Talk:Queen Camilla/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 14

RfC on description in lede

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

---

Should the lede describe Camilla as:

• A: Queen Consort of the United Kingdom and 14 other Commonwealth realms
• B: Queen of the United Kingdom and 14 other Commonwealth realms

23:17, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Survey (RfC on description in lede)

• A, as it matches the title of the article, the title of the article linked to (List of British royal consorts), her official title, and how reliable sources describe her, with 21 suitable articles using "Queen Consort" in the past 24 hours, compared to 14 describing her as "Queen". BilledMammal (talk) 23:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
• B, as we omit 'consort' from the past & present queens consort intros. GoodDay (talk) 23:33, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
• B, I don't think it's necessary to make a list of all present and past consorts to demonstrate that the current format is consistent with dozens of other articles, but I'll list a few just in case: Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, Mary of Teck, Alexandra of Denmark, Queen Mathilde of Belgium, Queen Letizia of Spain, Queen Maxima of the Netherlands, Queen Silvia of Sweden, Queen Sonja of Norway, Empress Masako, Queen Rania of Jordan, etc. Not to mention that the word "Consort" would be redundant in this article and any of those articles, because for instance the opening sentence as a whole on this page is: Camilla is Queen of the United Kingdom and 14 other Commonwealth realms as the wife of King Charles III. It's already stated that she is a "Queen" as the 'wife' of a "King" (i.e. she's not a queen regnant). Keivan.f^Talk 00:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
• B per the above. Later in the article we can explain that she's not regnant queen.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:39, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
• A. The wikilink links to a list of British consorts, it's in the article title, it's what she actually is, and it seems to be the current convention to refer to her as such in the media. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

  The page is so named as there are male consorts as well, not just Queen Consorts. GandalfXLD (talk) 19:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

• B because A is actually redundant. "Queen...as the wife of King..." is the description for a queen consort. Stating "Queen consort...as the wife of..." is redundant and not helpful. Her title is in the infobox and under Titles and Styles for those wanting option A, there argument that "it's her official title" don't seem to understand that queen consort is also a description. cookie monster 755 05:50, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
• B because redundancy is not nice. Surtsicna (talk) 06:01, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
• A for accuracy. John (talk) 06:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
• A in line with the recent consensus on the article title, consistent with the majority of reliable sources. If B is chosen, then the link to List of British royal consorts needs to be changed to avoid a WP:EASTEREGG effect. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

• An RM bears no influence on the info within an article. And I'm not sure why we should alter the link List of British royal consorts. "Queen of the United Kingdom" means that the person can either be a queen consort or a queen regnant, and I don't think readers would necessarily struggle to figure that out on their own. In any case, if people are eager to remove the link, I should point out that the phrase "Queen of the United Kingdom" redirects to Monarchy of the United Kingdom. I guess that would not be confusing! Keivan.f^Talk 08:13, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

  In general an RM has no influence on the article content, sure, but in this particular case the reasoning that led to the RM conclusion (i.e. primarily the usage in RS) applies equally well to the lead sentence. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

• B - Consort has been omitted from every other Queen Consorts as Keivan.f has pointed out. I would also add that under common law she is legally the Queen as the wife of a King. King4852 (talk) 09:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

• Strong Indifference Life is too short to think about such futilities. Craffael.09 (talk) 00:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - Should Option A be chosen I would support every other Queen Consort having there intro changing to match Camilla as she is no different legally to them and to keep all Queen Consorts intros consistent. King4852 (talk) 09:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I would much rather have superfluous wording in the lead sentence of one article than in the lead sentences of all articles. Surtsicna (talk) 18:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I would not automatically apply this decision to any other article. There is a big difference here in that Camilla is often referred to as "Queen Consort" whereas the previous queen consorts were referred to as simply the "Queen". I know there are some people who want consistency across centuries, but things sometimes change after long periods of time have elapsed. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Queen Alexandra was referred to as The Queen Consort after her mother-in-law, Queen Victoria, passed away. It too was dropped before her coronation. People mistakenly believe that Queen Consort is the title, it isn't, it is the position. GandalfXLD (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

• A The article should use her current title of Queen Consort and not her anticipated title of Queen. While there is speculation that she will eventually receive the title of Queen Camilla, that is a matter for the King to decide, not Wikipedia editors. The reference to the other Commonwealth realms is a bit confusing, since she has no official position there. TFD (talk) 11:00, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

  She already is Queen Camilla. The King doesn't have to bestow what is already hers by law. GandalfXLD (talk) 19:39, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

  GandalfXLD, what law says she is "Queen Camilla?" TFD (talk) 19:51, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

  English Common Law. The wife of The King is The Queen. As with all prior Queen Consorts. GandalfXLD (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

  Under English common law, a woman takes the feminine form of her husband's title with her husbands name. So the wife of Prince Michael of Kent is called Princess Michael of Kent. The wife of Mr. Richard Roe is Mrs. Richard Roe. The wife of Lord John Doe is Lady Doe. What is your source that Camilla's form of address would be any different? TFD (talk) 23:30, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

• B If it was good enough for other articles I don't see why this should be changed now. Nemov (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

