Talk:Queen Camilla/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 14

Title in British Royalty column of External links

In British Royalty column in External links, shouldn’t it be “ Vacant, title last held by QEQM?”

Because it stated that Queen Consort of The United Kingdom, the last Queen Consort, specifically means this title, it was last held by QEQM in 1936-1952.

If we would like to be Prince Philip as the last holder, shouldn’t that column be named”Consort of The United Kingdom” and then “2022-present” and then bold and Italics “as Queen Consort” better? Gonebyreddust (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I've changed it. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah I saw it thanks. I have added “Consort” and “Queen Consort” as a remark of the differences of their titles. Gonebyreddust (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I've changed it back to "Queen consort of the United Kingdom". It's either that, or we change all the consorts to "Consort of X monarch", in their succession boxes. I think it's best, to match up with the infobox, as we've always done. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Queen Camilla like her predecessors are Queen consorts of the United Kingdom, as reflected in the Royalty Column, as well as other monarchy's in the world. Prince Philip had no official title, and therefore is listed as the Consort of the British monarch, unlike Prince Albert, who was granted the title of Prince Consort and is the only male spouse of the British Monarch to be designated as such. As for the capitalization of the C, it is incorrect to do so when coupled with a title, "Queen consort of the United Kingdom", but with just Queen Consort, capitalization is appropriate, at least that is my interpretation of it. GandalfXLD (talk) 16:12, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Concerning this page's intro? It's a frustration, to say the least. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Well both the intro and the external links. Personally I'd leave it as it is now, but I've noticed that when part of a title, the c is small case.. But I do think that consort will be dropped, in line with all prior British Queen Consorts, and their English and Scottish predecessors. At which point I hope that the intro reads, "is Queen of the United Kingdom", as with the Queen Mother and so on. I understand your frustrations and I hope I'm being helpful. GandalfXLD (talk) 16:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

IMHO, many folks are taking the British royal website's usage of "Queen Consort", too darn literally. Problem is, we've nothing to compare it with (that I'm aware of), as the website didn't exist the last time there was a female consort. GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree. There is proof that a British Queen Consort is just The Queen, HM The Queen and Queen Forename in videos and other historical events. And then there is British Common Law, which states, "The wife of The King, is The Queen", there is no mention of consort anywhere. The last female consort, was during her tenure, was referred to as The Queen. Queen Alexandra, whose husband succeeded Queen Victoria, was also just the Queen. There is precedent in Queen Alexandra's example. In the 2nd image 14th line, Queen Alexandra, with her husband, are collectively referred to as TM The King and Queen and in the 3rd image, 9th person listed, as HM The Queen. I believe that this can be used as a comparison. This leads me to believe that consort is being used temporarily, for the modern age, to avoid confusion. GandalfXLD (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Hopefully the 'royal world' will come back into alignment, sometime before the year is out. GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

This is the wrong place for editors hopes. Wikipedia follows its sources. The current queen’s titling including “Consort” may be at odds with the norm, but it is both official and well used. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

The late Queen's infobox says she was "Queen of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms", and lists her predecessor and successor, who happen to be kings. So, I don't think we need to mess up the column for consorts in external links. Peter Ormond 💬 22:15, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@GoodDay: I saw that you mentioned the royal website and how there's not an example of coverage on previous consorts. Well, it turns out that besides covering Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, they also have an article on Queen Charlotte. Unlike Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, Queen Mary, Queen Alexandra, or Queen Adelaide, Charlotte never became a queen mother or dowager queen as she predeceased her husband, but note that she has not been referred to as Queen Consort Charlotte or anything like that. So if we were to compare Camilla to her and others, she would be entitled to be known as Queen Camilla, just like her predecessors. Keivan.f^Talk 01:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Queen Camilla or Camilla, Queen Consort?

Let's put this firmly to bed. This is the protocol on the matter.

There are two types of Queen in British royalty, a Queen regnant and a Queen Consort. A Queen Regnant is a female member of the royal family who inherits the crown in her own right. Queen Elizabeth II was the most recent example of a Queen regnant. Others include Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth I. While alive they are styled and titled "Her Majesty, Queen <whatever>".

Where the King marries (or is already married to) a spouse, provided that spouse meets certain requirements, that spouse is styled and titled "Her Majesty, [<whatever>], The Queen Consort". Thus the spouse of George VI was "Her Majesty, [Elizabeth], The Queen Consort" and George V's spouse was "Her Majesty, [Mary], The Queen Consort". Although that is the official title, by general convention the spouse is almost universally unofficially referred to as "Her Majesty, Queen <whatever>" partly because, with a King hanging around, there is no possibility of confusion.

