Talk:Queen Camilla/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

The article name breaks convention

In the discussions about calling her Queen Camilla, the most common argument is that this would be consistent with how Wikipedia treats the other royal consorts. This is true if you're talking about what the text of the article should be. But the title? Let's go through the list of other royal consorts who have been coronated.

As such, it is decidedly inconsistent for this article to have the name it currently does. A move to something like Camilla of Cornwall should follow. Connor Behan (talk) 15:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

See WP:CONSORTS. As a living consort, the current title follows convention. U-Mos (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Not really, since we're not specifiying what territory she is queen of, so there is no precedent for Camilla, much like there isn't for Queen Victoria, which is another can of worms. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Charles III article title omits the country, too, and Queen Camilla article title is consistent with that convention. IlkkaP (talk) 18:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Charles III's title omits "King", so no, there is no consistency. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
WP:NCROY is very, very clear that WP:SOVEREIGNs will generally not use King/Queen, and living WP:CONSORTS will. The reasons for not using "of the United Kingdom" in the case of a consort of many more domains are also clear. So, yes, consistency with the guidelines and each other. U-Mos (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
There is no consistency. This article's title is the only one of its kind that includes "Queen" without any territorial designation, that's just a fact. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
The present title is consistent with: a) the usage of the title "Queen" in articles for present queens consort; and b) the omission of "of the United Kingdom" as is done on Charles.
In any case, Queen Camilla has become the WP:COMMONNAME for the subject and (even though I may not like it) that trumps basically everything. Estar8806 (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
So it's consistent in two different ways with two different things. Like I said, there's no precedent here. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Precedence and consistency are not the same thing. It's entirely consistent with the guidelines, and I don't think there's a better fit in this circumstance. U-Mos (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Sure, it's an esotericism, just like Queen Victoria. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
+1 and why I opposed the move, though I concede the previous title was unsustainable given the disuse of "Queen Consort", though I think a case could be made for Camilla, queen consort (no capitals). ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Article titles are not descriptions. "Queen consort" is now a descriptions not a title. We don't have "Joe Biden, President of the United States" for the same reason. Estar8806 (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
We have John, King of England and Mary, mother of Jesus. We wouldn't need to have "Joe Biden, President of the United States" since there's no ambiguity, though I suppose you could make a case for Camilla being the wp:primary topic for "Camilla", which I would be willing to hear. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
"King of England" is a title, "queen consort" (no capitals, as you suggested) is a description. You may be right about Mary, mother of Jesus, but that's hardly a comparison. Estar8806 (talk) 20:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
What do you make of the idea of making this Camilla the primary topic? For comparison, Charles III was made primary despite others holding the name. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
That's because the living king of the United Kingdom is undoubtedly a primary topic for a name with an ordinal. But making the wife of that king the primary topic for a single name alone? That's just a simply ludicrous idea. There's a similar (and perhaps stronger) argument for Diana, Princess of Wales to be the primary topic for her name, but that will never be done.
I think many of your problems (and those of many others as well) are with NCROY itself, and this is not the place to discuss those guidelines. Estar8806 (talk) 22:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
How is it ludicrous, exactly? There's a strong case that she's the primary topic for the name, especially now that she's queen consort. Your reference to Diana isn't really helpful since she was also widely known as Princess of Wales, so much like Prince Philip as Duke of Edinburgh, it's helpful to include that part of her title in her article title. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 23:10, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
And Camilla is queen. Widely known as Queen Camilla. How is that any different than Diana being called Princess of Wales? If anything, she was more commonly called "Princess Diana" than Princess of Wales. Estar8806 (talk) 00:11, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes, but she was widely referred to as "Diana, Princess of Wales" throughout her life and indeed afterlife. This isn't the same at all for Camilla, who has only just assumed her title. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 01:03, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
The primary topic for Camilla would undoubtedly be Camilla (given name), as most users who searched merely 'Camilla' without disambiguating features would probably be searching for the given name. However, as there are other important topics with that name such as Queen Camilla, using the disambiguation page is most appropriate. Jèrriais janne (talk) 11:56, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
