Talk:Queen Camilla/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Requested move 8 September 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: This was a rather long discussion; as such, it is impossible to concisely summarise its entirety. There were multiple different issues discussed here, which complicated things quite a bit ("queen" or "queen consort", whether to include "of the United Kingdom", etc.). However, my reading of the discussion is that:

There is general consensus to remove "of the United Kingdom", primarily for lack of ambiguity in the title without, consistency with other UK/Commonwealth royals, and failure to include other Commonwealth countries that she is also queen consort of.
There is no consensus on whether the title should include "consort". Compelling arguments were made on both sides, and the !vote count is similar; it also does not appear that consensus is developing on this issue. Another RM after a common name has emerged may be helpful in resolving this. As such, the title should be kept with "consort" until consensus emerges to change it.
There is consensus that, should "consort" be included, the title should follow the name ("Camilla, Queen Consort") and not the other way around.
There is consensus that "consort" should be capitalised.

As such, I am moving this to Camilla, Queen Consort; if consensus emerges that "consort" should not be used, it should probably moved to Queen Camilla unless consensus on this changes. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 23:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

How can a consensus to remove "Consort"/move to "Queen Camilla" emerge if this discussion is now over? Vabadus91 (talk) 23:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

A new discussion can be opened, probably in a couple of months, and that will allow us to see if the consensus has changed. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Support. Previous articles for Queens consort refer to those Queens as "Queen of the United Kingdom". Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother; Mary of Teck; Alexandra of Denmark etc. None refer to them as "Queen Consort of the United Kingdom". Until such time that the Palace confirm the Queen's correct form of address, Wikipedia should stick to its own conventions. The article title is most appropriate at Queen Camilla or Camilla Shand (given that other articles refer to Queens consort by their birth names. Jèrriais janne (talk) 22:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Support move to Queen Camilla – I support this without the UK modifier. No other Queen Consort is referred to as such in their base names. They are referred to as "Queen [name]."
Support Keeps a common and sensible template that’s used for other Current Queen Consorts in the world. King4852 (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC) King4852
Support as per other current consorts. --Zimbabweed (talk) 21:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Move to Queen Camilla She is not only the Queen consort of the United Kingdom. There are 14 other countries in which she is the queen. The same rationale has been applied to Charles's page, which is at "Charles III" instead of "Charles III of the United Kingdom". Keivan.f^Talk 21:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Support move instead to Camilla, Queen Consort: this uses her official title, and has precedent in Albert, Prince Consort. As per Keivan.f above, she isn't only the queen consort of a single country. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 21:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Camilla is the Queen of the United Kingdom. Queen Alexandra, Queen Mary, Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, Queen Adelaide, were all Queen Consorts in the same capacity that Camilla is now Queen, and not a single one of them were ever referred to as Queen Consort. Each and every one of their wikipedia pages makes reference to them being Queen of the United Kingdom and not Queen Consort. 81.140.89.191 (talk) 21:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes, but Camilla is being referred to by that title – see recent announcements etc. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 22:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
I imagine this is temporary whilst the media, the palace, the royal family and the world stage will undoubtedly still refer to Queen Elizabeth II as "The Queen." The royal family have not issued letters patent to create a new title that has been bestowed upon Camilla only. If we are to refer to Camilla as Queen Consort then surely ALL previous Queen Consorts on Wikipedia should be referred to as such? 81.140.89.191 (talk) 22:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps. But if her title turns out to be "HM The Queen Consort" permanently (unlike the above-mentioned people, who were just "HM The Queen"), then there would be a stronger argument in favour of the title I suggested. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 00:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Im assuming this is because so many people have only ever known a Queen Regnant. So calling her 'Queen' immediately can be expected to confuse many, hence the emphasis on consort. EmilySarah99 (talk) 03:10, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Not necessarily. There was considerable sentiment at the time that Charles married Camilla concerning whether it would be appropriate for her to be styled as Queen in the future, and some it lingered long afterwards. "Queen Consort" is the style that the late Queen deliberately asked she use in future as a compromise. It might be that it's quietly dropped a few months down the line from now, but equally it might not be. XAM2175 ^(T) 22:26, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
I would endorse Queen Camilla, since it has the advantage of brevity and avoids any perception of preferring one realm over the others. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 22:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose. Instead support move to Camilla, Queen Consort for the reasons given by RAVENPVFF above. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose. It's not up to Wikipedians to decide her title, it's the choice of the British monarchy. As of today, Buckingham Palace, in the official letter posted in front of the building and in this post, is referring to her as "Queen Consort". ^[1]Iandaandi (talk) 22:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
That statement referred to Queen Elizabeth and Queen Camilla. It's obvious they used Queen Consort to differentiate Elizabeth from Camilla. Camilla is a Queen consort in the exact same capacity as every other Queen Consort in the history of the British Royal Family - therefore her titles should fall in line with how we address the Queen's in those articles. 81.140.89.191 (talk) 22:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
The statement released by Buckingham Palace stated: "The Queen died peacefully at Balmoral this afternoon. The King and the Queen Consort will remain at Balmoral this evening and will return to London tomorrow." If that statement referred to Camilla as "The Queen" it would cause much confusion with Elizabeth II, whom they were referring to at the start of the statement. Undoubtedly, Camilla is being referred to as Queen Consort to differentiate her from Queen Elizabeth whilst the media covers her death. 81.140.89.191 (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree, it seems possible it could be understood that way. More news reports (https://time.com/6211954/camilla-queen-consort-meaning/) are now pointing out that Queen Consort is the title that Queen Elizabeth specified in Feb. 2022 was her “most sincere wish that, when the time comes, Camilla will be known as Queen Consort as she continues her own loyal service.” https://twitter.com/RoyalFamily/status/1490083061060575237 Iandaandi (talk) 04:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Her official title is "Camilla, Queen Consort of the United Kingdom" and I therefore believe this how her page should also be named. She is NOT "Queen Camilla". Blammy1 (talk) 21:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
NB however, given that the realm of her husband covers countries other than the United Kingdom, I would support this page being shortened to just "Camilla, Queen Consort". But definitely NOT "Queen Camilla". Blammy1 (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose. For the same reasons as Iandaandi, but also support the proposition from RAVENPVFF as she is Queen Consort of several other countries. Bmcollier (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
The Queen Consort there might be to differentiate her from the dead queen as two queens are mentioned in the post. --Killuminator (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Support move to "Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom". She's only being referred to differentiate from the Queen Regnant who just passed away. Or do you all suggest we change all the the titles on Wikipedia to include whether they are "Regnant" or "Consort". Honestly this is wildly ridiculous. These formats were decided ages ago.JasonKurth (talk) 22:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC) JasonKurth