If the King dies and his Queen survives him, the Queen retains both her style and title, but is still almost universally referred to by the unofficial title. In the case of Queen Mary, she retained the style and title of "Her Majesty, [Mary], The Queen Consort" unofficially abbreviated to "Her Majesty, Queen Mary" (George V's successor Edward VII) was unmarried. In the case of "Her Majesty, [Elizabeth], The Queen Consort", George VI's Queen, there was the potential for confusion with his successor Queen Elizabeth II. Accordingly, and unusually, she was granted the honorary title of "Her Majesty, [Queen Elizabeth], the Queen mother".

In the case of Camilla, she was to be styled and titled "Her Royal Highness, [Camilla], The Princess Consort" - and the Clarence House website stated this right up to Charles III's accession. However, Queen Elizabeth II expressed a 'sincere wish' on her 70th Jubilee that Camilla be granted the traditional style and title of "Her Majesty, The Queen Consort". That wish was granted. She will almost certainly be known by the unofficial abbreviated title of "Her Majesty, Queen Camilla" once the potential for confusion with the deceased Queen in reports and media goes away.

There is no reason why this article does not follow suit.

Note: Names within [] are not technically part of the title but are usually included. 86.181.0.154 (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

You are entitled to your ‘prediction’ - based on history - but it’s not Wikipedia’s job to pre-empt how titles might be used in the future. If you read the discussion above, there are others who ‘predict’ the opposite. So simplest thing is to use her official Royal title of Queen Consort (which does need a capital C) and then wait and see if the convention changes. BeaujolaisFortune (talk) 19:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

It is not a prediction. It is the protocol. You are right about the 'c'. 86.181.0.154 (talk) 10:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually no - historically, queens consort have been styled Her Majesty The Queen, because women who are married to men who hold titles are entitled to use the feminine version of that title by courtesy. So the wife of a Duke is a Duchess, the wife of an Earl is a Countess, and the wife of a King is a Queen. See the previous Queen consort, Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother - her title between 1936-1952 (i.e. when her husband George VI was King) was simply Her Majesty The Queen, and that has been the convention going back to at least Queen Charlotte, wife of George III (King from 1760-1820). Alpaca92 (talk) 03:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

No. Queens consort are styled and titled exactly as I stated (apart from the case of the 'c'). (That's what happens when you type in a hurry after an edit conflict.) The style and title of 'Her Majesty the Queen' only applies to a Queen regnant. However: as stated, a Queen consort is by convention only almost universally referred to (and even addressed) in the same way. The protocol changed sometime after William and Mary (I cannot recall exactly when). Prior to that, the wife of the King was styled and titled 'Her Majesty the Queen'.

But (and this is a big but), the husband of a Queen regnant was styled and titled 'His Majesty the King' and indeed was King. This happened with Queen Mary when she married Phillip of Spain who became 'His Majesty King Phillip'. However: as the marriage was political, he didn't hang around long enough to be crowned or to rule (he couldn't speak English anyway). The royal cypher, at this time, consisted of the letters 'M' and 'P' with the crown positioned between them as they had agreed at marriage to rule jointly (even though it never actually happened).

Note: an exception was Queen Jane when her husband Guilford was prevented from becoming King by a special act of parliament. This was because it had been realised that the Duke of Northumberland had orchestrated the marriage in order to effectively rule the country via his son on becoming King. He retained his original title of 'Lord Guildford Dudley' as heir to the Dukedom of Northumberland. 86.181.0.154 (talk) 11:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

For the sake of completeness, when a Queen regnant marries, her husband is styled and titled, "His Royal Highness, Prince consort". He was, by similar informal convention referred to as "His Royal Highness Prince [whatever]". Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, was a sort of an exception to the rule. He was formally styled and titled prior to marriage, "His Royal Highness, Prince [Phillip]" (of Greece and Denmark). He abandoned those titles on marriage (though they would not automatically have made him a Prince of Great Britain anyway) and was created Duke of Edinburgh plus a not so few other titles. Elizabeth II conferred the style and title "His Royal Highness, Prince [Phillip]" as a Prince of Great Britain in 1957.

Between Elizabeth's accession and the grant of the title, Philip did not hold the title of Prince of any kind (though some erroneously referred to him as such. This was because the title was omitted from the Regency Act 1953 and letters patent of the same year appointing state officials. These instruments reflected the letters patent issued in 1948 by George VI. There is much debate as to whether it was an omission or a deliberate act on the part of George. 86.181.0.154 (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

No, queens consort are not legally referred to as Her Majesty Queen [Name] until their husbands pass away - see Queen Mary the widow of George V, who was Her Majesty The Queen during his reign (1910-1936), and Her Majesty Queen Mary thereafter. They made an exception for Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother to avoid confusion with her daughter, the late Elizabeth II, but she otherwise would have been styled Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth on the death of her husband, George VI. See also Queen Alexandra, widow of Edward VII, and back in history to other queens consort who outlived their husbands. This is all very well documented.