as most users who searched merely 'Camilla' without disambiguating features would probably be searching for the given name. any evidence for this? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
@Keivan.f: any thoughts on the idea of making this Camilla the wp:primary topic for Camilla? I've checked the links on the dab and I can't see any real wp:primary rival to the queen consort. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 23:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Well, nobody would agree to have "Camilla, queen consort" as the main title of the page. Firstly, because her title is no longer "Queen Consort"; secondly and more importantly it's not even her common name anymore. All news outlets have now switched to "Queen Camilla". It's the same way they call the wife of the King of Spain "Queen Letizia". I think in general a monarch's name does not need to be accompanied with the prefix "King/Queen" because they have regnal names accompanied by ordinal numbers (rare cases exist such as Queen Victoria). For the consorts, their name alone does not tell anything about their position unless it is accompanied by the prefix "Queen". And it is not really possible to have the first name alone as the main title; it's simply inconsistent and not reasonable really. Would the community similarly support having "Letizia", "Sofía", and "Silvia" as page titles for those queens (note that the pages on their husbands use no territorial designations per community consensus)? I'm not really sure. But if the intention is to omit the prefix "Queen", then it should be done for all consorts via a community consensus. We should not be cherry picking. It was attempted before and failed. But at the end of the day, everyone would favor WP:COMMONNAME and these consorts are mostly referred to as "Queen [Name]" in the majority of sources. Keivan.fTalk 23:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
That's not accurate; many news outlets continue to use "Queen Consort". Looking at articles only from the past day, this includes SCMP, Times of India, and dozens of others; it appears to have approximately the same level of use as "Queen". Others, like The Jerusalem Post and Sky News Australia, use both "Queen" and "Queen Consort".
Does that change your opinion? BilledMammal (talk) 00:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
I never said that everyone stopped using "Queen Consort" overnight. But, the fact of the matter is that the change in her title has been recognized by everyone. The BBC has changed the headline under which it publishes articles about Camilla from "Queen Consort Camilla" to "Queen Camilla". And if indeed both "Queen Camilla" and "Queen Consort" are in use at the same level, we should go with the one that is accurate. Before May 6, the argument was that "The Queen Consort" was her title. That is not the case anymore; she's now "The Queen" or "Queen Camilla". Keivan.fTalk 00:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
You said All news outlets have now switched to "Queen Camilla"?
They're also equally accurate, with "Queen Consort" being more precise, and "Queen" being preferred by the subject. BilledMammal (talk) 00:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Because they have. Even the ones that did not use "Queen Camilla" in the past are using it at the moment. That doesn't mean that they are not using "Queen Consort", but why should we favor the one that is inaccurate? She 'was' styled "The Queen Consort". That is not her title anymore. Keivan.fTalk 01:46, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't see why "Queen Consort" is inaccurate, since she is the Queen Consort? BilledMammal (talk) 01:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Nobody is denying the fact that she is 'a' queen consort, but her title is no longer "The Queen Consort". Having those words in the page name implies that she's titled "The Queen Consort" at the moment which is not true. She is "The Queen", so are Mathilde, Sonja, Silvia, etc. Keivan.fTalk 02:44, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Which is why we title it "Camilla, Queen Consort", rather than "Queen Consort Camilla". The former is descriptive and accurate - I don't see the issue. BilledMammal (talk) 02:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Again, titling it "Camilla, Queen Consort" implies that her title is "The Queen Consort"; just like "Catherine, Princess of Wales" implies that her title is "The Princess of Wales" and "Albert, Prince Consort" implies that his title was "The Prince Consort".
Btw, what is this obsession that people have with singling out Camilla's page? Would anyone support moving Queen Letizia of Spain to "Letizia, Queen Consort"? Absolutely not. Camilla is "The Queen" or "Queen Camilla" at the moment. The name is both common, 'current', and accurate. Unless anyone wants to move the pages on all living queens consort by securing community consensus, this page should remain at its current title. Keivan.fTalk 03:06, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
They just don't want to accept the fact that Camilla is queen. It's a shame to influence Wikipedia editors because of personal preferences. 218.255.255.198 (talk) 07:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
See WP:RSPSS - Both The Times of India and Sky News Australia are categorized under mixed reliability. The SCMP appears to use "Queen Consort" in the heading (which is generally not considered a reliable source per WP:HEADLINES) and uses "Queen Camilla" in the rest of the article. The Jerusalem Post article appears to exclusively use "Queen Camilla". Estar8806 (talk) 00:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
When determining something like the common name, we typically include all sources that aren't "generally unreliable" or worse - both WP:GREL and WP:MREL are helpful in determining it.
