Talk:Queen Camilla/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Charles III and Queen Camilla Balcony (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Someone has put "Horse Face" as Camilla's surname of birth! - needs to be changed back to "Shand" presumably 2A00:23C8:1382:F201:C00F:DD1B:67FA:6DDF (talk) 09:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Delete the last part of the intro

This is odd and unnecessary : "She became queen consort on 8 September 2022 when her husband became king upon the death of his mother, Elizabeth II" since there's no mention of it in Charles' page , that it "all happened on that 8th of September 2022 " since it's Obviously Not when she started to be queen that matters in Her Wikipage but what she does AS QUEEN . Its a bioGRAPHY 196.65.226.239]] (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Something like this would make sense

Camilla (born Camilla Rosemary Shand, 17 July 1947; later Parker Bowles) has been Queen of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms since 8 September 2022 as the wife of King Charles III. King4852 (talk) 19:18, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

That might imply that she was a queen regnant ruling together with her husband.That happened during the joint reign of William and Mary. TFD (talk) 20:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

It wouldn’t as her info box would refer her as the Queen consort I’ve used the exact wording from the current Queen consort of Norway Queen Sonja.

people can clearly see her position is Queen consort. King4852 (talk) 20:48, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Maybe we could put a banner on top saying, "Please read the info-box first, because the article text could be misleading." TFD (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I don’t think so. Every queen consort is described this way so I don’t think it will be necessary. AKTC3 (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

"Camilla, Princess Consort" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Camilla, Princess Consort has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 7 § Camilla, Princess Consort until a consensus is reached. Estar8806 (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Queen Camilla in Aotearoa 2019.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Infobox title

In the infobox, Camilla is still called "Queen consort of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms", rather than whatever version would be without the word "consort". Is this correct, or should it be updated to her new title as simply Queen of the UK, etc.? NipponGinko (talk) 22:15, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

In the infobox, all Queens consort are called "Queen consort of X". See Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, Mary of Teck, and Alexandra of Denmark for British examples. Queen Silvia of Sweden, Ingrid of Sweden, Queen Letizia of Spain and Maud of Wales also demonstrate this. Estar8806 (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2023

She is queen regent not queen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:31B0:5F60:6562:E268:49B5:882F (talk) 00:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.--Estar8806 (talk) 01:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, not for those reasons.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Camilla's title

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should "of the United Kingdom" or something similar be added to the title? Queen Sofía of Spain isn't just called Queen Sofia. Mat0329Lo (talk) 03:57, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Is it just me or is the above Sky News article useless? It says that Camilla is a Queen Consort because that's what all wives of Kings are in common law (as opposed to husbands of Queens). But then it also says Camilla is a Queen Consort because Elizabeth II wished it so at her Platinum Jubilee. The idea that, had Elizabeth died a few months earlier, Camilla would've become the first wife of a King in I don't know how many centuries to not be a Queen Consort is shocking. The article could've made some effort to answer this by checking whether Kings in the past needed parental permission to give this title to their wives but it did not. Connor Behan (talk) 11:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Proposed infobox photo after The Queen's death

File:Charles III and Queen Camilla Balcony (cropped).jpg

I was thinking maybe this photo above. It is a clear representation with her crowned, and like most monarchs after their death, their infobox photo changes to that of more of a formal one. It looks very slim, but we can always make a new cropped version to make the photo a bit wider and suitable for an infobox.

Please declare support or oppose and preferably your reason as to why or why not.

BillClinternet (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose for now - I think it's best to wait until official coronation portraits are published (which I've heard is supposed to happen tomorrow I believe), and then we'll have to have an RfC on the matter, presumably involving several different images. Estar8806 (talk) 01:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Support - The crown gives royalty to Camilla. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.189.25.28 (talk) 02:56, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose Copyright violation by the opening party. Will be deleted shortly. DrKay (talk) 06:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Comment: I don't think we'll ever get a suitable crowned portrait of Camilla: those that exist on Commons will almost certainly be of low resolution (like this one), and official depictions mightn't get freely licensed. A good photograph of her as she usually appears (i.e. without wearing a crown), like we have at present, will be perfectly sufficient – as we did for Elizabeth II. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 08:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the photo I took was taken down because the EXIF was missing and administrators presumed that I stole it.