Strong support move to Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom A "Queen consort" is a Queen. Period. "The Queen" has long been associated with Elizabeth II. Therefore, the Palace and the King used the term "Queen consort" to differenciate the two Queens, much like when Queen Elizabeth bacame known as "The Queen Mother" — because they shared the same name, "Elizabeth". The article should follow the custom of other articles of royal spouses and be renamed "Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom" as per example "Queen Anne-Marie of Greece", "Queen Letizia of Spain", "Queen Mathilde of Belgium", "Queen Máxima of the Netherlands", "Queen Silvia of Sweden", "Queen Sonja of Norway", and so on. M. Armando (talk) 07:26, 10 September 2022 (UTC).
You do realise that "Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother" was her formal title? U-Mos (talk) 06:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Usually Queens dowager become known only as "Queen X", like her predecessor, "Queen Mary". This "sort of" formal title came to be for the reason I expressed. Do not ignore the other examples. M. Armando (talk) 08:40, 10 September 2022 (UTC).
Support I strongly believe that the title of the article must follow the current conventions about royal consorts, like the others articles mentioned. Named the Queen as "Queen consort" it's valid but in the article, not in the name. For this, I think that "Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom" must be the correct naming. Aldebaran69 (talk) 12:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose - there are subtle, specific reasons why she is likely never to be referred to as “Queen Camilla” (her later marriage to Charles; the history & popularity of Diana; she is not the mother to the heir etc.). Instead, the Palace are using - as planned - a new title constitutionally: Queen Consort. This is strongly signalled by today’s new official Royal profile. It would be foolish for Wikipedia to pre-empt any change in how she is referred to prior to the Coronation. Therefore I support the proposal to move to Camilla, Queen Consort for the reasons given by RAVENPVFF. This should be reviewed if later is she does indeed start to be referred to as “Queen Camilla” but I personally expect this is extremely unlikely for the reasons outlined. BeaujolaisFortune (talk) 16:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree completely, I fully support this change instead for all the reasons you have said. Benjamin Bryztal (talk) 13:10, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Wait and see It seems premature to do this until the formal situation has clarified further. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 18:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Support move to Queen Camilla. I see no reason why Her Majesty should be treated differently than any other Queen Consort. EmilySarah99 (talk) 03:12, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Support move instead to Camilla, Queen Consort: as others have pointed out, this is her official title, and has precedent in Albert, Prince Consort, and the fact that the former Queen Consort, Mary of Teck, does not have Queen in the title at all. Camilla does not have similar status to the late Queen, and is not known as Queen Camilla by the public, but is almost exclusively referred to as Camilla, Queen Consort or the Queen Consort. Benjamin Bryztal (talk) 13:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose, but support move to Camilla, Queen Consort given that the style of Queen Consort was created by Elizabeth II especially for Camilla and it is the style that is consistently being used by the Royal Household and media. The "... of the United Kingdom" construction is also awkward as it excludes the other Realms and Territories. XAM2175 ^(T) 22:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose and Support move instead to Camilla Shand, most royal consorts are known by their born name: Anne of Boleyn, Mary of Teck, Alexandra of Denmark and so on Marcelus (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Support for either Camilla, Queen Consort, or Camilla Parker Bowles. This would be consistent with the page titles generally used for the consort of the British monarch, which either used their personal name (in this case, 'Camilla Parker Bowles', which is also what she's most commonly called by the public—or perhaps 'Camilla Windsor', if she did legally adopt that as her last name?), their existing noble title independent of their status as consort (does not apply here), or their first name followed by their consortial title (in this case, 'Camilla, Queen Consort'). I would oppose any page title mentioning the United Kingdom, Great Britain, or the Commonwealth, for the same reasons most opposed the attempted move of Charles III's page. - Emil Sayahi (talk) 20:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Additionally, while I don't technically see anything wrong with Queen Camilla, the media (including the BBC, and the Royal family's website) has consistently used 'Queen Consort' to refer to her. Additionally, Queen Elizabeth II, before her death, was said to have requested Camilla be referred to as 'Queen Consort' as opposed to the originally planned title of 'Princess Consort'. - Emil Sayahi (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose. The Queen originally requested that Camilla be called Princess Consort. She recently changed her mind and requested that Camilla be called Queen Consort. On the agreement that she never be addressed as Queen. The Royal Family agreed to this. The Queen Consort title is on their official Web Page. This is to prevent the controversy, as many do not want her to be Queen of any sort. A fight over her title would damage the Monarchy. 104.219.132.200 (talk) 12:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Support move to Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom for consistency. RayAdvait (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Support Alt Proposal Queen Camilla or Queen consort Camilla, or depending on ordering, Camilla, Queen Consort; she's queen consort of so many other nations. Plus, there's only one regent or consort in world history which has taken the name Camilla on Wikipedia. It's more concise and more recognizable. InvadingInvader (talk) 19:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Her title is “Queen Consort” according to HM the Queen (RIP) and HM Charles III. — https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/08/camilla-to-be-crowned-queen-beside-king-charles-iii-at-his-coronation Marginal12345678 (talk) 22:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Your article does not support that notion: it specifically says "Queen Camilla, as she will be crowned" Jèrriais janne (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
~~Support~~ original proposal. We shouldn't use the word "consort" when we don't for any other equivalent person. This seems fairly open and shut, unless a very strong alternative common name emerges. — Amakuru (talk) 22:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
ALL of their titles (Silvia, Letizia, Sonja, Mathilde, Maxima) are Queen Consort. Are you suggesting we change all of them? All of the previous ones were Queen Consort (Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, Queen Mary, Queen Alexandra) also. She is only currently being described as Queen Consort so as a) not to confuse her with Elizabeth II and b) to make clear that she is not the reigning queen, as Elizabeth II was. JasonKurth (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
That is correct. She is Her Majesty The Queen, not Her Majesty The Queen Consort! Keivan.f^Talk 22:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
"The Queen Consort" is apparently correct~~, in fact~~ – see the updated Royal Family web page. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 23:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm not going to argue with that, but as User:Killuminator pointed out that could be due to the Palace trying to disambiguate between the deceased Queen and Camilla. None of the previous queens were ever HM The Queen Consort. I'll keep an eye on the updates. Right now, however, there's a case for the title "Camilla, Queen Consort". Keivan.f^Talk 23:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The unwillingness to use common sense and understand context is wildly frustrating. I really wish the people who edited these Royal pages had actual knowledge of how Royal titles and styles worked. Where is Marlene Koenig when we need her? And you can shove your condescending "in fact". 2600:1700:432D:8630:A4AF:AE45:F504:8B3C (talk) 23:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

