", but I agree that "lover" is a more current term. Although it lacks relevant specificity, it is acceptable. "Partner", because it is weasel-word vague, is not. FactStraight (talk) 22:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

New Picture of Couple

Visiting Jamaica, March 13, 2008

I recently uploaded to the Commons this photograph that I shot while on vacation this year. For your consideration on this article.Mattnad (talk) 14:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

ancestry section

is this section really needed? all the tenuous, vaguely verifiable names of people she's supposedly related to? the sources aren't exactly rock solid either. Theserialcomma (talk) 03:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Scandal

Why on earth is there not an entire section dedicated to scandal?

There should information on "Camillagate" and how Prince Charles wanted to be Camilla's tampon. This is historical and factual information which should be included onto this page. The affair is hardly discussed at all. This is a part of history. --Yoganate79 (talk) 05:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Title of the article

Should it be "Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall"?
At WP:PT, it is being discussed if it is mandatory the use of article in this case, being her the second wife of the Prince of Wales. Sounds a bit nonsense to me. Thanks. --Tonyjeff (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think it ought to be "The Duchess of Cornwall" with no reference to her name, as that is her title of choice. I will say that whatever it SHOULD be, it most definately SHOULD NOT be "Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall", unless or until she and Charles are divorced! At the moment, this article has possibly the most ridiculous name that it could have!! Jcuk (talk) 10:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe the current name is fine. Does anyone think that "Charles, Prince of Wales" is a bad title for an article? Titles of biography articles should include the person's name. The title of an article should not be the person's royal/peerage title and/or style, otherwise this article's title would have to be "Her Royal Highness The Princess Charles, Princess of Wales and Countess of Chester, Duchess of Cornwall..." The title of an article does not have to indicate anyone's marital status; if it describes the person correctly, it's all right. The current title of this article is not meant to indicate her relationship with Charles, Prince of Wales. It includes her name and royal title, so it's fine. Surtsicna (talk) 10:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with Surtsicna here. This article specifically relates to Camilla the person, not 'The Duchess of Cornwall' which is a generic name or style that could be applied to any individual that holds the title in history or in the future. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 10:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The title of the article is obviously incorrect and should be changed immediately. Camilla, who as a titled royal by marriage holds no surname, should be referred to by her first name and then her title to indicate her rank. As long as she is married to Charles, she should be referred to as Camillia the (title). Usually, peers and their wives choose to be known by their highest title, in this case the Pricess of Wales; however, for reasons known to all, Camilla has decided to use Charles 2nd highest title in England - Duke of Cornwall. Appropriately she is "Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall" the article sould also be titled as such. Although she is legally entitled to be called Camilla, the Priness of Wales. Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall seems indicate that she is the ex-wife of a peer. The divorced wife of a peer uses her former title as a surname, separated by a comma. Perhaps, a form of stylistic alimony, if you will. For example, Lady Diana Spencer was known as Lady Diana, Princess of Wales after her divorce and prior to her death, whereby she did not use the courtesy title "lady", despite being entitled to it as the daughter of an Earl. Upon divorce, she was no longer entitled to the style HRH nor the use of the title "the Princess of Wales", as this would have indicated that she was currently the wife of the Prince of the Wales. Furthermore, it is important to distinguish between a style and a title. A style is an honourific prior to a persons title or name HM, HRH, His Grace, The Honourable, etc. A title indicates the rank or office held - the Queen, the Prince, the Duke, the Earl, the Viscount, etc. If a person actually holds the title in their own right or by current marriage, the definite article "the" is used. Divorce or death brings changes to the title. The dowager status gets complicated and involves a bit of personal choice and is also determined by other factors such as if the current title holder is married or if there is an existing dowager. I shall leave that discussion for another place; however, a current wife of a peer ALWAYS uses the definate article pior to her style. Therefore, please rename the article either Camilla, the Princess of Wales (legally her name and her highest title) or more politely as she wishes to be known "Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall". One would never refer to Charles as Charles, Prince of Wales. It is an absolute impossibility. Males ONLY use a title without the "the" if they personally are not a peer in their own right AND they are in line for a peerage AND the peer also has a lesser subsidiary title. For example, His Grace the Duke of Norfolk's eldest son is titled in courtesy as Earl of Arundel and Surrey without the "the", as he does not hold the titles, but may use them in courtesy as the heir.