Thanks for your consideration,

BillClinternet (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

If you took a good photo, please follow the OTRS procedure at Commons so it can be used! Good start here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Camilla's page title shouldn't be changed.

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

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

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

Thanks,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strong Support- Most news outlets are calling Her Majesty; The Queen. Even the official Royal Family Website calls her; The Queen:- https://www.royal.uk/the-queen WiltedXXVI (talk) 14:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

The wife of the King is the Queen. Queen consort is a description not a title. All queen consorts are addressed as Queen [First Name]. So the correct title for this page is Queen Camilla. Stajg (talk) 09:44, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. Just naming this page "The Queen" wouldn't be specific enough hence Queen Camilla. What I was trying to say was that The Queen is the title being used in an official capacity now, and the correct term to be used here is "Queen Camilla" WiltedXXVI (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

According to The Royal Family's official website, she is now the Queen, and not the Queen Consort.

https://www.royal.uk/the-queen TheRealMangoDK (talk) 23:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

She's still the queen consort, just without the capital letters. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Her position, her job is queen consort, her title is HM The Queen WiltedXXVI (talk) 19:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I've looked at the pages of Queen Silvia and Queen Letizia, and in them it only refers to them as queen consort in one place, in the information block to the right. The reason for all this with Camilla is politics, and we all know it. Never once did I ever hear anyone call Princess Grace of Monaco, princess consort. Nor was Princess Diana ever called Princess Consort Diana. Of course, they were. I think Wikipedia should be consistent and leave politics, ie, personal dislikes out of it. But no doubt I ask too much. don Esteban 12:25, 13 May 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sconklan (talk • contribs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The only reason to add "of the United KIngdom" would be if there were articles about other Queen Camillas that readers were likely to be looking for.

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2023

"Queen Camilla" title should be: Queen's Consort Camilla

just ask Princess Anne

"Queen" typically refers to the reigning monarch, while "Queen Consort" is the official title for the wife or companion of a monarch, as Insider previously reported. Since Camilla is married to the King rather than becoming the head of the monarchy herself, she is the "Queen Consort." 71.211.13.18 (talk) 09:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. This is clearly a thing, and will need consensus to change. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

She's Queen. 195.213.41.254 (talk) 20:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you think you know the queen's better than the official royal family? Read it

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

"Her Majesty The Queen (formerly HRH The Duchess of Cornwall) supports her husband, formerly The Prince of Wales, now His Majesty The King, in carrying out his work and duties. She also undertakes public engagements on behalf of the charities that she supports." 218.255.255.198 (talk) 08:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Consort is just a description of queen. There are three types of queens: regnant, consort and dowager. Calling Camilla Queen Consort Camilla is the same as calling Elizabeth Queen Regnant Elizabeth II. Camilla is queen by law and has always been queen since September 8. She was referred to as queen consort in order to avoid confusion with the recently deceased Queen Elizabeth II. DDMS123 (talk) 08:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Luke Parker Bowles

I created a draft for Luke Parker Bowles, the nephew of Camilla. Any help with expansion would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 15:42, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Notability is not inherited, so he doesn't meet WP:GNG merely by being the nephew of Camilla. He might be sufficiently notable as a film producer, so you'll need to expand on that aspect if the article is to get beyond a draft. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:24, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I am aware that notability is not inherited. Just thought I’d post here to see if there was any interest. I have a lot of drafts going. Always thankful for help. Thriley (talk) 23:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

He isn't her nephew. He is the nephew of her ex-husband. Vabadus91 (talk) 10:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)