But they are not quite equivalent, aren't they? There are differences between monarchs, such as public perception, having given birth to heirs to the throne. Kirill C1 (talk) 10:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Move to Queen Camilla (updated !vote), that seems to be the general consensus at the moment, and it sounds good enough to me. Note that there are sources already indicating that this will likely be the WP:COMMONNAME going forward, including: "Camilla will now be known to the public as Queen Camilla", "Queen Camilla, as she will be crowned", "In everyday contexts she will be known simply as Queen Camilla" and this BBC "topic" with the name Queen Camilla. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
"that seems to be the general consensus at the moment" Frankly speaking, I don't think this is general consensus, or that there is any. Kirill C1 (talk) 13:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Why was my comment removed? I’ll fix it when I get home :) sorry if I messed up any other comments. I’m on this dang mobile phone. cookie monster 755 23:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
My comment and one by Unlimitedlead had been deleted. It seems both were deleted by mistake so I have pasted them below Mgp28 (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- Support as per other current consorts. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- Support removing the word "consort", as this is not used for any other queen consort. Also support removing the "United Kingdom" as she is queen in many countries. The past two queens consort, Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother and Mary of Teck, do not have "United Kingdom" in their article names Mgp28 (talk) 22:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Comment This is a clear example of WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST (even though it's a guideline for deletion discussions, its content applies here IMO). Just because certain pages about other figures have been titled in a specific way, that doesn't mean that this page should necessarily follow the same format. Again, she's not only the Queen of the UK. Thus, "Camilla, Queen Consort" or "Queen Camilla" would be the only reasonable options. Keivan.f^Talk 23:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
(Unfortunately, because I actually strongly agree with you about "Queen Camilla", though NOT "Camilla, Queen Consort"), it is NOT a clear example of WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. That item is NOT saying that Wikipedians should simply ignore all long-established precedent and all related logic (and if it were saying that, which it isn't, there would be plenty of justification for ignoring it, per WP:IAR among other reasons, but also per such things as WP:CONSORTS, which is both an official guideline and covering this precise area, whereas OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is a mere essay, and in a completely different area, and being interpreted to mean something which it doesn't actually say).Tlhslobus (talk) 23:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Support move to Queen Camilla as proposed by Keivan.f and Robin S. Taylor. Reasons:
1. This is according to WP:CONSORTS where royal consorts are referred to only by their current title and name (i.e. Queen + name);
2. But omitting the name "of the United Kingdom" as she is not only the queen consort of the United Kingdom, but equally of 14 other countries, i.e. of Australia, of Canada, of New Zealand, of Jamaica, of the Bahamas, of Grenada, of Papua New Guinea, of the Solomon Islands, of Tuvalu, of Saint Lucia, of Saint Vincent and Grenadines, of Belize, of Antigua and Barbuda, and of Saint Kitts and Nevis. It would be too long to include all those country names after her name, so it is a sensible compromise to omit these names in their entirety, as has also been applied to Charles's page ("Charles III" instead of "Charles III of the United Kingdom").
3. The term "Consort" (thus "Queen consort + name") should not be included in the name (but only "Queen + name"), otherwise this would be a violation of WP:CONSORTS (unless she is official titled with that, which is not the case). As stated by JasonKurth, it would be ridiculous to suggest that we change all titles on Wikipedia to reflect whether they are "Regnant" or "Consort".
Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 23:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
(Unfortunately, because I completely agree with you about moving to "Queen Camilla"), Queen Consort IS her official title -see here (just as it was also the official but rarely-used title of the late Queen Mother until George Vi died, see the above-mentioned Guardian article), but that does NOT mean that we should use it in our article's title, for many reasons such as that it appears contrary to WP:CONSORTS, that it it is not expected to be the one that will normally be used, and so on... (Incidentally, the Queen Mother's article is NOT called "Eilzabeth, Queen consort of the United Kingdom", even though that was once her official title, though I'm not sure that that non-precedent is all that relevant in this case, given the different circumstances, etc). Tlhslobus (talk) 01:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Support move to Queen Camilla per Mr. D. E. Mophon above (as qualified by what I added at the end of his argument). I might add that if we keep the word "consort" we will also waste yet more editors' precious time on the vexed question of whether the C should be uppercase (because it's her formal title) or lower case (because in practice she is known as Queen) with the above-mentioned Guardian article seeming unsure, as it uses both. Using Consort, thus breaking with our established precedents and with our WP:CONSORTS guideline (which is reasonably clear about Queen Camilla, or at least Queen Camilla of Wherever, and NOT Camilla, Queen consort of wherever) for reasons difficult to fathom, would also risk leaving the impression (either now or eventually or both) that this part of Wikipedia is controlled by the lunatic fringe of (Diana-worshipping and other) Camilla-haters who are trying to hint that she is not a 'proper' Queen, something which just might do quite a bit of unnecessary damage to Wikipedia's reputation (indeed I suspect part of the reason for the current confusion may be because Camilla-haters (not necessarily always of the Diana-worshipping variety) inside and outside the Palace may have been causing the Palace to send out somewhat mixed messages for quite some time, and it may be a few weeks before common sense prevails). We probably don't have this specific problem with "Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom", but it does risk damaging our reputation in the 14 other realms where she is Queen, and it does make us look weird (thereby violating at least WP:IAR and the related 5th Pillar of Wikipedia WP:5P5, and quite likely other rules too), since nobody expects her to be called "Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom" when there is no other famous "Queen Camilla" to make such cumbersome disambiguation necessary. Tlhslobus (talk) 00:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Support Queen Camilla, there is no consistent standard for royal consorts, so Keep It Simple Stupid, there is no other person this title could possibly refer to. PatGallacher (talk) 00:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Actually, there is a guideline for royal consorts, WP:CONSORTS, and that seems to support "Queen Camilla ..." (without "consort"), at least as I understand it, but does seem to imply "Queen Camilla of Wherever", though, if so, that last bit should probably be ignored (at least per WP:IAR and the related 5th Pillar of Wikipedia WP:5P5, and quite likely other rules too) for commonsensical, practical, and reputational reasons. Tlhslobus (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Support move to Queen Camilla — it is brief; there is no confusion with any other similarly named person; it is in keeping with all other article styles on queen consorts. --Vabadus91 (talk) 00:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
I should also add that "queen consort" is not a title, just a description of the "type" of queen that she is. Her title is "Her Majesty the Queen". Changing the title of the article to "Camilla, Queen consort" would be like move Elizabeth's to "Elizabeth II, Queen regnant". Camilla is now the Queen and she has that title because she is a queen consort; it is not the case "queen consort" is itself a title, any more than "queen regnant" is.