For the Jerusalem Post, King Charles III and Camilla, the Queen Consort arrive before meeting with genocide survivors at Buckingham Palace, London, to mark Holocaust Memorial Day, in Britain January 27, 2023. BilledMammal (talk) 01:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Two hours before the coronation, Buckingham Palace officially referred to Camilla as “Her Majesty the Queen”. After the coronation, the Guardian changed “Camilla, Queen consort” to “Queen Camilla”, as did the Telegraph. BBC changed from “Queen Consort Camilla” to “Queen Camilla”. The above is the transformation of the media. If you search, you will find that after the coronation, the media always refer to her as the Queen or Queen Camilla 218.255.255.198 (talk) 06:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Or just Camilla. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Rarely, and "Queen Camilla" or "The Queen" is also used in the same article. Secondly, some media still refer King Charles as Charles, but you would not suggest changing his Wikipedia title to Charles. 223.16.62.17 (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
No, not rarely at all, it's her WP:COMMONNAME. What article? No, obviously I wouldn't because he's not our only King Charles, hence why Charles III is the right title. Consorts don't take regnal numbers. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Of course her name is Camilla, but she's not the only woman with that name. Looking at all the living queens, we have the same problem with Masako, Rania, Noor, Mathilde, Paola, Maxima, Sonja, Letizia, Sofia, and Silvia. Their names are not unique enough to be used solely as article titles. Keivan.fTalk 01:09, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes, but there's an argument she could be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 02:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
If nothing else, the suggestion of "Camilla of Cornwall" is also against convention, as that wasn't her style by birth, so she wouldn't be called that any more than the former Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon wouldn't be called "Elizabeth of York" or how Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen wouldn't be called "Adelaide of Clarence". 98.228.137.44 (talk) 22:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
This is correct, upon the Queen's death (assuming NCROY is followed) the page would probably be retitled Camilla Shand or Camilla Parker Bowles, but that's a discussion for hopefully a long time in the future. Estar8806 (talk) 00:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Given the fact that there has been only one queen in the world named Camilla, there would be no point in moving her page. The community opposed moving "Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother" to "Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon" on the same grounds; because 1) it was her common name and 2) no other queen has been known as such. But who knows? Maybe when Camilla eventually passes in the future the pages on deceased consorts can finally be made consistent in terms of naming; which I would personally support. Keivan.fTalk 00:43, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
But the Queen already died? I think you might be confused. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 01:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
I think they are referring to the current queen, Camilla (who's officially "The Queen" at the moment). Keivan.fTalk 01:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Well, that's needlessly wp:pointy of them. Regardless of what she is officially, the overwhelming majority of people will still refer to her as Camilla, while most people in the Western world still understand "the Queen" to mean Elizabeth. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 02:06, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
I hope you know the title is an objective fact, no matter how many people in the world think that "the Queen" can only be Elizabeth, the fact is that there is only one Queen in the UK now, Camilla is The Queen 218.255.255.198 (talk) 07:03, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
She's not commonly referred to as that and you know that full well. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 07:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
I say it again, Camilla is the queen is an objective fact, what you think of her or what the world thinks of her will not affect the fact. It's a shame to influence Wikipedia editors with your personal preferences. And I can tell you that most of the British newspapers refer to her as the Queen after the coronation, while the foreign newspapers are all "Queen Camilla". 218.255.255.198 (talk) 07:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
You're completely missing the point. She is commonly referred to as Camilla, whereas Elizabeth is still commonly referred to as the Queen even in death. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 07:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
You are the one who is missing the point. Wikipedia does not reflect the opinions of the world, it reflects the facts. And you'd better do a search. After May 6, most of the media refer to her as The Queen or Queen Camilla. 218.255.255.198 (talk) 07:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
No, you're just being deliberately obtuse. Elizabeth is still commonly referred to as the Queen. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 07:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
It is you who are being deliberately obtuse. This has nothing to do with Elizabeth being widely commonly refered to as The Queen, it doesn't affect the fact that Camilla is Queen. Camilla is the queen by British law. You don't even know what Wikipedia means, opinions don't affect facts. Don't you think it is ridiculous? Before the TRF website was updated, you said that it should not be changed, and wait for the royal family to update the title. Now that the TRF website has been updated, most of the media refer to Camilla as the Queen/ Queen Camilla, and you started to say that she is not widely recognized. You just don't want to accept the fact that she's queen. KGOO510 (talk) 11:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