• A This is a very similar question to the failed move above. Omnibus (talk) 02:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  And yet this has nothing to do with the RM. The RM was about establishing whether Camilla, Queen Consort was the common name or Queen Camilla. It wasn't a debate about whether she was Queen of the United Kingdom or not (which she undisputedly is). Keivan.f^Talk 07:05, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• A per above. ~ HAL333 04:36, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
• A per the BBC and the way I understood the letter from Queen Elizabeth. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  The BBC has all the articles about her listed under Queen Camilla (not Queen Consort Camilla or anything bizarre like that), and Elizabeth II's letter was about establishing her future position and role not her title (otherwise she would have specifically mentioned her future title as "The Queen Consort", the proper way of referring to one by their title). And Camilla's style of address has nothing to do with her position. She is Queen of the United Kingdom per English common law like all the queens consort before her. Keivan.f^Talk 15:23, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Correct, Queen is the BBC's category, Keivan.f. However you must agree that almost every pertinent headline at the BBC link you offer says Queen Consort. Sorry I can't speak to UK law. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

People have taken that letter far too seriously. Queen Consort is the position held by Queen Camilla and her predecessors in the role. If you search for the Queen Mother's death certificate it says Queen Consort. Consort will at some point be dropped in favour of the traditional and legal style, HM The Queen. GandalfXLD (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

• A for the same reason as consort needs to be in the tile, can for consistency with the title. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
• B I think there is a difference between her role and her title. She is the current Queen of the United Kingdom. Jjfun3695 (talk) 13:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
• B Queen Consort is the position, not the title. She is Queen of the United Kingdom and consort will be dropped in due course, as was the case of Queen Alexandra in 1901. English Common Law states that the wife of The King is The Queen, no mention of consort. GandalfXLD (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
• A In line with article title, confirmed in recent move discussion. The determination of a few users to rehash this conversation in every conceivable way is getting very tiring. U-Mos (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

  The RM is absolutely irrelevant. What does a discussion about an article's name have to do with its content? Not to mention that its result was "not moved (for now)", meaning the matter is not even settled. And FYI, it wasn't any of the users in favor of "Queen of the United Kingdom" who started this survey. The article had been perfectly stable using that phrase until someone decided to start an edit war over it. Keivan.f^Talk 21:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

  I agree. Whoever started this survey is being pedantic and wasting everyone's time. GandalfXLD (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

  Apologies for my assumption, but regardless the move request result means changing the lede to say queen consort is uncontroversial and should stand. My view is all such discussions should be closed immediately until such a time as new developments occur, as they are just going round in circles endlessly to no purpose. U-Mos (talk) 13:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

• A, until she formally goes by B or public consensus changes.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
• A – this is how she is styled in most official sources for the time being. It may not be consistent with other queen consorts, but it makes sense to use this term for the transition period, or until reliable sources call drop the "queen consort" title, which is still the common name. P.S. - styling Camilla as such is not saying she isn't the queen, which seems to be the implication of some who support the alternative wording. – QueenofBithynia (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

• The lead sentence is not there to establish her title and style; it's there to describe her position and essentially establish her notability. She's Queen of the United Kingdom as the wife of Charles III. Her official title at the moment is "HM The Queen Consort", not "HM The Queen Consort of the United Kingdom". In other words, the first sentence has nothing to do with her title. Keivan.f^Talk 21:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

• B I do not believe Elizabeth II intended to create a new title. "Queen Consort" has never been a title before in any language. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
• A – Officially, “Her Majesty The Queen Consort” (per royal.uk). Was supported at the Platinum Jubilee (see bbc.com), and differs from the ruling Queen or officially “Queen Regnant”. Unofficially it might be simplified to “Queen”, and a redirect should be there to the article “Queen Consort”. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 10:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, we have "Queen of the United Kingdom..." linked to the List of British royal consorts page. Therefore, no confusion as to what type of queen she is. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

• A – Officially, “Her Majesty The Queen Consort” and whilst usage might eventually shorten the job title over time, it will now be useful to those who have been used to QEII, who was obviously regnant. Not sure whether Camilla has any official standing outside the UK (ie in "14 other Commonwealth realms") YET. Pincrete (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
• B per arguments above. BogLogs (talk) 13:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
• B She is Queen. There is no ambiguity here. ---Greatestrowerever^{Talk Page} 19:24, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
• A, she is not the Queen but a mere consort of the king. That being a consort affords her the curtsey title by marriage is completely different from a real Queen, like Queen Elizabeth II. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 19:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we change the intros to wives of George II (Queen Caroline), George III (Queen Charlotte), George IV (Queen Caroline), William IV (Queen Adelaide), Edward VII (Queen Alexandra), George V (Queen Mary) & George VI (Queen Elizabeth)? GoodDay (talk) 08:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

If we’re going to use different titles based on suo jure versus consort status as a blanket then so many have to be changed, not just. Is Catherine “Princess Consort of Wales”, Meghan “Duchess Consort of Sussex” or Sophie “Countess Consort of Wessex”? That simply doesn’t make sense. Would people still be making such a strong if we were talking about Diana Spencer rather than Camilla Parker Bowles? I don’t think so. Estar8806 (talk) 23:43, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

• A per Rosbif73[1]. She is treated differently from previous queens consort. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

So what? Legally she's Queen, as the wife of the King. Just like the other queens consort. GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

• B Title and position aren’t always the same. Her position is Queen of the United Kingdom (and the Commonwealth Realms) but her title is Her Majesty The Queen Consort. This idea also exists with Princes, Princesses and Queens Dowager. Princess Anne (when known as “The Princess Anne”) did not hold the position of “Princess Anne” but rather that of Princess of the United Kingdom. Mary of Teck similarly was called Queen Mary, but her position would be Queen Dowager. --Estar8806 (talk) 02:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

  It's the other way round: her position is queen consort and her title is Queen. In fact, I don't know whether "queen consort" could properly be described as a position; it's just a description of what type of queen one is. Both queens regnant and queen consorts bear the same title, without distinction: Her Majesty the Queen. 79.71.87.243 (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

  I think you’ve mistaken my intent. I agree that her title should simply be “The Queen” but that has not come to fruition. Her position is thus still “Queen of the United Kingdom” because positions don’t generally use descriptions within them (as I said with Princess Anne). You can’t say I’m wrong by saying that her position is Queen consort not Queen when you then go on to say that Queens consort and regnant have historically used the same title and that the very position you are saying she holds doesn’t even exist, but is just a description.