I would be wary of putting too much store in media descriptions. They called Diana, Princess of Wales "Princess Diana", which was never her title or style. The references to her as queen consort are, I believe, deliberate in order to avoid confusion with Queen Elizabeth, who is still who we think of when saying simply "the Queen", and perhaps to emphasise to a public not versed in protocol that she is not the reigning monarch.

For Camilla to have "Queen Consort" (capitalised) as a title rather than simply a description of what she is — like Prince Albert, husband of Queen Victoria — the King would have to create it as a title by letters patent. He hasn't done so and hasn't indicated that he will. She is simply "Her Majesty the Queen" (who is a queen consort rather a queen regnant), and "Queen Camilla" is therefore the appropriate name for this article. Vabadus91 (talk) 04:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Support move to Queen Camilla - See other current consorts Queen Letizia of Spain, Queen Sonja of Norway, Queen Mathilde of Belgium, Queen Silvia of Sweden etc. 2007DodgeRam (talk) 01:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
These are other counries, and other cases, I think all other Queens are mothers of heirs to the throne. Were other queens divorced previously? Kirill C1 (talk) 07:33, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Queen Letizia of Spain was divorced prior to her marriage to the current king. 2601:241:300:B610:E0B6:EFC4:47D5:E4BE (talk) 20:34, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Support move to Queen Camilla — when no disambiguation is needed, no reason to impose it. There is also the problem that “of the United Kingdom” is not in her actual title. Moonraker (talk) 02:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Support move to Queen Camilla - as mentioned, she is Queen Consort of multiple realms. LtGen (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
But what is the rationale for naming her Queen? Your argument seems to be more suitable for naming her Queen Consort. Kirill C1 (talk) 07:33, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Support move to Queen Camilla as the first choice, Camilla, Queen Consort as the second choice. This page is so active I cannot even submit my comment. Anyway, I support Queen Camilla, as it's common, recognizable and is actually closer to her actual title (The Queen) then the current base name. Also per consistency as other consorts don't have the term consort in it and they are just called Queen, i.e. Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother not Queen Consort Elizabeth The Queen Mother. Edit 1: the official website of the British royal family list her here as The Queen Consort. Edit 2: Keivan.f makes a good point regarding the "consort" title or title without consort. This is so recent that it's going to take time to find the right base title that is both accurate and correct. However, based on past precedent, it should be at Queen Camilla. cookie monster 755 03:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
CookieMonster755, You're absolutely right. But, she is entitled to be known as "Queen Camilla" as well, just like the previous queens and consorts (Albert, Prince Consort has always been referred to as Prince Albert). There's also the possibility that the website is trying to distinguish her from Her Majesty The Queen (i.e. Elizabeth II). The changes to their website have not been finalized so I think we should wait for the final results. Keivan.f^Talk 02:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Keivan.f I agree with you that it is possible that the current website is just calling her Queen Consort as a transitional title due to the recent nature of her mother-in-law. I personally support Queen Camilla as it is the most recognizable title and is correct because she technically is just Her Majesty The Queen. I do not like the current base name, it's awful. My first choice is Queen Camilla, second is Camilla, Queen Consort per the arguments above and per consistency with other living consorts of monarchs and her grandmother-in-law, Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, not Queen Consort Elizabeth The Queen Mother. My argument is basically citing WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONSISTENCY. cookie monster 755 03:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Support - as that's the article title style used for other current queen consorts. GoodDay (talk) 02:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
User:GoodDay, Just to clarify, are you supporting "Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom" or simply "Queen Camilla"? Because she's queen in 14 other realms and I cannot see why the UK should be held in a higher regard compared to the other sovereign states. Her husband's article is also at Charles III, and is likely to remain at that title as he's ruling over 15 countries, not just one. Keivan.f^Talk 02:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Whatever the result is at Charles III's RM? Camilla's should be the same. Either they both have "...of the United Kingdom", or they both don't. GoodDay (talk) 02:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree. I'm waiting to see how that one turns out. Keivan.f^Talk 02:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Support per consistency with other consorts.24.15.214.201 (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose There has been historical controversy over whether she would take the title "Queen consort" or "Princess consort", primarily related to Diana. Given this, I expect reliable sources to prefer to refer to her as "Queen consort", rather than "Queen", and looking at news articles from the past 24 hours this is holding true; twice as many refer to her as "Queen consort" than "Queen".
Given WP:COMMONNAME, this move is not appropriate. However, I do not have an opinion on the disambiguation. BilledMammal (talk) 04:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Strong oppose per WP:TOOSOON. I completely understand, and sympathize with, the "consistency" argument in favor of this move. Yes, a queen consort is generally referred to as a queen, but we simply don't know yet whether the same will hold true here. None of us know whether the Royal Family's use of "The Queen Consort" as an official title on its webpage is intended to mark a break with past precedent or simply to acknowledge her formal title, without signaling a departure from the more simple "Queen" title in practical use. Nor is it our role to determine this: we should wait and see whether this is clarified by reliable, encyclopedic sources in the coming days. Ad interim, the present titling is perfectly appropriate. Marquisate (talk) 05:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Noting that I support a move to Camilla, Queen Consort for greater consistency with Charles III. Marquisate (talk) 19:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Strong oppose The article title should stay until we get new information and then we can make a judgement. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 06:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Strong oppose The British media is totally united in calling her "Queen Consort" and not "Queen". It doesn't matter what she might be called if she lived in Denmark or Norway, she is the Queen Consort in the United Kingdom. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 06:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
And? Nobody denied that she's the Queen Consort. However, she's not only Britain's queen, and she can be equally referred to as Queen Camilla. Keivan.f^Talk 08:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The British media referred to Diana, Princess of Wales as "Princess Diana," which we know to be wholly inaccurate. The palace are referring to Camilla as The Queen Consort because that IS her position, as is the same with every other wife of a ruling king. 81.140.89.191 (talk) 09:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Diana was not a royal consort. Women who marry princes are not allowed to use the prefix "Princess" before their names. The Royal Family always works on precedent, and as far as the precedent goes, all the previous queen/prince consorts were absolutely entitled to be known as "Queen/Prince X" (not "Queen/Prince Consort X"). Examples are Queen Alexandra, Queen Mary, Prince Albert, etc. Keivan.f^Talk 16:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@TaivoLinguist as predicted, this is not true. for example, this Telegraph article refers to "the King and Queen" (as well as to "the King and Queen Consort"). It's up in the air at the moment what WP:COMMONNAME will be most used. It would seem her title for the time being is "The Queen Consort", so I would judge it appropriate to entitle the article "Queen Camilla" and have lead sentence say "Camilla is the Queen Consort of the United Kingdom..." etc. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/09/10/king-liz-truss-tour-uk-share-grief-late-queens-death/ Jèrriais janne (talk) 23:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Alternatively something like "Camilla, Queen Consort" or "Camilla (Queen Consort)" Jèrriais janne (talk) 23:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Support move to Queen Camilla (no reference to United Kingdom) per reasons given above - consistency with usage for queens consort in other countries and previous queens consort in the UK. JayZed (talk) 07:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose - The Royal household and the press are using Queen consort, and Camilla has previously expressed opinion against being called Queen. I don't think therefore there is a strong case for Queen Camilla, convention is not a strong argument c.f. COMMONNAME and BLP matters - remember this is a living person, not a deceased Queen. |→ Spaully ^~talk~ 08:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Support move to Camilla, Queen Consort as she is Queen Consort of multiple countries. --Spekkios (talk) 08:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Agree with you, Spekkios, but it sounds like your vote would actually be Oppose in this case (regarding whether to support/oppose move to Queen Camilla). Correct? Iandaandi (talk) 16:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
I oppose "Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom" and "Camilla, Queen consort of the United Kingdom". I much prefer "Camilla, Queen Consort" over "Queen Camilla", but I would settle for the later if it meant not using the two longer titles.--Spekkios (talk) 20:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Support move to simply Queen Camilla per the article naming WP:CRITERIA: recognisability, naturalness, precision, concision, and consistency. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Support move to Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom or Queen Camilla. Consort should be omitted as per Wikipedia's naming conventions and when looking to other European queens. Mhapperger (talk) 10:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Support move to Queen Camilla on the United Kingdom or Queen Camilla. All British Queen Consorts are styled in exactly the same way as a reigning Queen, The Queen Mother, Queen Mary, and Queen Alexandra, all styled Her Majesty The Queen, The Queen and Her Majesty. Consort is only being used now to avoid confusion with Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.GandalfXLD (talk) 11:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