As for the husbands of queens regnant, that seems to be decided on a case by case basis - the only one to have the official title Prince Consort was Prince Albert, the husband of Queen Victoria, who she granted the title years into her reign, as you mentioned. The reason that these titles are not automatic for male consorts is because the husbands of women who hold titles in their own right do not get a courtesy title, while the wives of men who hold titles do get courtesy titles. Again, all very well documented, with Prince Philip as the most recent example. The late Queen granted him the title of Prince, not Prince Consort, after he was already HRH The Duke of Edinburgh, but he was never Prince Consort as a proper title. Alpaca92 (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

This page needs to moved to Camilla, Queen Consort. I don’t know why this requested move is still open. CAMILLA, QUEEN CONSORT NOW cookie monster 755 22:37, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

This article is already 'Camilla, Queen consort ...'. What's the problem? 86.181.0.154 (talk) 10:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

First, can we please drop "... of the United Kingdom"? It is completely unnecessary for disambiguation purposes, and she is also queen of a dozen other countries. Second, the titles of Wikipedia articles don't have to follow royal etiquette. "Queen Camilla" is all that is needed. Please refer to WP:CRITERIA, where it says "The title [should be] no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects." Richard75 (talk) 12:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Concision in article titles isn't the final word – WP:CONCISE explicitly indicates that exceptions can be made for biographical articles, and the more precise guidelines at WP:NCROY are arguably more important here. In this case, "Queen Consort" has the benefit of being the current WP:COMMONNAME (as well as Camilla's official title). If people start referring to her as "The Queen", we can always move the article again. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 13:22, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Assuming this is about the page name. Queen Camilla, will do as it would correspond 'somewhat' with Charles III. Even though, she'll be the only 'current' queen consort, with no country in her article title. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the past. We should never have moved away from the Monarch # of country or the Consort of country style. But, nobody would heed my advice. GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I myself agree, but when a monarch and his/her spouse are the king and queen of multiple countries it is really hard and possibly inappropriate to give preference to one particular state. After all, they are all equal as sovereign states. Keivan.f^Talk 16:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Although, understandable, given the history, she is "of the UK" for several centuries of reason, not just serendipity. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Let me put it this way. If we had to choose only 'one' country to go in the article title. The odds are very high, that country would be the "United Kingdom". GoodDay (talk) 23:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Move to Camilla, Queen Consort NOW cookie monster 755 17:25, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I am for calling her "Queen Camilla". Queens regnant and consorts have historically simply been referred to as "The Queen', so I don't see why she should be an exception other than not to offend the sensibilities of Lady Diana's multitude of obsessed fans. Queen Elizabeth II's mother was known as "Queen Elizabeth" until her daughter ascended to the throne as Queen Elizabeth II, and her mother started being referred to as "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother". Mary of Teck, was also crowned as Queen Mary. The current Princess of Wales, Catherine will no doubt be crowned as "Queen Catherine II". It should be "Queen Camilla".MorphinESTP (talk) 15:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Consorts aren't given numerals. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:50, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Fine, let's not give numerals. Camilla would be the first "Queen Camilla", anyway. Catherine, Princess of Wales would be a second "Queen Catherine", as Britain has had a Queen Catherine. Either way, Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother was referred to as "Queen Elizabeth" and all other consorts before her were known as such. I'm sure Catherine will be "Queen Catherine". Why is Camilla not allowed this, when she clearly has earned it. MorphinESTP (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

There have been quite a number of Queen Catherines. Henry VIII married three. Generally, the court only refers to queens as "Queen Elizabeth", "Queen Mary" and so on after the death of the King to whom they are married. Celia Homeford (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

If you're talking about the article title? It should be Queen Camilla, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 02:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I've added a link at the bottom of the talk page where the Times have been told to drop the use of Queen Consort in favour of the Queen and Queen Camilla. In my opinion, it is time to drop consort entirely and move the page. GandalfXLD (talk) 13:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be titled Queen Camilla. It is much more natural, for the present title is paralel to having Victoria, Queen instead of Queen Victoria. She is called "Queen Camilla" by the BBC[1] and the Daily Telegraph[2], both known to be quite the sticklers to using "appropriate" royal titles. In any case, she should virtually always be called "Queen Camilla" (and possibly in later instances "the Queen Consort") rather than "Camilla, Queen Consort" in the running text; the latter is just jarring. Surtsicna (talk) 06:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Titles and styles

I do not understand the obsession with bullet points. Why should they have primacy over verifiability, Wikipedia's cornerstone policy? The sources cited in Camilla, Queen Consort#Titles and styles do not say what we claim they say. They do not say that Camilla was styled "Mrs Camilla Parker Bowles" from 4 July 1973 to 9 April 2005. Indeed, we have sources from the 1990s calling her Mrs Andrew Parker Bowles. Why are we deceiving our readers? What is wrong with simply explaining her titles in prose? Surtsicna (talk) 18:33, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