  Basically all you’ve said is that her title is “The Queen”, which it is not, even thought I agree that it rightfully should be. Estar8806 (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

• A: There has to be a difference between Queen and Queen Consort, and if her title is Queen Consort then that's what she should be referred to. RPI2026F1 (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

The pipelink is used for this situation in the other intros of queens consort. Why shouldn't it be used in Camilla's? GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Her title is Queen; the type of queen that she is described as queen consort. If it is necessary to forever distinguish her as a queen consort, why isn't it necessary to distinguish suo jure female monarchs as queens regnant? 79.71.87.243 (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

• A for now. Officially the UK, Australia and Jamaica say this. Also, it was Elizabeth II's wish that she be called queen consort. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussion (RfC on description in lede)

• Comment See "Palace to quietly drop Consort from Queen Camilla’s title" by Hannah Furness, royal editor, The Telegraph 14 October 2022.

"Since the death of Queen Elizabeth II, Buckingham Palace has steadfastly stuck to the title of “Queen Consort” as the public gets used to a new era.

"Between now and the coronation, The Telegraph understands, aides hope to quietly drop “Consort” from Queen Camilla’s title to bring her in line with centuries of wives of Kings before her.

"Former consorts in modern history...have been called by the simpler title of Queen plus their Christian name...An exception has so far been made for Camilla.

"The title [Queen Consort] was set by Queen Elizabeth: "[I]t is my sincere wish that...Camilla will be known as Queen Consort.""

The article explains that "Queen Consort" is indeed a title, it follows after the Christian name, it is unprecedented, it is what Elizabeth II requested and it may change. Until we get a better source or the title changes, I suggest we keep the current text.

TFD (talk) 16:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Yet, Elizabeth II never used the word "title" in her letter. That to me seems like the author's own interpretation of the letter's content. Also, as I pointed out earlier in the RM, Queen Alexandra was referred to as "Queen Consort" in the immediate months following Queen Victoria's death. With regards to this article and all the other articles, the first sentences are there to describe the subject's position and briefly give the reason behind their notability. Camilla is Queen of the United Kingdom as the wife of Charles III; that's her position. Her official title and style at the moment is "HM The Queen Consort" (not HM The Queen Consort of the United Kingdom or anything like that), and we already have a whole section dedicated to covering her titles. So if people are now going to stick to the "oh, but that's her official title" narrative, maybe we should start the article by saying that "Camilla is Her Majesty The Queen Consort". Keivan.f^Talk 21:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a19405611/camilla-parker-bowles-queen-title-when-charles-becomes-king/

“Camilla Officially Takes on the Title of Queen Consort” SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

And? What is the point that you're trying to make? You didn't even bother to read what I had said. I said her title is "HM The Queen Consort", yet we don't begin articles by including official titles in the lead sentence. We might as well start the article by saying "Camilla is Her Majesty The Queen Consort" based on your logic. Camilla's position is Queen of the United Kingdom as the wife of Charles III, which clearly conveys the meaning that she's a queen consort, not a queen regnant. Keivan.f^Talk 00:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Point is that you make statements at odds with published sources, while not citing sources yourself, making you woefully non-compliant with WP:SYNTH. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:05, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

None of my statements are at odds with published sources, which again proves my point that you didn't read or understand what I had said. And I don't find Town & Country to be an authority on royal titles. All these sources have reported on her titles based on how she has been styled on the official website. And I never denied that her 'title' is "The Queen Consort" (go back and read what I had written). I simply said that the first sentence is not about giving away her official title, which contrary to what you are trying to imply is not even "Queen Consort of the United Kingdom". Not only this is not used by any other Wikipedia articles on British queens, it is not used on the royal website either. And I won't even get to the grammatical awkwardness and the redundancy of having the word "Consort" thrown in there, as Consort means spouse to a monarch and it is already stated in that very first sentence that she's the wife of Charles III. Keivan.f^Talk 14:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

We cannot include HM per Honorific prefixes and suffixes. Queen Consort of anywhere would seem strange, because she is consort of the king, not of any particular place(s). TFD (talk) 23:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

That's not how it works. Queens consort do not have any constitutional role, but they are queen of the countries in which their husbands are reigning. Example: just earlier this year Queen Letizia of Spain and Charles (then Prince of Wales) officially unveiled a plaque during an engagement which had their titles as "HM The Queen of Spain and HRH The Prince of Wales" (not HM The Queen of Felipe VI!). There are other examples with other queens and empresses as well. Keivan.f^Talk 00:22, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

You are confusing substantive titles and courtesy titles. The wife of a king or other titled person uses his title, but has no constitutional role. "Consort" literally means a spouse.[2] Camilla is the spouse of the King, not of the United Kingdom. She is therefore Queen of the UK or Queen Consort, but not Queen Consort of the UK. Note that Albert and Philip used the titles of Prince Consort, which followed their Christian names, but were never referred to as Prince Consort of the UK, although Philip was in fact a "Prince of the United Kingdom." That is a substantive title which precedes the Christian name, e.g., "Prince Philip." TFD (talk) 00:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

She is queen consort of the UK because consort is a modifier of the noun queen not the other way around. DrKay (talk) 07:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