@GandalfXLD I'd agree with this assessment of the situation. remember that most of Elizabeth's subjects globally have only ever known her as monarch and never known a King and Queen consort. Furthermore "the Queen" has been used colloquially to refer to Elizabeth II for a long time. I imagine this media trend, including from Palace Communications is to avoid confusion and allow the public to adjust to the new & unfamiliar situation. Jèrriais janne (talk) 13:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Support per the treatment of other queens consort and per the common law. EuroAgurbash (talk) 13:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose move to "Queen Camilla (of…)", support move to "Camilla, Queen Consort". The Royal Family's website has now been updated. It refers to Camilla as "Her Majesty The Queen Consort" first, and "The Queen Consort" or "Her Majesty" thereafter. She isn't referred to as "The Queen" in isolation anywhere. I'd also note that the late Queen's statement concerning Camilla's future title explicitly said that she wished Camilla to be called "Queen Consort". Charlie A. (talk) 14:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Support per the guidance of WP:CONSORTS. Camilla is married, however, to a reigning monarch of 15 distinct sovereign countries. Therefore, contradicting the strict guidance of mainspace style, Camilla, Queen of the United Kingdom would not adequately reflect her status as queen consort of multiple dominions. Therefore, we should move to Queen Camilla. Lunaroxas (talk) 14:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Support as the titles used for the Queen consorts of history should be used in this aswell Jibran1998 (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Support removal of "Consort", in conformity with existing usage and guidelines. The disambiguator "of the United Kingdom" seems questionable. William Avery (talk) 16:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Support move to Queen Camilla and drop 'consort'. As the wife of the King, she should simply be called HM The Queen. Her being a consort should have no effect on her official title. HolaQuetzalcoatl (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Comment. Since Buckingham Palace and various other reliable sources are currently using the title 'Queen Consort', as quoted by several other users in this discussion, should we not also use this until a WP:COMMONNAME (which may or may not align with WP:CONSORTS) is established? There's no reason why an article can't be moved twice, after all.A.D.Hope (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose She is Queen consort, not Queen Camilla. Charles himself just now referred to her as his Queen consort. Thurlow0391 (talk)
Support move to Queen Camilla. Yes, she is a Queen Consort (as opposed to a Queen Regnant) but that is a description and not a name. There are no other notable Queen Camillas so no need for dab. Bermicourt (talk) 19:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Camilla, Queen Consort seems best to me. Srnec (talk) 20:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Support Camilla, Queen Consort—blindlynx 20:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Support Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom. The name consort only exists to clarify rank of one who marries the heir, as opposed to being the heir. That's all it's meant to do. It's not meant to be a scarlet letter painted on the wife of the monarch because she was previously married and divorced. Bodding (talk) 22:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Comment. For clarity, here’s an attempt to articulate what I think is the case (to help identify where disagreement is?). She’s the Queen (by law by virtue of marriage to the King). She’s a queen consort (description of her role, as opposed to a queen regnant). But she’s also, in addition to the above, “The Queen Consort” (which seems to be the actual title she’ll be using for the time being, e.g. [1]). The last of these three is the equivalent of Albert being “The Prince Consort” by letters patent, or William being “The Prince of Wales” by virtue of Charles saying so on TV. It’s up to the sovereign what people’s titles are, and it’s pretty clear her title is, specifically, Queen Consort. Charlie A. (talk) 20:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Support Queen Camilla or Camilla, Queen Consort (someone count the votes and get it done, the current article title is horrible) 2A00:23C7:B285:5801:9879:AAD6:8A20:2FA8 (talk) 23:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Strong oppose She is not just Queen Consort of the UK, she is also the Queen Consort of Australia (and a dozen other countries), so "of the United Kingdom" is just incorrect and should be dispensed with out of hand. What previous consorts were called is frankly irrelevant, this should be about HER common name/title, and her situation is quite unusual in recent history. AFAIK, the media and the palace are consistently referring to her as "Queen Consort", so we should just move the article to Camilla, Queen Consort which is sufficiently precise, as there are no queen consort's called Camilla AFAIK. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:04, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
No other King or Queen has had such a title in their page header. Most definitely to be used in the article, but she is not going to be called Camilla, Consort of His Majesty Charles the third, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of His other Realms and Territories King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith in common conversation is she? Many other queen consorts have been queens and empresses of other nations, and have still gone by, and their Wikipedia articles are known as Queen so and so. EmilySarah99 (talk) 03:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Move to Camilla, Queen Consort, per sources above which suggest a unique stylisation. Can be revisted if sources/official material standardises to "Queen Camilla" in time. U-Mos (talk) 03:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
UPDATE - The RM at Charles III has closed as "no move". GoodDay (talk) 05:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Support move to Camilla, Queen Consort, per sources above, esp. [2]. Bayonet-lightbulb (talk) 06:29, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Strong oppose the move. She is Queen Consort, the name of the article should not be misleading. Multiple sources are saying that she is Queen consort, see people.com, royal.uk. She is not a Queen, Queen is a ruler, she is the wife of king. She was only made Consort by some decree. She was not Princess of Wales, mind you. Camilla, Queen consort of the United Kingdom seems OK. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Kirill C1 (talk) 07:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
"Queen" is just a short version of "Queen consort" if you will. "consort" is only there to make clear that she is not the reigning monarch, but that is made clear in the first line of the article. Every other queen in British history was always just adressed as Queen. And by the way: Camilla was Princess of Wales (even listed in the article); she just chose not to use it out of respect to Diana. Mhapperger (talk) 10:08, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
The fact that it is in the article does not mean that it should not be in the title of the article. Kirill C1 (talk) 10:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Support move to Queen Camilla per reliable sources:
1. ""Queen Consort" refers to the spouse of a ruling king and would mean "Queen Camilla" as her future title." BBC News, 6 February 2022
2. "Once vilified as a marriage wrecker – not least by Diana, Princess of Wales – Queen Camilla, as she will be crowned, will take her place by the side of King Charles III at his coronation." The Guardian, 8 September 2022
3. "As such, Camilla will now be known to the public as Queen Camilla, and addressed as “Her Majesty”." The Telegraph, 10 September 2022
4. BBC News have a page for "Queen Camilla" - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cjnwl8q4negt
Firebrace (talk) 11:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
From The Guardian article "It had been Queen Elizabeth II’s “sincere wish”, stressed in a message published on the eve of her 70th accession day in February this year, that Charles’s wife would be known on his accession to the throne as Queen Consort", "Camilla has become Queen Consort on her husband’s accession to the throne" (bold mine). So this source supports other name of the article. Kirill C1 (talk) 11:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
You are wrong and time will prove it. Firebrace (talk) 11:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The first BBC url has article with title "Queen backs Camilla to be Queen Consort on Jubilee". And there are Wikipedia rules regarding future (such as WP:CRYSTALBALL). On the second BBC url - the topic - there are articles titled "Camilla, the new Queen Consort" [3], there is "But for many years the debate continued over whether she would ever be known as Queen. While legally entitled to use the title, the official line had been that she would instead be known as Princess Consort, as a way to appease those who blamed her for the breakdown of Charles's marriage to Diana"; then article [4] with title "What kind of a king will Charles be?", where you can read "His wife Camilla, now Queen consort". Kirill C1 (talk) 11:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Support move to Queen Camilla I support it because per the sources and reasonings mentioned already. Kevin ^Talk 11:04, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
There are multiple sources with Queen consort, as was shown.Kirill C1 (talk) 11:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose. There seems to be a determined effort on the part of officialdom that she should be called "queen consort", not "queen". Whether it's because of Diana, or because she is a divorcée, I don't know, but the news media are all sticking with "queen consort" (see The Independent on her signing the proclamation, for example). Even the king, in his first address to the nation, was careful to say "she becomes my queen consort", not "my queen". If and when officialdom and the media start regularly calling her "Queen Camilla" – as opposed to saying "she will be known as" – it will be time to move the article, but that time has not yet come. Scolaire (talk) 11:12, 10 September 2022 (UTC) Support "Camilla, Queen Consort" per all the arguments above and below. Scolaire (talk) 11:52, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose. The media and royal family has consensus that she is the Queen Consort, not Queen Camilla.Noonan2 (talk) 13:09, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose. QUeen consort is first choice, Queen Camilla is second choice. Ebbedlila (talk) 12:49, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Support move to Camilla, Queen Consort. Personally I agree with multiple users above that Her Majesty should be titled Queen Camilla as precedent in Wikipedia and the reasons as stated by PatGallacher. However I also agree it is too soon to decide what the page title is until current situation settle down. As stated by multiple users above Her Majesty is not only the Queen Consort of the United Kingdom but also the Commonwealth so the current title "Camilla, Queen Consort of the United Kingdom" is wrong. Limyx826 (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Support. Article should be moved in order to keep the same as previous consorts and consorts of other European countries MicroSupporter (talk) 17:37, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Move to Camilla, Queen Consort. "Consort" is part of her official style, "of the UK" is unnecessary to disambiguate. -Shivertimbers433 (talk) 18:01, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose, Leave as is for now, no one will have trouble finding the article and jerking living people articles around is poor form, or/but if we go by the widespread mainstream news of these days for the commonname, it is Camilla, Queen Consort and she and/or the royal establishment have evidently chosen that formulation on purpose. As for internal consistency, it is consistent enough with Albert, Prince Consort, and even Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, there is established variation in such things. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:20, 10 September 2022 (UTC) [Updated to oppose for clarity Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC)]