If you have a source for 'Mrs Andrew Parker Bowles' could you not simply replace the incorrect, unsourced section? A.D.Hope (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Because it looks cluttered. Bullet points are clear, precise and easy to read. Most people won't bother with blocks of sentences. If you have a source which states Mrs Andrew Parker Bowles, I'd love to see it. I first added the bullet points months ago and couldn't find sources for Mrs Andrew.... I originally put Mrs Andrew Parker Bowles, and then Mrs Camilla Parker Bowles but it was removed for the reasons I've stated and that not all woman take their husbands names. GandalfXLD (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

The bullet points breed original research. We do have sources, but not for any of the dates. Here is a 1995 article calling her Mrs Andrew Parker Bowles. But why do we need to mention these common titles anyway? We do not say that Cherie Blair was Mrs Tony Blair or whatever. The article is blocks of sentences however you cut it; the chronology of her life is not laid out in bullet points anyway. Surtsicna (talk) 19:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I added her maiden name and married names for timeline for readers to refer to. There is no original research, I merely listed what was there before. But with you source, I can make it accurate for readers. But if you wish to only use Royal styles, a whole range of other members of the Royal Family would need to be edited. But as I said, it's been there for months and no one has had an issue until now. GandalfXLD (talk) 19:59, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I've added your source and hopefully this can be the end of the debate. I am generally grateful for the link. I've been looking for one for a long time. GandalfXLD (talk) 20:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

My source still does not say when she assumed or when she dropped the style "Mrs Andrew Parker Bowles". You may assume it was the day of their marriage/divorce, but the source does not say it, so it is original research. There is no need at all to dabble in that. Yes, let's edit the other articles to rid them of OR. Prose works fine. Surtsicna (talk) 20:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

It was dropped on divorce, as with all divorced women in the UK who had taken their husbands names on marriage, including former wives of peers. Again, no research, I merely took what was already stated in the entire article. But fine, I'll remove the offending dates and keep the Royal titles in place, while keeping the Royals who have never been divorced unedited, as there won't be any confusion about dates there. GandalfXLD (talk) 20:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

According to an etiquette website, divorced woman immediately drop their married names. So she would've stopped being, "Mrs Andrew Parker Bowles" and assumed, "Mrs Camilla Parker Bowles", immediately on divorce. Someone has added the dates back with some new sources and I've added your source as well. I hope we can agree to leave it as is. GandalfXLD (talk) 16:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Quite frankly, the section is pretty much garbage with the bullet points. The "Miss" and "Mrs" stuff is fluff. The only "titles and styles" anyone wants to know about are the royal ones. I do not care enough about it to protest any more though. Surtsicna (talk) 18:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

So much for not caring anymore. I studied English, prose while providing information, do not provide information as clear and as precise as bullet points. The only point of contention is whether to remove Consort or not. The rest is reliable and correct. The page with the titles and styles are akin to the King's page. GandalfXLD (talk) 21:01, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

The titles in dot points are wrong, I agree with User:Surtsicna.

The current title should come first. They should be in reverse chronological order. Regarding the fluff, this would at least put the fluff at the bottom. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Done here.

For a living person, the current information should come first, which gives good reason to list the history in reverse chronology. I don't know whether this should be the same for deceased persons, and whether Queen_Elizabeth_The_Queen_Mother#Titles_and_styles, for example, should similarly be reversed.

I wonder whether the listing of current and previous titles wold go better in an infobox to the right. Readers going to her "titles and styles" probably appreciate the listing being at the top, but it is better style for sections to being with prose. An infobox on the right seems a good compromise? SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

There are six dot points, ordered in reverse chronology (current first).

• Her Majesty The Queen Consort (8 September 2022 – present)

This is obviously what most readers are expecting (unless they are expecting just "Queen") and it should be upfront, not buried.

Previous titles

• Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cornwall (9 April 2005 – 8 September 2022)
• Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Rothesay (In Scotland: 9 April 2005 – 8 September 2022)

Cornwall and Rothesay. These are not current titles of hers. Royals often have multiple titles, and care should be made to not confuse readers as to whether these are subsidiary, or previous.

The following three, are unnecessary. I do not have a strong opinion on whether they should be listed, except that they should not be at the top.