"of the UK" also modifies queen. So you can use one or the other. Note that neither Albert nor Philip were referred to as "Prince Consort of the United Kingdom." TFD (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - Last time I checked, the UK Parliament has not passed any legislation sticking 'Consort' to Camilla's title. They're the 'only' body that can do that & so far, they haven't done so. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

No need for Parliament to get involved; titles are typically legislated directly by the Crown under the Royal Prerogative via letters patent. Not that we have any record of any letters patent relating to Camilla as far as I know, but in any case that is beside the point. The sentence under discussion is describing Camilla's role, and adding "consort" in that description would make it more useful to readers IMO. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

She's no different then any other queen consort. Elizabeth II had no authority over what Camilla was to be called, either. Again, unless Parliament decides otherwise? Camilla (as the wife of the king) is the queen. GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any legal opinion, law, order in council or other official announcement that supports what you say? Because until you do, I have to accept the reliable source I provided. TFD (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

It's a constitutional monarchy. Not an autocratic monarchy. GoodDay (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

So what part of the constitution says that parliament determines what she should be called? Parliament never approved any of titles that living members of the royal family use. TFD (talk) 18:24, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Parliament has supremacy over the monarch. Until it says otherwise, Camilla is queen as the king's wife. You & I aren't going to agree, so it's pointless to continue this circular argument. GoodDay (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Certain matters such as royal titles remain the sole prerogative of the monarch. But, I repeat, that is totally beside the point in this discussion. Rosbif73 (talk) 21:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes it does. The UK Parliament can reduce the British monarch to a complete symbolic figure. But, that's an entire different topic, which you & or anyone else are free to argue, at whichever venue is appropriate. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Certainly the King in Parliament has greater power than the king acting without parliament. But since the king or his predecessors have never assented to any legislation concerning the title of the queen consort, it's a moot point. TFD (talk) 14:11, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

We're gonna have to end this little discussion between us. GoodDay (talk) 00:22, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• Alternative suggestion: we could base the opening sentence on that of Prince Philip, making it "Camilla (born [...]) is the wife of King Charles III. As such, she became queen consort on 8 September [...]".

She's no different then any of the other current & past queens consort. We shouldn't be attempting to treat her differently from them. GoodDay (talk) 16:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Then write a letter to the king explaining this to him. Once he has seen the light, we can alter the article. But it's not up to us to determine what title she uses. TFD (talk) 18:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

It's not for the monarch to decide. As the wife of the king, she's queen. GoodDay (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion is about her title, which is determined by the king. TFD (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

The king has 'no say' in it. GoodDay (talk) 00:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Then who does? TFD (talk) 17:59, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The Parliament of the United Kingdom and Parliaments of other Commonwealth realms. The law as it stands states a woman takes her husband status upon marriage and therefore is the female equivalent of all her husbands titles. The Female equivalent of a King is a Queen. King4852 (talk) 19:45, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Each Commonwealth realm except the UK has an act setting the title of the monarch. In the UK, the king decides his own titles per the Royal Titles Act 1953 (United Kingdom). None of these acts mention the title of the king or queen regnant's consort.

Indeed under common law, a wife takes the feminized version of her husband's title and his name. Hence, Mr. Richard Roe's wife is Mrs. Richard Roe. Prince Michael of Kent's wife is Princess Michael of Kent. Note that adding the wife's Christian name to the feminized title has no basis in common law, although some women, particularly if divorced, do this.

Furthermore, a choice may be made not to use a title. For example, Camilla did not to use the the title of Princess of Wales and instead was known as the Duchess of Cornwall. Megan chooses not to be called Princess Harry and instead is known as the Duchess of Sussex. Similarly, Camilla is referred to as Queen Consort.

TFD (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I’d point out even if they do not use a particular title like for example the ones you’ve listed above it does not change the legal matter that they hold that title, Meghan Markle is a British Princess as the wife of a British Prince and Camilla is a Queen as the wife of King Charles III who is a King. she is currently a Queen Consort as she is the wife’s of the current King however if she outlives Charles as King she would become a Queen dowager and would no longer be a Queen Consort. I’d further point out wether a woman is a Queen Regnant, a Queen Regent, Queen Consort, a Queen Dowager or a Queen Mother they still are a Queen in law. King4852 (talk) 18:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

If it's not her title, it should not be capitalized, per Titles of people. In fact it would apply in this case even if it were her title because it is a reference to her office, not her title. TFD (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

• New suggestion What about, "Camilla, Queen Consort, is the wife of Charles III, King of the United Kingdom." It minimizes repetition. TFD (talk) 16:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

  Just leave it as is. People need to stop being pedantic and move on. GandalfXLD (talk) 09:45, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

  Which is why I suggested wording that is less pedantic than the current version, which is: "Camilla...is Queen of the United Kingdom and 14 other Commonwealth realms as the wife of King Charles III. Camilla became queen consort...." TFD (talk) 14:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

  You can look at the Wikipedia of all the Queen consorts in the past, it says "Queen of United Kingdom and Commonwealth".I don't think Camilla needs an exception, she's the same as all the Queen consorts in the past. KGOO510 (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

The reason is that the sovereign has decided that Camilla's title would be different from her predecessors. While the sovereign may be incorrectly advised and may change the title, that is up to him, not Wikipedia editors. Incidentally, per Titles of people, you should not capitalize Queen in queen consorts because "In generic use, apply lower case to words such as president, king, and emperor." So while Camilla may be a queen of the United Kingdom, it should not be capitalized unless and until it is her title. (Note - the correct plural is queens consort.)