No, it's simply the case that Elizabeth II is still commonly referred to as the Queen. Camilla is referred to as either Queen Camilla or just Camilla in common parlance. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 11:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@KGOO510, Neveselbert please try to keep it WP:CIVIL.
And in any case, a simple google search of "The Queen" returns mixed results of Camilla and Elizabeth (for me, at least) [1].
Both women may be referred to as the Queen, it really all depends on context.
And quite frankly Neveselbert, referring to Camilla as "the Queen" is hardly WP:POINTy (especially in a talk page discussion), as it's not attempting to discredit any guideline it's simply a personal preference. I would advise you to check out WP:NOTPOINTY. Estar8806 (talk) 02:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Diana is referred to commonly as “Princess Diana” despite her never holding that title. Shall we change her Wikipedia page to that also?Pray tell, do you have an issue with the fact that Camilla is now The Queen? It matters not what people know her as. Camilla is Queen of the United Kingdom and the page should reflect her title and position. 81.140.89.191 (talk) 23:52, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
No, because that wouldn't be consistent with WP:NCROY. The issue I have is with consistency, and the current article title isn't consistent with any other article title of a consort, the closest comparison would be with Queen Victoria. So, what I'm saying is, the current title isn't consistent with previous consorts, specifically British ones. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 03:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
  • There is no good convention. Use WP:UCRN. Forcing a convention where there is no natural convention makes things worse. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment Walking into this remarkably civil debate, it occurred to me that part of the issue is that, unlike many similar cases, there’s no helpful answer to the question “Queen Camilla of where precisely?” The technically correct answer isn’t in common usage. (Americans and some Europeans often referred to Elizabeth II as “the Queen of England”.) Many Anglophone nations are Commonwealth realms (and might object to calling it the UK monarchy), while others such as the US and SA nonetheless refer to the Commonwealth monarchy as simply “the king/queen”. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:35, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Camilla is not 'of Cornwall" since the death of Queen Elizabeth. The Princess of Wales is now Duchess of Cornwall. 51.9.126.153 (talk) 11:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