• Mrs Camilla Parker Bowles (3 March 1995 – 9 April 2005)
• Mrs Andrew Parker Bowles (4 July 1973 – 3 March 1995)
• Miss Camilla Rosemary Shand (17 July 1947 – 4 July 1973)

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Whatever it is that you're trying to keep or remove, please don't mess with the chronological order in which the titles have been listed. That is the way it has been done for dozens of pages on royalty and nobility, and in other pages as well. For example, in a filmography section, you don't put the most recent credit at the top, it always comes at the end. Similarly, when a person scrolls down this page, they will be following a flow that that will take them through the life events, titles and honours in a chronological order. Keivan.f^Talk 06:03, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I vehemently disagree with User:Keivan.f. Camilla’s title as Queen Consort should not be buried as per his revert. Queen Consort is not her “most recent credit”. CV’s are presented in reverse chronology, and her list of titles are similar. Leading the section with the fluff “ 17 July 1947 – 4 July 1973: Miss Camilla Rosemary Shand” is pretty stupid. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia/Wikipedia articles tend to follow a forwards chronological order – birth, early life, career, death, legacy – so I don't think the CV analogy is right in this case. --Mgp28 (talk) 12:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, I find it pretty stupid to read an article in a meaningful chronological order just to get to a section that goes backwards in time instead of going forward. Not to mention that a CV/resume is to help one get a job; we're not finding a job for Camilla here, we are detailing out her life events. The format that you are criticizing has been used in a variety of featured articles (see Elizabeth II, etc.), and I don't think anyone would agree that we should make an exception out of Camilla here. Keivan.f^Talk 15:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I noticed. I find Queen_Elizabeth_The_Queen_Mother#Titles_and_styles similarly unsatisfying. An incomplete listing that looks like it should be complete (I know hers is particular long). For Camilla, starting with "Miss..." makes it really bad. At least, there should be lede prose before the list, and the lede prose should highlight things like current and highest titles held.

Someone added "Duchess of Edinburgh" which I think was good, but was lost in the revert. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

That's because her titles and styles are covered in detail at List of titles and honours of Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother. There's no need to create a duplicate by repeating every single detail covered in that article on the main page. Keivan.f^Talk 13:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

An RFC is taking place, tackling this topic. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

where? SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

User:GoodDay, I've looked, including through you recent contributions. What RfC is taking place that tackles this topic? SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

At WT:MOSBIO's talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 01:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Queen

Please note Camilla is ‘Her Majesty The Queen’ and the title should be ‘Queen Camilla’ - this page could note that the formal title of Queen consort was only being used to prevent confusion on the late Queen’s death. 2A02:C7F:1EA5:5A00:B91E:25C5:8E16:E8E8 (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, that remains to be seen. Because at the moment the palace has continued to refer to her as "The Queen Consort", such as in this article from 3 October. Until such time that they actually drop the word "Consort" we should continue to use it as well, otherwise it would be WP:OR. Keivan.f^Talk 00:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Secondary sources are preferred over a primary source. GoodDay (talk) 09:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

And the vast majority of reliable secondary sources also continue to refer to her as queen consort, e.g. [3] [4] [5] relating to the same event as that primary source. For now, we should follow that usage. If, in the future, a majority of reliable sources drop the word "consort", then we can revisit the question. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

It appears we finally have movement on the subject of Queen Camilla. The Times have been told to drop the term Queen Consort in favour of Queen Camilla and when without causing confusion, The Queen. I have added the link. GandalfXLD (talk) 11:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

A twitter post by one journalist isn't exactly a reliable source, and in any case the implication is that this is just a "style guide"-type decision by the Times' editors rather than anything official. We'll have to wait for new articles by The Times for confirmation, and more importantly we'll have to wait to see whether other reliable sources adopt the same approach. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Just adding another link from the Times archives editor, Rose Wild, confirming that the term "Queen Consort" is going to be dropped by them. They will be using Queen Camilla, King and Queen and when their is no risk of confusion, The Queen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GandalfXLD (talk • contribs) 12:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

That article is behind a paywall, unfortunately. Any chance you could quote a short, relevant excerpt giving the context of the decision please. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I've attached another link where Majesty posted an extract of what Rose Wild said. It's easier then just typing everything out. GandalfXLD (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Secondary sources are increasingly describing her as "Queen" or "HM The Queen", from my understanding. That trumps primary sources, like Buckingham Palace or the Royal website. GoodDay (talk) 02:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to someone opening an RFC on this matter, concerning whether or not to drop 'Consort'. GoodDay (talk) 02:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Queen Consort?

See https://www.royal.uk/his-majesty-king

This “official royal family site” refers to Elizabeth as “the Queen” and Camilla as “the Queen Consort”. Nick Levine (talk) 08:16, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

And so does the media. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:54, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I think that is temporary and will most likely disappear and consort be dropped in line with all prior Queen consorts of the United Kingdom. GandalfXLD (talk) 09:17, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

That’s ok, as long as you know it is WP:CRYSTAL, with peripheral WP:SYNTH. She’s the first queen not the mother of the king’s heir apparent since Anne Boleyn Mary of Modena. Your expectation may prove true, but there are things that make Camilla different to the usual queen consort. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:45, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

To be nitpicky, Mary of Modena was the stepmother of the king's heir presumptive. Catherine Parr is the last to have been the heir apparent's stepmother. Surtsicna (talk) 12:02, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I think that’s right, thanks. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Being a divorcee means nothing in this case. Her marriage to the then Prince of Wales was approved by the government, the Church of England and Queen Elizabeth II. And Catharine Parr was still the Queen, despite being the stepmother of the Heir Apparent. GandalfXLD (talk) 14:06, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

That’s right. The comparisons are interesting, and reveal I think missing information on other pages relating to the styling of old queen consorts. Catherine Parr was certainly styled as “Queen”, and is one of few queen consorts respected for periods as regent.