Incidentally, although all heads of state are referred to as "King" in Wikipedia articles, an exception is made for Oliver Cromwell and Richard Cromwell. The reason for the exception is that although they were heads of state with the same powers as their predecessors, they did not use the title of King. Wikipedia editors in their case follow reliable sources, rather than precedents set in other articles.

TFD (talk) 19:22, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Neither Elizabeth II or Charles III had or has any 'say' in what Camilla's title would be & is. The wife of the king, is the queen, until Parliament says otherwise. Meanwhile, we have 'pipelinks' to direct readers to what type of queen Camilla is. GoodDay (talk) 08:28, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any basis for your opinion. TFD (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Do have any proof that the British monarchy is an absolute monarchy, rather then a constitutional monarchy? GoodDay (talk) 06:45, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything? TFD (talk) 11:39, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

As I mentioned days ago. It's best we stop this conversation. GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

You come up with comments that have no basis then complain when I point that out. You say that only Westminster can determine the queen consort's title, yet have provided no sources for your claim. None. You realize that one of the policies is to only add information that can be reliably sourced? TFD (talk) 06:05, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Going in circles again. GoodDay (talk) 08:04, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

By going in circles you mean summarizing what is in reliable sources rather than beliefs you hold without evidence. TFD (talk) 20:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

The King has not decided such a thing. By common law, a female takes the feminine form of her royal husband's title and rank: Camilla is legally the Queen because her husband is the King. This is irrespective of how she is styled in everyday life: Camilla was legally the Princess of Wales even though she was styled with a subordinate title.

The only thing that could've stopped Camilla becoming Queen was letters patent issued by the monarch stating so (@GoodDay is also wrong that Elizabeth II and King Charles can do nothing about it; on the contrary, only the monarch can do anything about it and Parliament is powerless). It was through letters patent issued by George VI that prevented Wallis Simpson from becoming HRH upon her marriage to the Duke of Windsor, instead conferring the honorific "Her Grace". Without the letters patent, Simpson would've become HRH, as per common law.

Because no letters patent have been issued to diverge from common law, creating an alternative title for Camilla, she is the Queen, irrespective of how she is styled. This would still be the case even if she'd been styled "Princess Consort", as a constitutional scholar Dr Stephen Cretney pointed out prior to their marriage. 79.71.87.243 (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

We're in disagreement on many things, apparently. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

We shouldn't be relying on the target of piped links to direct readers to anything (indeed, directing them anywhere that isn't intuitively related to the text of the link is a no-no per WP:EGG); any necessary clarification should be directly in the text. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:16, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

We're doing it (using pipelinks) in the intros of the wives of others kings. Why treat Queen Camilla differently? GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Because she is being treated differently in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 06:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Not very reliable, if they're confused about the legal title of the king's wife. But again, we're going in circles. GoodDay (talk) 08:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

She is legally Queen, but the majority of reliable sources call her "Queen Consort". Like it or not, she is being treated differently than the wives of other kings, and Wikipedia should reflect that. The situation is entirely comparable to before Charles's accession, when she was legally Princess of Wales, but never called that in reliable sources (or elsewhere). Rosbif73 (talk) 10:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:CONSORTS By this rule if her title is queen then she should be referred to as Queen regardless of what other sources calls her as "Living or recently deceased royal consorts are referred to by their present name and title, as with Queen Letizia of Spain and Queen Anne of Romania." BogLogs (talk) 12:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Rosbif73, to this day many sources still call Prince William's wife "Kate Middleton", but that doesn't mean they're correct. GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Some sources do, sure, but the majority of reliable sources do not. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Why support a majority of sources, that are getting it wrong? GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

It's actually not wrong, because although married woman may assume their husband's name, they can only relinquish their pre-marriage name by deed poll. So they can still use their credit cards. What is strange though is why when it comes to royalty and nobility, Wikipedians ignore WP:COMMONNAME. TFD (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

My question was for Rosbif73, note the indent. You & I (TFD), have nothing further to discuss. GoodDay (talk) 01:42, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

If you don't want editors to reply to your comments, don't post them on this discussion page. The purpose of this page is discuss changes to the article, which is of interest to all editors. You should expect that when you make unsupported statements, other editors may challenge them or ask for sources, since they affect how this article should be written. TFD (talk) 01:55, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

That is incorrect. A deed poll is not even required to change your name; you change it simply by adopting a new name in everyday life. A deed poll is sometimes asked for as evidence of a change of name (not as something creating the change itself), but this is not a legal requirement. 79.71.87.243 (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Anyways Rosbif73. You don't have to respond, if you don't want to. GoodDay (talk) 02:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

The sources aren't getting it wrong, she is the queen consort. She's entitled to be called just plain queen, but not many sources do so. So WP:STICKTOSOURCE. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:25, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Give it time, they'll gradually more & more refer to her as 'queen'. GoodDay (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

If the majority of sources change how they describe her, we can and should reconsider at that time – but not before. Rosbif73 (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

• Comment There is nothing to wrong with the current intro on further reflection it’s gets a balance by both Referring to Camilla as the Queen of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms as the wife of a King which she legally is and it makes reference to the fact she became the Queen Consort which is what she is currently known as upon her husbands accession and is not the Same as a Queen Regnant. King4852 (talk) 20:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Eventually both the page name - Queen Camilla & the intro - Queen of the United kingdom (with a link to List of British royal consorts), will be adopted. It's looking like (regrettably) many are letting erroneous sources be the decider. So we'll likely have to wait until those sources get updated correctly. GoodDay (talk) 18:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Why do you think that the Royal Family's website is erroneous? Can you provide any sources that say these sources are erroneous? TFD (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