The argument that Queen is just another way to say queen consort seems irrelevant because of the number of news sources taking their lead from the spokespeople of this living person and the King is that it is uppercase Queen Consort for Camilla, not lowercase queen consort. Nor is this that strange for the Pedia, in format, Camilla, Queen Consort, is practically alike the previous title of this article, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, or for that matter, the article title, William, Prince of Wales, it is standard, First-name, Who (even WP:CONSORTS says there may be variations). Plus, it is plain human decency to go with what they themselves want for how they are known, and as far as can be known today, they want Queen Consort. There is much of speculation here about why they chose "Queen Consort" (or why Elizabeth II - of happy memory - chose "Queen Consort") but none of this speculation matters (we are not in the speculation business), nor does what may happen in the future (we are not in the crystal ball business). Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Support move to Camilla, Queen Consort for now anyway. As per the Guardian, a spokesperson for the palace said it's not yet been decided if Camilla will continue to be known as The Queen Consort or simply The Queen in the future. I agree with others it's likely the references to The Queen Consort is to disambiguate from the recently deceased Elizabeth II whom everyone knew simply as The Queen. I don't believe "of the United Kingdom" is necessary to disambiguate in this article. If media and palace and common usage reverts to referring to her as simply The Queen in the future, then I would support a move to Queen Camilla. Sanctaria (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Just adding a reply to clarify, I also support Queen Camilla - a queen consort is a type of Queen, and simply distinguishes from a queen regnant (like Margrethe of Denmark) or even a queen regent for that matter. I don't understand people who argue in this talk page that she isn't a queen. I stand by opposing adding "of the United Kingdom" whether we choose Camilla, Queen Consort or Queen Camilla. Sanctaria (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Comment is this eligible for snow close? cookie monster 755 03:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Support move to Camilla, Queen Consort as she is not only the Queen consort of the United Kingdom but also the Queen consort of the other Commonwealth realms. I would also like to add that this proposed article title would be similar in style to Albert, Prince Consort. Vida0007 (talk) 05:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Support either Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom or Queen Camilla for brevity. Whether or not she continues to be styled as "Her Majesty the Queen Consort" (which I doubt), the suggested titles are both still correct. Surtsicna (talk) 11:21, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Comment Taking aside the "of the United Kingdom" or not, the current reflection of the comments seems to be (where there's a clear support or oppose)
Queen Camilla: 29
Camilla, Queen Consort: 17
(I may be off by one or two, sorry, it was very quick count as there's been a lot of comments so far) Sanctaria (talk) 19:55, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Queen Camilla Camilla is still being referred to as Queen consort—as that is what she is. Someone mentioned above that she is Queen of the 14 other Commonwealth realms, but I disagree; she hasn't been proclaimed as such by any said realms. I would support the title of Camilla, Queen consort—that accurately reflects her position. I also note that it is 'consort', not 'Consort'—note current title and news reports etc. Compusolus (talk) 07:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Comment - Let me remind folks, during their husbands reigns, queen consorts of England, Scotland, Ireland & then Great Britain/Ireland, then United Kingdom, were called "Queen", not "Queen consort". Camilla is no different then the others. Indeed, in other monarchies the female consorts are way more commonly called "Queen", "Empress", "Sovereign Princess", "Grand Duchess" etc; rather then "Queen consort", "Empress consort", "Sovereign Princess consort", "Grand Duchess consort", etc. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
No need to remind anyone of the past, practically none of the past wives of kings are ¨queen¨ in their article title. Whereas, according to the royal website Camilla, on the other hand, is explicitly in title, Queen Consort, and Her Majesty The Queen Consort Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Well, we didn't have this problem with Philip, as he didn't have the title "King consort". The RM result at King Charles III's page - is Charles III. So it (we assume) would make sense that this BLP be likewise named "Queen Camilla". But in doing so, she would be the only 'current' queen consort, to not have a country in her article title. Perhaps the solution, is to RM all the other current queen consorts (collectively) on whether or not to remove "of country" from their article titles. GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
All other consorts are only Queen of one Country, Camilla is Queen consort of multiple countries, so I believe the page just be Queen Camilla. Consort will mostly be dropped after the State Funeral of Queen Elizabeth II and only mentioned in her full titles. GandalfXLD (talk) 18:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
In all honesty, the move seems to support Camilla, Queen Consort, not Queen Camilla or Camilla, Queen consort of the United Kingdom. The current title is a description of her role, not her title. Her title (as of now) according to the royal.uk website is Her Majesty The Queen Consort, though there is no precedent for this. The last queen consort, Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, was Her Majesty The Queen during her husband's reign. Either way, the current title is not suitable. cookie monster 755 18:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
IMHO "Camilla, Queen Consort" ist the shortened form of her title, as it is common with other titles, too. See William, Prince of Wales, Harry, Duke of Sussex, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. So it seems that in all that cases the "The" is "vanished" if the title is used in combination with the given name. --Jogo30 (talk) 08:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Support move to Camilla, Queen Consort. I note the discussion(s) above as to whether Camilla's correct title is HM The Queen or HM the Queen Consort. Personally, I suspect the emphasis on consort is purely temporary in order to distinguish Camilla from Elizabeth when referring to "HM The Queen" while that could still be misunderstood. However, the statement issued by the Palace announcing the late Queen's death referred to "The King and The Queen Consort" and I agree the Royal website refers to Camilla as "HM The Queen Consort". For that reason I agree this page needs to treat Queen Consort as the offical title, at least for the time being. That being the case, Camilla, Queen Consort would be the better title, but at the very least the title of the page needs to be recapitalized from Camilla, Queen consort of the United Kingdom to Camilla, Queen Consort of the United Kingdom. Otherwise, the lowercase C renders consort a mere description rather than a title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petecollier (talk • contribs) 20:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Support per norm. Mehedi Abedin 22:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose and instead Support move to Camilla, Queen Consort. 2 principal reasons: (1) As per WP:CONSORTS, "Living or recently deceased royal consorts are referred to by their present name and title". She is presently, being given the title "Queen Consort" as per Royal website and many reliable sources. This supports the article title containing "Queen Consort". (2) As per WP:CRITERIA, it is recognisable (in the context of widespread coverage referring to her as Queen Consort, natural, and precise and concise in that there is no other Camilla in a similar position so further disambiguation with "of the United Kingdom" is unnecessary. Shadow007 (talk) 01:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose and Support move to Camilla, Queen Consort per reasons listed by others above. Corky 03:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose and instead Support move to Camilla, Queen Consort as reasons per above IlkkaP (talk) 06:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
consort not Consort. Compusolus (talk) 07:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Uppercase Consort per all the sources. "Queen Consort" is a title. Scolaire (talk) 11:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Support In addition to my prior points and as I've argued before, Camilla will be known as Her Majesty The Queen, The Queen and Queen Camilla after the State funeral, as with all prior Queen consorts of the United Kingdom.^[2] GandalfXLD (talk) 16:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
You should strike your double vote, and Wikipedia does not deal in speculation or predictions, much less of twitterati. Alanscottwalker (talk)
Queen Camilla, as there's never been another queen consort so named. Either that or Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
¨Charles III¨ as an article title has no ´´King´´ nor ´´king´´ in it, so in no way does it support putting queen in any form in any article title. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Queen Victoria would like a word... Firebrace (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
No one needs a seance, it is doubtful Queen Victoria has anything to say about the article title, ´´Charles III´´. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