What means a lot here are the prior statements, first she was to be known as “Princess Consort”, and then QEII’s “sincere wish” that she be known as “Queen Consort”. Was there a “The “ to be in that title? What really matters is a combination of the official line, which may change, and how independent sources introduce her. Will the queen’s sincere wish be respected for very long? SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

The problem here is that people think Queen consort is a title, it isn't. It is a position, the title is Her Majesty The Queen, The Queen and in this case, Queen Camilla. I have been doing some reading and it appears that Queen Alexandra, after the death of her mother-in-law, Queen Victoria, was for a short time referred to as The Queen Consort by the newspapers of the day and after a few months consort was dropped. I'm confident that this will the case now for Queen Camilla. We'll just have to wait for it to be dropped. GandalfXLD (talk) 05:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

The different between "title", "position" and "style" is confusing. I would say that Queen Camilla is officially and commonly styled "Queen Consort Camilla". Queen consort is a position? I think "position" is a little vague. Agree Wikipedia has to wait for it to be dropped before dropping it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Would've been interesting to see how this would've been handled for the queen mother's intro, when she was consort from 1936 to 1952. We know the news media rarely described her as queen consort, during her husband's reign. However, we didn't have the Internet, Wikipedia, the British royal family website, back then. GoodDay (talk) 14:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

She would've been referred to as the Queen straight away. I'm seeing that after the passing of a Queen Regnant (Queen Victoria, Queen Elizabeth II), Consort is used for a short period of time and then dropped (Queen Alexandra and most likely Queen Camilla). But with the passing of a King, their successor's wife immediately becomes the Queen, without consort being added, as their predecessor in the role has become a Dowager Queen. Examples are after the death of King Edward VII, his wife Alexandra become the Dowager Queen and his daughter-in-law became Queen Mary without the use of consort. So there seems to be quite a lot of precedent for the situation we are in. GandalfXLD (talk) 05:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

That makes good sense. The oddity is the announcement of intention of "princess consort", which I think the "sincere wish" set out to undo. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

As far as understood, the reasoning for "Princess Consort" was by The Queen Consort's request, with the main reasons being due to the remaining popularity of Diana.

But this all changed at the Platinum Jubilee, with the Queen Consort's growing popularity, the late Queen announced her "wish" for her to be a Queen Consort. And likely, the King's future coronation would be seen as her becoming a "Queen" to the reigning King, without being a Regnant, as per long standing tradition through out most monarchies. TheCorriynial (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

“Her Majesty The Queen” NOT “Queen Consort”

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

AKTC3, Yes, but that's how she's been referred to on the royal website at the moment: https://www.royal.uk/queen-consort. Keivan.f^Talk 02:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The official website for Her Majesty lists her as The Queen Consort. The title should be either Queen Camilla or Camilla, Queen Consort. cookie monster 755 03:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I understand the royal website states Queen consort. I do beleive them doing this is a way to make the public understand the differences between consorts and regnants. However I'm not sure we should follow it as gospel, since no other monarchs have had a royal website. We may have to wait until the coronation to understand exactly what they are trying to do. EmilySarah99 (talk) 03:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that it's confusing!

More news stories are appearing that seem to indicate it will be her title (https://time.com/6211954/camilla-queen-consort-meaning/) (https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2022/09/08/camilla-queen-consort-meaning-explained/8028017001/).

The original statement from Queen Elizabeth in Feb. 2022 was that it was her “most sincere wish that, when the time comes, Camilla will be known as Queen Consort as she continues her own loyal service.” (https://twitter.com/RoyalFamily/status/1490083061060575237) Iandaandi (talk) 04:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe Queen Elizabeth was signifying her intent for Camilla's spoken title to be Queen Consort, i.e. "Her Majesty Queen Consort Camilla." She was signifying her wish that Camilla be shown the respect as wife of the reigning King and be referred to as his Queen. It's widely known that the King's wife is a Queen Consort to differentiate her from a monarch - but no Queen consort in history has been referred to as "Consort," and I feel we should not set this precedent for Camilla, either. If you watch the coronation of King George VI and Queen Elizabeth (the Queen Mother) - people will see that when the BBC refer to the Kings consort they refer to her as "Her Majesty The Queen." 81.140.89.191 (talk) 07:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

This article is indicative of what British usage will be concerning Camilla--"Queen Consort Camilla", not "Queen Camilla". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 12:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