The Royal Family's website is erroneous because noble and royal titles are created either by common law or letters patent. No letters patent have been issued creating the title "Queen Consort", conferring it upon Camilla, and denying her the usual title of "Queen" (a title used without distinction for queens regnant and queen consorts alike). As such, common law prevails: a woman takes her husband's rank and title, therefore Camilla, as the wife of the King, is the Queen. 79.71.87.243 (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Please provide a source. While it is customary for a queen consort to assume the title of Queen before her own name, it is at the prerogative of the king. Furthermore, no letters patent were issued for royal titles before 1917. Since then the practice has become customary but not mandatory. TFD (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. We have ample proof that Camilla is not being referred to in the same way as previous queens consort, either by the palace or by a majority of reliable sources. Any arguments made here based on custom, precedent or parallels with other queens consort are mere WP:OR. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

IP. There was no website for the palace, the last time the UK had a queen consort. As for secondary sources? time will tell. Eventually, a majority of sources will get around to calling Camilla, queen. GoodDay (talk) 22:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Presumably that will happen if and when the King decides to give her that title. TFD (talk) 00:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Please TFD, give it a rest. GoodDay (talk) 03:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

But King4852, I guess we'll have to wait & see. GoodDay (talk) 01:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

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

The Queen’s signature

The Queen’s signature now includes an “R”, so it is now “Camilla R”.

Thank you. 185.44.152.97 (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Here are a few images to update Queen Camilla's signature:Camilla R

https://twitter.com/realroyalmail/status/1589547029315063808?s=46&t=PLOINh42ldrLbHjPS6Rs-w

https://twitter.com/windsoritems/status/1590685616815374336?s=46&t=PLOINh42ldrLbHjPS6Rs-w — Preceding unsigned comment added by KGOO510 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Interesting that The Royal Household has tweeted this out using the #QueenCamilla. I think another discussion about the moving this page to Queen Camilla (where is should have been since 8 Sep 22) is due soon. --Greatestrowerever^{Talk Page} 17:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

It is not due until either a preponderance of reliable sources, or the official source (due to it reflecting the person’s right to assert their own name, a WP:BLP issue), drops the “consort”. Beware citogenesis. Wikipedia must not lead, Wikipedia follows. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:25, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

But what amounts to a "preponderance"? The Times and The Telegraph now refer to her formally as "the Queen" or less formally as "Queen Camilla". Several of the tabloids do too. Even if the Royal Family continue to formally style her "Queen Consort", it is still appropriate to refer to her informally as "Queen Camilla", since every queen consort has been known as "Queen + Forename" in everyday parlance.--79.71.87.243 (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

In fact, they don't, except in headlines. TFD (talk) 00:05, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Not according to The Times journalist who tweeted last month (or it might've been the month before) that the newspaper's staff had been instructed to refer to her as the Queen and that editors had locked horns with the Palace over her correct style.

Regardless, "Queen Camilla" is the appropriate way to address her informally and in the article title, even if the Palace continues to refer to refer to her as "the Queen Consort". The way to refer to a queen consort with the forename is Queen + Name. Vabadus91 (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

ANCESTRY

In the cites you mention her predominant heritage and give reference to some of her lineage but leave out her Jamaican and Portuguese part. Why? LANDALES (talk) 01:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

“Queen” title in lead

Request to change “queen” to “Queen” as according to JOBTITLES in article lead. AKTC3 (talk) 10:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

The current job title is Queen Consort, not Queen. There is a discussion above. Charles may change the job title for the coronation, at which time we can change the wording. TFD (talk) 13:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

"Job title"`!?!? - oh please! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

It doesn’t much matter what her style is. She is the wife of the King of the United Kingdom. She is, according to English common law, the Queen of the United Kingdom. Besides, that wasn’t the request. The lowercase form “queen” in this context is grammatically incorrect. AKTC3 (talk) 17:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

No, it is perfectly gramatically correct in accordance with MOS:JOBTITLES. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 11:36, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

If your analysis of common law is correct (you have not provided any sources), then it would be lower case. We don't say for example that Camilla is the Wife of Charles III, who is her Husband. TFD (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed.There is no need to change "Queen" to "queen".She is Queen. 218.255.255.198 (talk) 06:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

She is Queen Consort, not simply "Queen" without qualification. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 11:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

No, she is the Queen without qualification. "Queen consort" just describes what type of queen one is; it isn't her title. Nobody says that Elizabeth II's "job" title was "queen regnant" and that "Queen" without qualification was unacceptable. The word "Queen" literally means "queen regnant or queen consort"; it doesn't have some alternative definition distinct from the two.

The requirement to prove that the wife of a royal takes the feminine form of his style by common law isn't required on any other biography, so why should what makes Queen Camilla any different? It wasn't required to prove that she was Duchess of Cornwall by common law because her husband was the Duke of Cornwall. Nor is it required for the Princess of Wales, Duchess of Sussex, or Countess of Wessex. But here are two references, for argument's sake, from constitutional experts: Vabadus91 (talk) 17:55, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

No, her title is officially "The Queen Consort", not "The Queen". ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:07, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

You have it the wrong way around. Some editors argue that she should be called Queen because of common law. They therefore must prove what the common law is in order to support their argument. TFD (talk) 18:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Maybe in about six months time, updated sources will require a 'new' RFC on this matter. For now, the last RFC decision is to include consort. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

References

No need to add “Consort” in Rfc.