After a few weeks, the media will begin calling her Queen Camilla or the Queen. For the moment they're emphasising "consort", so as not to confuse watchers who still associate "the Queen", with Elizabeth II. GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Support move to Queen Camilla as no other consort have that in their page title. "of the United Kingdom" is also factually incorrect as she is also Queen of the other Commonwealth Realms ---Greatestrowerever^{Talk Page} 08:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Move to Queen Camilla, is consistent with other article names, but I would say that in the event of such a move it’d be time to consider moving Elizabeth II to Queen Elizabeth II, as it would be very strange for Camilla but not Elizabeth to have “Queen” in her article title. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 12:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Strong support, it is consistent with other European consorts. And regarding other proposals like "Queen Camilla" or "Camilla, Queen Consort", I think we really need to stop British exceptionalism. This is an encyclopaedia, not a gossip magazine; there needs to be consistent rules. Elme12 (talk) 13:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Support move to Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom like ther others current Queen Consorts. Minerva (talk to me) 14:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose and Support move to Camilla, Queen Consort. Per WP:CONSORTS, "Living or recently deceased royal consorts are referred to by their present name and title". Her title is "Queen Consort". This is also per most reliable sources, including the Royal websites. It is recognisable, natural, precise and concise. Disambiguation with "of the United Kingdom" is not needed.--Wolbo (talk) 15:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose and support move to Camilla, Queen Consort. Wolbo sums it up well. This is how she's known now. If the Palace drops the word "Consort" as memories fade of Elizabeth II, we can reconsider.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Support move to either Queen Camilla or Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom per WP:CONSORTS. ★ Iñaki ★ (Talk page) ★ 20:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose as that is not even her title. I would support a move to "Camilla, Queen Consort", but not this as it is not even her title. It's like if we changed Prince William's article to "William, Heir to the Throne of the United Kingdom"; that's purely uncommon and original...it is a similar situation here. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Can we please get this moved to Camilla, Queen Consort, please? cookie monster 755 01:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Strong oppose the move. She is officially Queen Consort an NOT Queen regnant. --Evanex (talk) 3:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose and Move to Camilla, Queen Consort. "[O]f the United Kingdom" should be left out for as long as her husband's article name (and those of his predecessors up to George III) don't include the phrase (although that convention should probably be looked at again). "Queen Camilla" tout court might invite the question "why not King Charles III, then?" The royal.uk website – not only the page linked to above, but the Court Circular, etc. – is evidence enough that "Queen Consort" really is intended as her title, regardless of whether this has been the case for other queens consort. (She might even officially be Queen Camilla The Queen Consort, as with Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother.) Speculations that the word "consort" might eventually be dropped are crystal ball stuff. And the article name Albert, Prince Consort is precedent enough. Ham II (talk) 10:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Support Camilla, Queen Consort. I agree that she should be referred to as Queen Camilla, but the simple fact is that as yet she is not. If it starts happening then we can revisit. "Of the United Kingdom" is unnecessary and Consort should be capitalised as part of the official title of a specific person. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
She is referred to as Queen Camilla already.[5][6] That is rather informal, of course; she will only be referred to as such by the Palace if she survives Charles. Until then she is formally "Her Majesty the Queen [Consort]", just like Elizabeth was formally always "Her Majesty the Queen" and yet Queen Elizabeth in common parlance. Surtsicna (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Colloquially, maybe, but the respectable media always refer to her as the Queen Consort. The Queen Mother was always referred to as HM The Queen or Queen Elizabeth when George VI was still alive, very rarely as the Queen Consort. That's the difference. Hopefully, Camilla will soon be universally referred to as Queen Camilla or HM The Queen, without "Consort" being appended, and when that happens we can change our article title. But it hasn't happened yet. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
I would not be quite so quick to judge The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, or BBC as not respectable. I am not sure what we are left with then. Surtsicna (talk) 19:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
The actual BBC articles (the actual news), commonly refer to her as Queen Consort over and over again and not otherwise, swamping any other possible formulation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Why do you think the two should be mutually exclusive? Elizabeth II was formally and most commonly called "the Queen" but I do not remember anyone arguing it was inappropriate to call her "Queen Elizabeth II". Camilla is formally "the Queen Consort" but that does not make "Queen Camilla" incorrect. Surtsicna (talk) 05:01, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Mutually exclusive is in the nature of article title decisions, because there is only one article title. Queen Consort, here, is today precisely accurate (formally and informally) and what is used commonly in RS, so under the policy and guideline, we follow, we do not lead. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Of course the BBC, Telegraph and Guardian are respectable, but if you actually read the articles you will see that they refer to her as the Queen Consort and merely reference the fact that she will be Queen Camilla. As I have said, I agree that she will be Queen Camilla, but until she is commonly referred to as that (and she is not as yet) then we should use Queen Consort. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose. Wait and see. Will “consort” stick? Wikipedia should not lead, but should follow sources. Possibly wait for the coronation. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose We should wait. She is The Queen Consort now. Couple of sources called Queen Camilla but that is not enough to change. Justi7 (talk) 15:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Comment Whether the word Consort sticks or not, the move to "Queen Camilla" will both be in line with our guidelines and will be technically correct as all wives of kings can have the prefix "Queen" attached to their name. If, however, she decides to keep using "Queen Consort" for the entirety of her husband's reign, then the page title can be formatted similar to Albert, Prince Consort (husband of Queen Victoria). For the moment, let's get rid of this awfully long and bizarre title. Keivan.f^Talk 16:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Keivan.f Yes, please. The current title is awful. cookie monster 755 17:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Odd thing to say (again), multiple people above reason, that is neither actually correct (just check the website), and as importantly not in line with guideline or policy, -- if we have to change now, Camilla, Queen Consort, is what what accords with AT factors (including COMMON) and CONSORT. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
What is odd about it? She's Queen Camilla and many sources are using that title at the moment. All the other British, English and Scottish queens consort have been referred to in the very same manner. Queen Alexandra was never Queen Consort Alexandra, Queen Mary was never Queen Consort Mary, and Queen Elizabeth was never Queen Consort Elizabeth. The only reason that the royal website is specifically using "The Queen Consort" at the moment is to distinuguish between her and her dead mother-in-law, "The Queen". Keivan.f^Talk 19:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose for now. The BBC is still using "Camilla, Queen Consort" to reference her. For example, a short article from today has "King Charles III became frustrated with a leaking pen when signing a book at Hillsborough Castle, an official residence in Northern Ireland, with Camilla, Queen Consort, remarking on how the pen was leaking. The King has undertaken a gruelling schedule since his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, died on 8 September and has been performing ceremonial duties throughout the United Kingdom since then."^[7] I included the entire article as I also saw that the king's mother was referenced as "Queen Elizabeth II". I suspect that's her name in England and not her title. --Marc Kupper|talk 19:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Would you support a move to Camilla, Queen Consort, Marc Kupper? It would be way better than this current title ugh. cookie monster 755 19:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
CookieMonster755, Yes, I support Camilla, Queen Consort, particularly with the upper-case "C", and did not see a need for "... of the United Kingdom" as the WP:COMMONNAME title. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose proposal, but move to Camilla, Queen Consort. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Comment - It's highly likely that the media is using queen consort (for the moment), so as not to create confusion between Camilla & Elizabeth II. After a while (a month or so), I highly suspect that the media will increasingly use "Queen Camilla" or "HM the Queen", etc. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
There's no particular reason why, if we do settle on 'Camilla, Queen Consort' for now, the article couldn't be moved again if usage shifts. I'd say it's one of the strengths of Wikipedia that we can make those sorts of quick changes in response to changing circumstances, in fact. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose - Absolutely not. The new proposed title is misleading, and any new title herein should include "Queen Consort" as part of it so as to avoid confusion with the King. Neither Prince Philip nor the Queen Mother were called "prince" or "queen" of the United Kingdom. BiscuitsToTheRescue (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Did anyone confuse King Edward VII & Queen Alexandra? King George V & Queen Mary? King George VI & Queen Elizabeth? Therefore, where's the confusion with King Charles III & Queen Camilla? GoodDay (talk) 03:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually, The Queen Mother was known as Queen of the United Kingdom during her tenure as Queen consort. As was her predecessors Queen Mary, Queen Alexandra, Queen Adelaide. There is virtually no difference in the style of a Queen regnant (Queen Elizabeth II) and a Queen consort (Queen Camilla). GandalfXLD (talk) 11:29, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