The article title is fine as it is. Consorts typically have "Queen" at the front of their name and British royalty typically won't have "of the UK" at the end, pathing the way to the title of this article. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

The title of the article is good. In the past, the British queens were all nobles or members of the royal family, so they would use their father's territories, such as "Alexandra of Denmark". But in modern society, the queens of most countries are commoners, such as Queen Rania and Queen Letizia. So using Queen Camilla as the title is completely correct. I hope that some people put away their prejudice and hatred when editing Wikipedia, whether you like Camilla or who you think should be the queen, Wikipedia is to reflect objective facts and not your opinion. The fact is: Camilla is The Queen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.255.255.198 (talk) 07:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Article titles use common name if one exists, otherwise legal name. Common name means that everyone calls them that, not just most people. (Mother Theresa is one example.) Camilla was officially known as Camilla, Queen Consort until her coronation, when it became Queen Camilla. Her title is not "Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom" and the only reason we would use that as the title would be if there were other Queen Camillas.
I wish the IP would assume good faith and not assume that editors are basing their decisions on their personal views of Camilla. The fact is that she was unpopular when she married Charles and therefore never used the title Princess of Wales and did not assume the title of Queen when her husband became king. Initially it was expected that she would be known as Princess Consort.
We use the titles that reliable sources do and they use the titles that the Palace announces. That does not necessarily mean we agree with them. TFD (talk) 04:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
I read the whole discussion and I don't know why people are obsessed with Camilla's title to this day. Whether Buckingham Palace or reliable sources, she is Queen Camilla and The Queen. I think it's pretty clear after May 6th about her title. KGOO510 (talk) 04:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
While "the" is capitalized for substantial princely and noble titles, it isn't usually for kings and queens. I can point for example to the rules for princes and nobles but cannot find any for kings and queens. TFD (talk) 10:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't know why this is a discussion that keeps coming up. "The King" and "The Queen" do include a capitalized definite article in official contexts (ref.[2][3]).
You may be right that secondary sources don't capitalize the definite article (eg. "the King/Queen did X", but formally and officially Charles & Camilla are styled "His Majesty The King" and "Her Majesty The Queen" respectively. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:35, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
That's OR and you need a reliable secondary source that draws the same conclusions you do.
The text you linked to follows the 18th century practice of capitalizing Important Words. See for example, "the first Coronation Service in almost 70 years...The King and The Queen received a Royal Salute in the Garden of Buckingham Palace from the Armed Forces taking part in the Processions...accompanied by Members of the Royal Family, then appeared on the Buckingham Palace Balcony for the Flypast."[4] But it does not appear in the Style of the British sovereign proclaimed by Elizabeth II or in modern legislation referring to the monarch. OTOH, "The" is capitalized when it proceeds substantial titles of princedom or nobility. And note no one refers to him as "The King Charles," whereas he might have been referred to as "The Prince Charles." TFD (talk) 23:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm absolutely baffled by what you're trying to argue. Buckingham Palace (almost) always uses a capital "The" before any title, see the Court Circular[5]. I never said anyone refers to him as "The King Charles". The official page for Queen Camilla also says "Her Majesty The Queen..." [6]. And again, secondary sources often don't capitalize the article (see CNN[7]).
Further, the list of members of the royal family provided by the [royal.uk] website lists "The King" and "The Queen Consort" with all other members of the royal family who hold substantive titles having their's preceded by the definite article capitalized. The coronation order of service also uses "The King" and "The Queen"[8].
Also, claiming that the text "follows 18th century practice of capitalizing important words" is also OR. And for the record, the proclamation by Elizabeth II only references the full style of the British monarch, it does not say anywhere that the monarch can even be called "the King/the Queen"[9]. So is calling the present monarch "the King" also OR? Should every reference to him be to Charles III, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of His Other Realms and Territories King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith". estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
The rule in English is that articles such as "the" are not normally capitalized unless some special rule applies. The assumption is that readers are familiar with the English language and there is no requirement to provide sources supporting the non-capitalization of every word that isn't capitalized. If you think an exception applies then please provide one. It is acceptable per WP:OR to say on a Talk Page that Over-capitalization of Important Words was an 18th century Practice. It is only against NOR to add that fact to an article without a source. I assumed you were aware of this practice since you aver knowledge of English grammar, but if you want to know more about it I suggest you read the History of English capitalization. Can you please explain why, if "The" is part of the king's title and therefore capitalized, it does not appear in any royal titles legislation or orders from the king? Also, why does British legislation use the expression "the King's most Excellent Majesty" if it's wrong? Surely some king or queen must have noticed this and corrected it, since it has been a feature of acts of Parliament for 400 years. TFD (talk) 10:20, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm not saying Parliament is wrong, or that it's wrong to not capitalize "the". All I'm saying is that in official contexts used by the monarchy (eg. their official website and publications), they capitalize "The King" and "The Queen".