As the King’s wife, Queen Consort is her position. Queen consort is one form of Queen. All consorts of Kings in history are Queens of UK, It is no need to add Consort here. Everyone knows she's not a monarch. 218.255.255.198 (talk) 08:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Her title is Queen. Not Queen Consort. This should be changed back imminently. --Greatestrowerever^{Talk Page} 20:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I am in absolute agreement. People are too often letting the same sources that erroneously refer to Queen Camilla as “Queen Consort Camilla” dictate how her position is presented. She is legally the Queen of the United Kingdom as the WIFE of the King. It’s so explicitly clear! That is her title! The difference is that her STYLE is Her Majesty The Queen Consort, which is ridiculous in itself, but wouldn’t make her title of Queen of the United Kingdom wrong. AKTC3 (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

No, her style is Her Majesty, her title is Queen Consort. TFD (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect. A title is one’s formal position. Her legal title is Queen of the United Kingdom. A style is one’s form of address, which would be “Her Majesty The Queen Consort.” AKTC3 (talk) 20:11, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Regardless, the RfC concluded that "consort" should be included in the opening sentence. There's little point in rehashing the RfC until the majority of reliable sources change how they refer to her. Rosbif73 (talk) 20:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

If "Queen of the United Kingdom" is her legal title, then you should be able to find a legal document that says so. Note too that other queens consort were addressed as "HM the Queen." TFD (talk) 02:34, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

She is “Queen of the United Kingdom” as wife of the King. There doesn’t need to be a legal document because it’s English common law, which has legal basis despite not originating in documentation. 2600:1700:2740:1B20:B47B:214D:CFB6:86AC (talk) 05:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

If it is English common law, then you should be able to cite a textbook or legal case that says so. TFD (talk) 09:13, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

If you're referring to the intro of this page? An RFC was already held on this matter & the decision rendered was to include 'consort' in the title. Maybe in six months time, another RFC will be held & updated sources will result in a different decision. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Comment: Camilla legally became Queen of the United Kingdom upon the death of Queen Elizabeth II due to the fact her husband became King However Camilla has been styled as “Her Majesty the Queen Consort” which no person whom has held the position of Queen Consort before has been styled as. Typically the Queen Consort like a Queen Regnant has been styled as “Her Majesty the Queen” the exact reason why Camilla has been styled this way is unknown and it still presently remains to be seen wether she will be styled as “Her Majesty the Queen” sometime in the future. The Question therefore is wether Camilla intro should refer to her as Queen of the United Kingdom (her legal title) or refer to her as Queen Consort of the United Kingdom (her present style.) My personal view on that question is Camilla intro should be more or less the same as previous people whom have held the position of Queen Consort as this creates a template for future people who will go on to hold the position of Queen Consort. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/research-areas/monarchy-church-and-state/accession-and-coronation/planning-next-accession-and#Q4 King4852 (talk) 17:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

We will follow whatever reliable sources refer to her as. And whatever reliable sources refer to the next queen (consort) as. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:48, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

If Queen is her legal title, then you should be able to point to the law that says that. TFD (talk) 01:40, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Her Majesty's title is HM Queen Camilla and this is how other consorts have been referred to on their pages. See Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother , Queen Rania of Jordan , Queen Sonja of Norway , Queen Letizia of Spain , along with virtually every other current and past Queen Consort. It seems odd to refer to Queen Camilla as "Queen Consort Camilla" considering it does not fit with other pages. It might be best to change the title of the page to "Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom", or simply "Queen Camilla". For those questioning whether Queen is HM's official title, see this take on legality - Britain does not have a written constitution, but rather conventional constitution. I would strongly suggest the title is amended with a brief explanation in the immediate paragraph outlining the difference between Queen Consort and Queen Regnant.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisxo (talk • contribs) 20:54, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Saying that doesn't make it true. You need to provide a reliable source that comes to the same conclusion. TFD (talk) 04:51, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Queen Consort vs Queen still in debate?

Why are we still debating this? We get her title is Queen Consort but that still makes Camilla 'Queen of the United Kingdom." If this is the case then we need to go through EVERY Queen Consort on the Wiki and advise that they were Queen Consorts of the United Kingdom also. Is this some way to discredit her as Queen or something? A personal vendetta? Do people not understand that she too is going to be crowned alongside Charles at the coronation? 81.140.89.191 (talk) 19:20, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

We aren't still debating this. The debate is over and the "Queen Consort" side won. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:13, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

The Queen Consort IS the Queen of the United Kingdom though. 81.140.89.191 (talk) 15:12, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Historically that has been the convention to refer to the Queen Consort simply as "Queen", but that has apparently changed, as Camilla is routinely referred to as "Queen Consort". Rreagan007 (talk) 20:43, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

When we had the debate I counted all the individuals and whether they were for "Queen" or "Queen Consort" and it was about 2/3 to "Queen" and 1/3 to "Queen Consort".

I know that thats not how wikipedia works, and that they like to ignore the law of the UK, but it does explain why there is still debate. WiltedXXVI (talk) 15:08, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I do somewhat understand your argument the real Question therefore is wether Camilla intro should refer to her as Queen of the United Kingdom (her legal title) or refer to her as Queen Consort of the United Kingdom (her present style.) The RFC at present has come to the conclusion of the latter. I do not agree with this decision and have presented a dissenting view but I respect its judgement. It may be best for the Palace to change her style to “Her Majesty the Queen” in the interest of the issue and debate occurring again but it remains to be unseen if and when the Palace will make such a change to her style. King4852 (talk) 21:16, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Article title should change to Queen Camilla

The United Kingdom press are now almost universally refering to her as The Queen as opposed to adding the clarifier 'consort'. Only the BBC and Wikipedia seem to be continuing to use consort.