They’re just trying to break her in gently cos of Diana and all the history the queen has to endure. She’s still HM the queen. Having in her biog title ‘queen consort… as the wife of King Charles III’ makes it redundant. Of course any ride of a king is a consort. Looking at other queen consort pages they all show them as queen. Not queen consort. See Queen Sofia of Spain. Queen Noor of Jordan. And countless others historical including all of the English wives of kings. ALL are detailed as queen. Not queen consort. Foxyjohnuk (talk) 22:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

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

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

You're just making up things I guess. No, Philip was not known as king because he was a foreigner, it was because husbands of reigning queens have never been called King (see Denmark or the Netherlands, or even Queen Victoria's husband Prince Albert). Mhapperger (talk) 10:11, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

This is quite wrong. Queen Elizabeth did not bestow any title on Camilla, she simply said that she wished for Camilla to be known as Queen Consort when Charles becomes King. You are confusing a Queen regnant and a Queen consort. A Queen regnant is a female member of the royal family who is next in line to the throne and inherits it by right of succession. A Queen Consort is a title held by the spouse of a reigning King and holds no constitutional powers - she is simply the King's wife. When a woman marries a member of the royal family, she is elevated to his rank and in accordance with common law, is entitled to the use of the feminine version of all his titles and styles. If he is a prince, she becomes a princess (though - she is not styled Princess [name] but rather Princess [husbands name]). It matters not if she is a commoner or someone of nobility. Phillip did not become King because a man does not inherit titles from his wife upon marriage. To be called King he would need to be in line to the throne which he was not. 81.140.89.191 (talk) 12:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

As a descendant of Queen Victoria, Prince Philip most certainly was in the line of succession in his own right, albeit way down the list. But this has nothing to do with why husbands of Queens regnant are not called kings, while wives of Kings are called queens. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Huh? William III was made King and co monarch with Mary II. He wasn't a king before being King of England. 173.72.73.175 (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

William III was in the line of succession on his own, and was invited during the Glorious Revolution to become King. He was also a Head of State in his own right already, as Stadholder of the United Provinces (aka proto-Netherlands). He's not a regular case, and we should look to examples like Prince Albert, Prince Phillip, or Prince Bernhard as Consorts instead of William or some Portuguese co-Kings. Darth2207Lucas (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm confident, that a little while after Elizabeth II's funeral. We'll be gradually reading/hearing "Queen Camilla", "HM the Queen", etc etc. For the moment the media(s) are trying to make sure that folks don't get confused. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

The statement announcing the Queen’s death referred to Camilla as a Queen Consort. Rather than saying “the King and Queen are at Balmoral”. It could be that Camilla will be the exception as to soften the blow with Princess Diana, just like how she was in practice referred to as the Duchess of Cornwall rather than the Princess of Wales. Professorsolo2015 (talk) 08:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I would 100% endorse that this article drops the overt use of Consort. That is not her title, she is HM The Queen. If she outlived King Charles she will be HM the Queen Dowager Baron Sealand 22:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccsmall1 (talk • contribs)

In response to Baron Sealand, Her Majesty would assume the style of Her Majesty Queen Camilla, as all Dowager Queens of the UK have assumed, with exception of the Queen Mother, if the Queen outlives her husband. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GandalfXLD (talk • contribs) 11:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. Camilla not using the title of Princess of Wales was an exception to a long-standing tradition. The current emphasis on Queen Consort is another. Any attempt to guess what title she will be known by in the future is pure WP:CRYSTAL. Rosbif73 (talk) 11:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

The difference being that while she didn't use her Princess of Wales title, she also held the title she used in practice: Duchess of Cornwall.

In this instance, she doesn't hold the title "Queen Consort" because no such title exists and cannot exist unless created by letters patent. It is a position, and the title and style for such a position-holder is HM the Queen. Vabadus91 (talk) 23:19, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Bullet points or prose?

Please compare the Camilla, Queen Consort#Titles and styles section of this revision and of this revision.

The version with the bullet points is obviously not more concise, as it contains more characters and takes up far more page length. Neither is it precise enough, as editors have been confusing titles with styles for years. Every now and then, and nearly every day in the past month, someone adds "Duchess of Edinburgh" or "Princess of Wales" to her styles or changes "Her Majesty the Queen Consort" to "Her Majesty the Queen". The prose makes it much clearer that "Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cornwall" was not her sole title but rather what she was called, and also clears up the consort business without leaving any room for edit warring.