Any in case, I don't know why this discussion has arisen. For an editor or source to refer to "the King/Queen" or "The King/Queen" it's a personal preference. Though, when we refer to titles and styles in the appropriate section, it is "His Majesty The King"(as demonstrated here[10] His Majesty The King hosted an audience with the Prime Minister of Australia, Anthony Albanese, at Buckingham Palace.) and "Her Majesty The Queen" (as demonstrated here[11]Her Majesty The Queen (formerly HRH The Duchess of Cornwall)...). estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:15, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Your position comes down to original research. You have observed a capital "T" "The" in some references to Camilla and concluded that it is part of her title. But as I pointed out, other conclusions could be drawn. What you need is a reliable secondary source that comes to the same conclusion you do.
Without that source, we can make no changes to this article. TFD (talk) 13:46, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm actually not proposing any changes to the article. I thought you were. I've concluded that it's part of her title as used by Buckingham Palace. Which, save for references to "The King and Queen", "Queen Camilla" or "The Queen Consort", they use "The Queen". Perhaps I used a claim that was too broad in "official", all I meant is that the capital "T" is used by the Palace. Citing sources from the Palace, and claiming that the Palace uses the capital "T" is not OR. estar8806 (talk) ★ 14:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
In any case, MOS discourages capitalising "the" per MOS:THECAPS. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 03:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
I think this title reflects the queen‘s title nowadays and the title characteristics of the British royal family very well. First of all: similar to the queens of other countries: Queen Sonja/Queen Rania/Queen Máxima, Queen Camilla is undoubtedly correct. Secondly, Camilla is not only the queen of UK, but also the queen of 14 other countries. Referring to the title of Charles III, there is no need to write "of United Kingdom". And using "Queen Camilla" can be used as a precedent. When Catherine becomes queen in the future, will you use “Catherine, Queen Consort”? Of course it should also be “Queen Catherine”. Another point, Camilla is no longer CPB or Camilla Shand, even if she passed away after many years, you can't change to CPB or Camilla Shand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KGOO510 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Camilla of Cornwall?? Good god!! Nobody calls her that. A move to Camilla Shand or Camilla Parker-Bowles might make more sense, although not much. WP:NCROY makes it clear that there is no consistent standard for consorts, so Keep It Simple Stupid in her case. Queen Camilla is clear and unambiguous. PatGallacher (talk) 19:48, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
There is no need or requirement to respond to polemic or fringe views. DrKay (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
The High Court is currently considering the legality of Camilla's title, given that the Marriage Act 1949 (section 79(5)) explicitly forbids members of the royal family to marry in register offices. This appears to be a public policy decision by parliament - a recent Law Commission report recommended that Registrars should be given the power to marry people who are not members of the royal family in back gardens, something which would be obviously inappropriate. The palace should have waited for the judgment rather than trying to pre-empt the Court. 89.243.8.4 (talk) 16:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
First of all, the High Court has no jurisdiction over how Wikipedia titles articles.
Second of all, MacCormick v Lord Advocate held that royal titles were crown prerogative. estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
The point I was making was that following the expected decision that Camilla and Charles are not married no one will be able to call her Queen because the crown prerogative does not extend to people who are not members of the royal family. At this point, following WP:COMMONNAME the article will have to be retitled. 89.243.8.4 (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Even if the high court ruled they aren't married (which it won't). And that's not how COMMONNAME works in any case. estar8806 (talk) ★ 19:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
The Act does not prohibit royals from marrying in registry offices, it merely said that the Act did not apply to them. In fact, no marriage legislation has ever applied to royals. Anyway, a challenge in the High Court, that goes against generally accepted interpretations of the law have little or no significance unless they succeed. TFD (talk) 22:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you can claim that the wording of the statute is "the Act [does] not apply to [the royal family]" when what it actually says is Nothing in this Act shall affect any law or custom relating to the marriage of members of the Royal Family. The issue was first raised in 2005 by Tony Blair, who had previously concocted a dossier "proving" that Saddam Hussein had an armoury of weapons of mass destruction (a claim which he later admitted to be false and made for the sole purpose of justifying going to war). Cite me one authority prior to 2005 which, in relation to the incompetence of registrars to marry members of the royal family, says anything other than that they have no power to do it, and any document purporting to be a superintendent registrar's certificate or marriage certificate in relation thereto is so much waste paper. 89.243.8.4 (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