References

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.

Eventually, this page will be moved to Queen Camilla. GoodDay (talk) 00:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Will be quite content, when the media/websites drop the 'consort' bit

PLEASE, Stop changing it to "queen consort...", in the intro. @Vabadus91: If "Queen consort..." is that big a problem? then I'll change it to "Queen Consort". PS - I'll be quite content, when media/websites drop 'consort' completely & fall in line with how all past queen consorts are shown in their intros - "Queen of the United Kingdom" linked to the List of British royal consorts page. GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree and I'm truly beginning to understand your frustration in more ways then one. GandalfXLD (talk) 20:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Title

No other royal consorts, past or present have "Consort" in the title. For example Queen Rania of Jordan is a Royal Consort. This should be changed as it is incorrect and inconsistent. 146.90.5.51 (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

There was recently a requested move about this, and the outcome was to title the article 'Camilla, Queen Consort' for now. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:54, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

It stinks, I know. But A.D Hope is correct, about there having been an RM on this topic. GoodDay (talk) 20:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Surname

Should we reference her as Shand and Parker Bowles prior to her marriage to Charles? This is the case for Meghan Markle and Grace Kelly prior to their royal marriages. Векочел (talk) 15:07, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Personally I think her maiden name should be used, as all prior Queen consorts of the United Kingdom's maiden names were used. GandalfXLD (talk) 09:19, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with GandalfXLD. Drop Parker Bowles and use Shand. cookie monster 755 04:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Changing from Queen of the United Kingdom to Queen Consort of the United Kingdom?

Is there a reason we keep changing Camilla from "Queen of the United Kingdom" to "Queen Consort of the United Kingdom"? Should we not be changing all the previous consorts to "Queen Consort of the United Kingdom" for consistency? Fair enough she is being referred to as Queen Consort in her title but her official role is still Queen of the United Kingdom. I understand why we cannot call her "Queen Camilla" or "Her Majesty the Queen" but why the constant changing in how we word her role? There is a difference between how the media and the palace are referring to her, and what her actual role is within the monarchy. Either we keep it consistent and state she is Queen of the United Kingdom, or we change every other Queen Consorts description, too. No letters patent have been released to bestow unto Camilla a new role in the constitutional monarchy. Note: I am not talking about the whole "Queen Camilla" vs "Camilla, Queen Consort" debate. I understand why her official title is Queen Consort. Regardless of her title, her role remains the exact same with every Queen Consort in over 1000 years of monarchical history. Therefore, it should remain consistent. 81.140.89.191 (talk) 17:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

It should be "Queen of the United Kingdom...." in the lead. My guess is, as the news media gradually drop the "consort" bit? We'll being doing the same. GoodDay (talk) 01:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

GoodDay Many sources are referring to HM as Queen Camilla (such as People). cookie monster 755 04:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I've added content supported by this source to the article on precisely this subject. I think that Camilla should be added to the main section of The Queen disambig page as she is now technically The Queen and Elizabeth II is now just another dead queen.Romomusicfan (talk) 11:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Done While I don't want to express a definitive view as to the debate around whether the title of this Article should have 'Consort' in it, it is obviously right she is included in the disambiguation page. I still kept Elizabeth II in there as I think given it only happened recently she's probably more likely to need disambiguation than other late monarchs. Jtrrs0 (talk) 11:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Replace the world technically with legally as that’s the same wording that’s used for the princess of wales mention. King4852 (talk) 19:07, 01 October 2022 (UTC)

Title as Queen

Anyone who knows royal titles is aware that Queen consort is a position NOT a title. Her title is “Her Majesty The Queen” like the queen consorts before her (Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, Mary of Teck, Alexandra of Denmark, etc). The websites only call her Queen consort to differentiate her from the late Queen. Nevertheless, protocol has always been the wife of The King is titled “The Queen.” That title as shown in the “Titles, styles, honours and arms,” section should be changed to reflect that. Atharva Jawalkar (talk) 07:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

It seems a good number of people, like User:Atharva Jawalkar, are offended by the lack of simple consistency in reality, in Camilla being treated differently to other queen consorts, and they are driven to revisionism to make things consistent. See WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. If the world has got something wrong, it is not for Wikipedia to set the record straight. If you think Wikipedia has it wrong, list the sources that prove your case here on the talk page. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, the intro should be [List of British royal consorts|Queen of the United Kingdom]. But, I suspect 'enough' editors are going to oppose that, until either the British royal family website 'or' the news media, drop the 'consort' bit. Would've been interesting to see how this all would've been handled, during George VI's reign, had the internet, website & Wikipedia existed then. GoodDay (talk) 14:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

It’s like you don’t understand that Elizabeth B-L and Camilla are very different, in that there was a strong popular aversion to Camilla. Plenty of sources talk about it, eg. She is (or was expected to be) unpopular. Never known as Princess of Wales. Was to be “Princess Consort”. I can’t think of another nearly unpopular anticipated queen, unless you go all the way to Wallis Simpson. There is nothing to compare with George VI’s reign because there was no Camilla character in it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The Diana forever, Camilla never attitudes are tiresome (to say the least) & should be considered irrelevant, by us all. But, until the website-in-question & more importantly the news media start dropping the 'consort' bit? We're stuck with treating Camilla differently, from the other current & past queen consorts. GoodDay (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe I am going to agree with GoodDay. This whole Diana only and no Camilla is not based in reality. English common law and precedent is what matters, not what some media sources say. Camilla is absolutely not anyway related to Wallis Simpson. Elizabeth II said it was her "fervent wish" that Camilla be recognized as queen consort. She is for all intense purposes HM The Queen. RE about the Princess of Wales title. HM decided to not use the title out of respect for Diana. No one forced her to – she legally was the Princess of Wales even if she chose not to use the title. This is from HM own Wikipedia page When she married Prince Charles, "Camilla was not popular or well liked and continues this has changed a lot since the marriage as Camilla has taken on a lot of patronages and Charles is a lot happier," This source here refers to Camilla as Princess of Wales. The difference between 2005 and now is that a lot of time has passed and Diana's death has been over 25 years ago. cookie monster 755 04:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Did I disagree with GoodDay? I agree with his post.

English common law and precedent is what matters, not what some media sources say. That is wrong, see WP:OFFICIAL.

Camilla is absolutely not anyway related to Wallis Simpson? Related? Not related. Similar in that they were unpopular partners of a Prince of Wales.

Camilla is HM The Queen? Sourcing is required, and it has to be good to override the palace website. Beware WP:SYNTH.

I am not sure what your intended point is about the Princess of Wales title.

What's with "Diana only and no Camilla", did you make that up? I didn't. The popularity of Diana with the general public, and lesser publicity of Camila, and how things changed with time, is well documented. Eg Ref 270. More recently there is "From ‘marriage wrecker’ to Queen Consort: the rehabilitation of Camilla".

-- SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Secondary sources get priority over primary sources, which means news-media coverage gets priority over the British royal website. GoodDay (talk) 09:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes. There's a matter of quality of the source. I'm not sure this alone crosses the threshold. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

This article provides a few links, such as the London Gazette in 1901, where Queen Alexandra was referred to as Queen Consort after the death of Queen Victoria and approximately when consort was dropped in October 1901. I'm quite that this is a matter of when and not if consort is dropped. ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by GandalfXLD (talk • contribs) 11:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

References

^ https://www.historyofroyalwomen.com/the-duchess-of-cornwall/the-queen-consort-paradox/

What happened to Diana?

The first mention of Diana in the chronology of events is also the last. At the very least the article should say that she and Charles were divorced in 1996 and that she died in 1997. It should probably also not ignore all the drama between the three of them. Surtsicna (talk) 19:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: I think both the divorces are mentioned in the "Image rehabilitation" section, and some of the backlash is covered in the last paragraph of that section. I wonder if it was added recently because I haven't checked the page history yet, but I think it's sufficient. Keivan.f^Talk 00:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

[1] ttps://twitter.com/RoyalFamily/status/1567928275913121792

[2] ttps://twitter.com/GBNEWS/status/1569230115330031617

[3] ttps://www.historyofroyalwomen.com/the-duchess-of-cornwall/the-queen-consort-paradox/

[1]

[2]

[1]