I do not understand the insistence on bullet points that have been breeding confusion and original research for years. Which source says she was called Miss Camilla Shand from 17 July 1947? Such ridiculous trivia should not be polluting this biography anymore. Surtsicna (talk) 10:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I think the bullet point format, if it is preferred to prose, should be converted to a right justified info box. I think, as a matter of style, bullet points should be preceded by prose. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree that that would be preferable to this revision but still fear that bullet points oversimplify the matter to the point that the information becomes imprecise and confusing to editors and readers alike, as evidenced by the constant good-faith but incorrect changes. When we simply have Camilla became known as "Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cornwall" upon her marriage to Charles nobody will in good faith change that to read Princess of Wales or anything else. Surtsicna (talk) 11:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I have seen many edits to the proses you are advocating for that have been reverted. Bullet Points or Prose, there will always be those you will constantly edit it with incorrect information. GandalfXLD (talk) 11:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Why not both? ie. explain where and when the titles came from in the prose, and then beneath that do bullet points WiltedXXVI (talk) 11:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I studied English, proses, while providing information, does not provide information as clear and as precise as bullet points. There are a lot of people who prefer a full and complete timeline from Miss Camilla Shand to Her Majesty The Queen. Including her maiden and married names is not "ridiculous trivia", but valid sources of information that does not pollute the article, but adds to the articles credibility and validity. Bullet points are not original research, they state information already present in the article more clearly. GandalfXLD (talk) 10:45, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

But the information is not clear or precise. That much is proven by the incredible amount of edit warring. We are not here to write the article the way "a lot of people" prefer; we are here to summarize the coverage of the subject in reliable sources. That she was styled "Miss Camilla Shand" from 17 July 1947 to 4 July 1973 is information not present anywhere else in the article or indeed in reliable sources. That makes it trivia and original research. Surtsicna (talk) 10:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

There is the same amount of warring with prose. Wikipedia is foremost a place of fact. What better way to list fact than Bullet points. To you, it's trivia, to a lot of others it makes far better sense in bullet form and is easier to read. This is the standard practise for many Wikipedia pages on Royalty, from British to Danish to Spanish. All make use of bullet points, because there is not better way to list facts, particularly when it comes to titles. GandalfXLD (talk) 11:03, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

If bullet points were that superior to prose, this whole biography (and other articles) would be written primarily or exclusively in bullet points. That obviously is not so. In fact, we have a guideline, WP:BULLETS, that specifically says not to use bullet points if the information can be presented in prose. Surtsicna (talk) 11:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

You fail to grasp the subject of context, as in the context of the section we are currently debating. I'm not for one moment suggesting the entire article is listed in bullet form. Prose is better in certain subjects, but on the subject of titles, bullet points better present the information in Chronological order, for a clear and precise timeline. GandalfXLD (talk) 11:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

It is not clear. There are at least three sections and a failed RfC at Talk:William, Prince of Wales showing that we, Wikipedia editors, cannot make heads or tails of these bullet point sections, let alone the casual readers. Your insistence that they are clear and precise is mind-boggling. Then there is the issue of proper sourcing, for there are no sources in the world stating what these bullet points state. Surtsicna (talk) 11:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

We are never going to agree and I cannot account for the mess that is going on in that page. We are going to have to allow others to decide. There are plenty of sources stating what is listed. You just for whatever reason have a dislike for bullet points and as far as I can tell, the only person who really has an issue with them. These bullet points have been on the page for months and only now it is an issue. GandalfXLD (talk) 11:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I am not the only one and it has always been an issue. At a recent RfC, long-time contributors to these biographies have referred to "dreadful sections polluting Wikipedia" and "unnecessary fluff, telling readers that the article subject ... was called Miss Maidenname before she was married (which applies to every married woman in the world)". My dislike for the bullet points is not "for whatever reason"; I have explained my reasons several times and if they are unclear, please let me know so I can try again. This particular comment by one of the aforementioned editors summarizes the problem with these bullet points. Surtsicna (talk) 12:12, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Bullets points, especially when it comes to titles, are better than prose. ApJSp (talk) 11:44, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

That less-than-insightful comment being your first edit is suspicious to say the least. Surtsicna (talk) 11:49, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize having multiple edits was a requirement to participate. If you're the standard editor and this how you treat people, I'm better off deleting my account then and going back to being anonymous. ApJSp (talk) 11:58, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

ApJSp Please don't go! Newcomers are welcome cookie monster 755 06:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom

The title of the article should be changed to “Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom” 68.199.174.183 (talk) 13:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, we are currently discussing that very issue here. Feel free to express your view on the article's current title, though please note that arguments based on Wikipedia policy and guidelines are likely to be given more weight when it comes to closing the discussion and making a decision. Let me know if you need any help by replying here or sending me a message through my Talk page! Jtrrs0 (talk) 14:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

That would be the case, if her husband's bio page was called Charles III of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 09:26, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

"of the United Kingdom" is added to distinguish monarchs of different countries with the same name and ordinal. For example, the article is called Henry V of England to distinguish him from Henry V, Holy Roman Emperor. TFD (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

King Charles and Queen Camilla aren't just King and Queen of the United Kingdom, but 14 other Commonwealth Realms. Your suggestion wouldn't be practical. GandalfXLD (talk) 18:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)