"Draft:Camilla, Duchess of Edinburgh" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Draft:Camilla, Duchess of Edinburgh 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 July 29 § Draft:Camilla, Duchess of Edinburgh until a consensus is reached. Keivan.fTalk 03:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

"Cam The Ham" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Cam The Ham 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 August 7 § Cam The Ham until a consensus is reached. estar8806 (talk) ★ 19:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Coronation picture

Why exactly do we need to have a cropped up photo of her on her coronation day in the section "Queen consort", when the full frame that also includes her husband is available for use? They were crowned together; not to mention that she is shown alongside Charles in his article, so I don't understand why his face has to be cut off here. This is not an infobox photo where the focus has to be on her. Keivan.fTalk 19:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

[Edit conflict]:An edit war has been initiated as to whether or not a photo from her coronation should be of her alone or include her husband. The article and the section ("Queen consort (2022–present)") are about her, not him. I see no reason (other than perhaps more-or-less conscious Camilla-hate) to have him in there. He is in 3 other images in the article. That's enough. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
An edit war has been initiated… Last time I checked two reverts did not constitute an edit war. And if I were not making my edits in good faith I would not have started the discussion. Keivan.fTalk 19:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
A discussion is started without reverting someone else's revert, not after doing that. We all need to make a note of the bolded "nutshell" sentence at WP:WAR and do our best to work accordingly. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Yes, that is the desirable way of doing it, yet there's no rule which states that one cannot start a discussion after reverting someone else's edit. Keivan.fTalk 20:05, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
I see no reason (other than perhaps more-or-less conscious Camilla-hate) to have him in there. I don't even know how to respond to this. So having her husband shown by her side is equivalent to hating on her? Then we must also be hating on Charles as the coronation picture shown on Charles' article shows her face. Keivan.fTalk 19:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
My somewhat flabbergasted grasping, in () after a feasible reason to deny her a solo photo is not the issue here. No reason to show him in that photo as long as the section is worded as is. She is Queen now and will be so styled as long as she lives (like it or not). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
The wording makes it clear that she is a queen consort. So were hundreds of women before her. What does that have to do with cutting out her husband's face? Again, this is not an infobox photo we are talking about. Keivan.fTalk 20:05, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't have a particularly strong opinion here, but I don't see any reason why Charles cannot be featured in the full frame photo, especially considering she's in the photo used on his article. And for the idea that him being in three images on her article is "enough", she's in (by my count), five on his (Diana and Elizabeth are both in three on his also). That being said, I also don't see a reason why it can't or shouldn't be just her, but the cropped image is of kinda poor quality, so take that as you will. estar8806 (talk) ★ 21:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I cannot see the relevance of the article about a king having a photo of him and his queen. Do we often picture queens with their husbands in sections of the queens' articles about their positions, sort of in a well-ya-know-she-wunt-even-be-there-if-it-wuznt-fer-him kind of way? Just asking. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:21, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
If we were allowed to use these, which one would we use in this context? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
well-ya-know-she-wunt-even-be-there-if-it-wuznt-fer-him We are talking about monarchy, a hereditary system that functions based on traditions. Of course she wouldn't be there if it wasn't for Charles. The same is true for every other consort (males included) around the world. You are turning this into a sexism issue in your head. The fact is that it is perfectly fine to show her husband's face next to hers on the day of their coronation. Prince Philip's article shows him and Elizabeth together. Based on your logic we should cut her out; which I'm sure nobody would agree to. Keivan.fTalk 17:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Philip was never crowned king of queen.
What's in his article is irrelevant.
Of course it's perfectly fine to include Charles, but it's not the best option.
I never can appreciate the personalization of article talk, such as theories about what's in my mind or what we should do (with another article) based on my logic. That kind of content here does not stick to issue and is not constructive. It just makes talk unpleasant and clouds issues. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
How are Charles or Philip's articles irrelevant? I have given you two examples of different individuals pictured next to their respective spouses on a coronation day. It does not matter that Philip was not crowned. He was still Elizabeth's consort just as Camilla is Charles's.
Nobody is personalizing anything by the way. You're the one who started this discussion with theories as to what the underlying reasons or effects of picturing her next to Charles would be. Still you have not been able to come up with a solid reason as to why the image of the two of them together should be discarded. The other user did not appear to be convinced by your anrguments either. Keivan.fTalk 18:09, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
All of us should be familiar with, and try to follow WP:TPYES and it's guideline Comment on content, not on the contributor or It's the edits that matter, not the editor: Keep the discussions focused on the topic of the talk page, rather than on the editors participating. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Nobody has commented on your character or on anything related to you as a person. If your opinions about the article in question or other similar pages do not hold water that is not my problem. You should be open to being challenged and questioned in a discussion with regards to your edits. Keivan.fTalk 18:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
"Comment on content, not on the contributor" is meant to be followed literally by all of us, not according to convenient interpretations of users who want to comment on other users anyway. Versus "You should be open to ..." etc etc etc. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:53, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
[Off-topic item continued on the user's talk page.] --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Again, nobody has commented on anything related to you and I don't wish to carry that conversation any further.
Back to the topic on hand; the third participant in this discussion had no problem with including a photo that shows Charles. I'll just wait a few more days to see if anyone else opposes. If not, I will proceed to include the photo, or start an RfC if the other user is not satisfied with the outcome. Keivan.fTalk 18:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't have any strong views on this but I've observed that the "queen consort" section of each of the articles: Alexandra of Denmark, Mary of Teck, and Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, include a coronation picture of the queen consort alone. I believe we should follow the same approach for Camilla R for the sake of consistency. Peter Ormond 💬 13:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Good point. I also noticed that the articles on previous kings include portraits that show them alone under the sections titled "Reign". So maybe we should remove Camilla from his section as well and keep Charles out of Camilla's and show them on their own. I'll wait and see what others might think. Keivan.fTalk 14:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2023

Camilla is Queen of England. 2604:3D08:9576:B600:94C7:F817:122A:2E2A (talk) 01:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The Kingdom of England merged with the Kingdom of Scotland creating the Kingdom of Great Britain. It merged with the Kingdom of Ireland creating the United Kingdom. TFD (talk) 02:06, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

Pass - MSincccc (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Queen Camilla/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MSincccc (talk · contribs) 09:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
  • Camilla Rosemary Shand was born on 17 July 1947 at King's College Hospital, London. I had prefer this sentence as it is in line with that of other royals under the first line of the "Early life and education" section.
    •  Done
  • Also I had recommend changing "Shand" in the same section to "Camilla" but I had leave it at your discretion (you might not if you don't want to). Further avoid repetition of her first name multiple times under the same sections.
    • I would keep it as it is. The parts that cover her pre-marriage era use the surname Shand, while the parts covering the period after her first marriage and until her second marriage to Charles use the surname Parker Bowles. This is normal as she was known to the wider public as Miss Shand and subsequently Mrs Parker Bowles during those years (also in line with the articles on Catherine, Meghan, Sarah, and Sophie).
    • Reduced the number of times her name is mentioned without causing any ambiguity. Others, including the reviewer, are also welcome to chime in and give a try as well.
  • Camilla carries out public engagements on behalf of the British monarch. See if you can fix this line in lead
  • I suggest you to go through just the beginnings of each line except the lead and "Early life and education" section. Her first name "Shand" or "Camilla" as the case may be. There is evidence of unnecessary repetition which is not required.
    • There is evidence of unnecessary repetition which is not required. Be specific please. I don't see that much repetition, and having the word "she" repeated ten times in a paragraph is not desirable either IMO. On the other hand, a reviewer is welcome to make occasional edits as well, so if you think there is something you can adjust don't hesitate.
  • First marriage Fix this heading if possible.
    • What is wrong with it exactly? Given that there is also a "Second marriage"? She has been married twice, like Wallis Simpson and Meghan Markle
Could you please provide a suitable alternative to this: Camilla carries out public engagements representing the monarchy, often alongside Charles. She is also the patron, the president, or a member of numerous charities and organisations.
I gave it a try but if you want it changed again you have to be more specific with the issue you want addressed.
  • Prose is fine and accurate. Relevant to the topic as such.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
Contains a list of all references.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
  • Just make sure that all the sources are properly cited. Such as "cite news-work" for BBC News and "cite magazine-magazine" for magazines. It’s impossible to go through each and every citation though they are all fine and reliable. Rest fine and good to go once this is taken care of.
    • Already done. In fact I did some initial formatting about a month ago and finished it off yesterday. I'll have another look today, just to be on the safe side.
  • Did you get it checked Keivan? If yes we are good to go and I had pass this criteria once I receive your report on this.
2c. it contains no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

Earwig is fine: 32 per cent at the highest, flagging the description of the coat of arms (which can't be paraphrased). Tim O'Doherty (talk) 10:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)


3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
  • It does address the main aspects of the topic. From her early life to her first marriage and then her interests as well as her eventual second marriage to the now Charles III.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  • Article is neutral.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
  • Went through all the image licences. Most of them look fine though I require you all to go through the images licensed under "Public domain" and find whether they are usable or not. Also please see whether the signature's presence is valid as signatures of other royals were nominated for deletion previously given the UK laws. Rest good to go.
  • Given you say and I see no problem with the images used, I am passing this aspect.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
  • Fixed a few captions and the rest are fine and good to go.
7. Overall assessment.


Prose and summary style

The GA reviewer has asked me to take a look at the 1a and 3b aspects. From a quick buzz through the article I'd say the summary style used is actually quite good, with not as much detail as some of the other articles. As for prose, as usual I recommend removing commas after dates when not a parenthetical clause; merging some short paragraphs; and fixing false titles and complying with MOS:JOB (example: "First Lady of Ukraine Olena Zelenska" would become "the first lady of Ukraine, Olena Zelenska"). Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, it's always good to have a second pair of eyes going through everything. I will go through the article myself later today and apply these suggestions. Will update you guys once it's done. Keivan.fTalk 19:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
@Keivan.f and @Tim O'Doherty I have verified the date styles in British English. Its like "In November 2023,... or "In November 2023 ..." both will do but in a case like "On 3 April 2019," the comma is significant and needs to be used. "In 2020" is not usually succeeded by a comma. I hope I have made myself clear. Regards MSincccc (talk) 06:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm not British so I don't know if it's just a matter of preference or something that needs to be strictly followed. This article says for British English no commas should be used; ex. On 13 May 2007 Daniel was born is correct but On 13 May, 2007, Daniel was born is incorrect. The Oxford Style Guide did not contain any info on how to use dates and commas together, only clarifying that it should be 13 April instead of April 13 in British English. I will leave this part for later and instead focus on the other suggestions for the time being. Keivan.fTalk 07:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
@Keivan.f This is what I meant:
On 13 May 2007, Daniel was born- Most accurate
In May 2007, Daniel was born or In May 2007 Daniel was born-Both are equally correct.
In 2007 Daniel was born- Most accurate.
I am fine with the writing styles on other articles. Just ensuring through this whether this is the way things are written in Camilla's article. After all, we need consistency in the article. By the way, I use Oxford style English in my school and textbooks. So I know after verifying with the teachers.

MSincccc (talk) 07:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Queen_Camilla/Archive_14&oldid=1216405359"