I think it's about time another discussion was opened on changing the title of this article to reflect the fact that both her legal title and title in common use is The Queen. -146.90.15.32 (talk) 15:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I beg to differ regarding "almost universally": a quick search shows recent news articles from the Telegraph, Independent, Daily Record, Evening Standard, BBC, Metro, and a host of reliable local news sources (not to mention various less reliable tabloid sources) calling her "the Queen Consort" and not "Queen Camilla". IMO it is too soon to reopen this debate. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Rewording mentions of "The Queen"

There are a few mentions of "The Queen" in the article referring to QE2, I was wondering if we should change them to "Queen Elizabeth II"? Dbainsford (talk) 20:56, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this only one regards to the late Queen being first referred to as “Queen Elizabeth II” and afterward referred to as “the Queen.” AKTC3 (talk) 21:04, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I’ve noticed that the text already seems to do this. I think the text is fine the way it is. AKTC3 (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

As she is now a historical figure, she should be referred to as Queen Elizabeth II and not as 'the Queen'; except maybe on 2nd reference when it's absolutely clear who is meant. This applies doubly to this article about another queen [consort]. We have to watch our wording to avoid confusing the reader. Indefatigable (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography, the article is supposed to refer to her as Queen Elizabeth II on the first mention only. The same rule applies to the rest of the royals. TFD (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

For consistency the article title should change to Queen Camilla

Every other British Queen Consort has the title Queen Mary, Queen Elizabeth etc. i'm not sure why Wikipedia deems that Queen Camilla should be a special case. -185.13.50.178 (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

See the replies to the topics just above this one. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Catherine, Queen Consort

Using the pathetic logic that has lead to Queen Camilla's page being entitled Camilla, Queen Consort can the Wikipedia Moderators confirm that when William V assends to the throne his wife's page will be entitled Catherine, Queen Consort. -185.13.50.178 (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, there aren't any moderators here. Secondly, a crystal ball would be needed to determine what Catherine will be called by reliable sources at the time. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:32, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

"Spouses" section of infobox

I changed Charles's name on the infobox from "Charles III" to "Charles, Prince of Wales" on the basis that spousal entries there should have the name of the spouse as it was at the time of marriage. Indeed, in Charles's own infobox on his Wikipedia entry Camilla is listed under the "Spouses" section as "Camilla Parker Bowles". So why is my edit reverted? Vabadus91 (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I entirely agree with you, and indeed that's the way it was for quite a long time after his accession. Your edit was reverted "per previous edit summaries" which doesn't help very much I'm afraid. Perhaps the reverting editor could explain their logic? Rosbif73 (talk) 08:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't see why this article should be different from every other: Philip, Duke of Edinburgh married Princess Elizabeth, Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon married Prince Albert, Duke of York, Mary of Teck married Prince George, Duke of York, etc, etc. We simply don't format infoboxes in this way. DrKay (talk) 18:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Well given that the Queen had married into the British royal family, her maiden name is used in her reference. The King did not, and is no longer known as Prince of Wales, just as Elizabeth II is not referred to as Princess Elizabeth of the United Kingdom, nor is George VI referred to as Prince Albert, Duke of York in the article of his respective spouse — Alexandra of Denmark married Albert Edward, Prince of Wales, but the latter is referred to as Edward VII in his wife’s article’s “spouse” section. In history, Queen Camilla will likely be known as having married the “future” King Charles III, not Charles, Prince of Wales. AKTC3 (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with AKTC3. From this point forward and in the future, she will always be known as the wife of King Charles III. Now, had she died before Charles's accession or divorced him, then I would have supported keeping it as Charles, Prince of Wales for the sake of accuracy. See Diana, Princess of Wales, Princess Charlotte of Wales (1796–1817), Princess Margaret of Connaught, and Princess Märtha of Sweden as examples for women who predeceased or divorced their spouses before they became monarchs. On the other hand, for individuals whose marriage lasted beyond their spouse's accession to the throne such as Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, Mary of Teck, Alexandra of Denmark, Maud of Wales, etc. we go with the regnal name, which entirely makes sense IMO. Keivan.f^Talk 01:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Article Title is Wrong

Should be Queen Camilla in the same way as all other British Queens; whether consorts or Queens Regnant. 185.13.50.216 (talk) 13:59, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:EXHAUST, avoid posting the same thing over and over. We can see your previous two posts above. We don't need a third. We didn't even need a second. DrKay (talk) 14:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Nor did we need a first. The wife of the King is the Queen. There's nothing more to talk about. 2600:4040:5D30:4800:80FE:F321:4F6D:EDDA (talk) 04:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Although I agree with you and find the rationale behind the title consensus to be absurd, I am also of the opinion that this concern is quite exhausted at this point. Perhaps we may return to this concern after the coronation. AKTC3 (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Queen Camilla's Job Title

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

---

My only concern is the inconsistency in this. If you go to previous female consorts’s wiki pages, you will see that they all state “was Queen of the United Kingdom”. For example, the Queen Mothers wiki page states “ Elizabeth Angela Marguerite Bowes-Lyon was Queen of the United Kingdom.” On this page it lists Camila as “Queen Consort” instead. This inconsistency can be confusing for people who are not familiar with the role of a female consort and their titles. I think someone should change Camilla’s intro back to “ is Queen of the United Kingdom” to avoid this confusion and to maintain a consistent level of detail on all female consorts wiki pages. 65.188.181.14 (talk) 06:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

The reason for the lack of consistency is that the King has decided that would be her title (for now). TFD (talk) 07:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

And (more importantly from a Wikipedian perspective) the majority of reliable sources continue to refer to her that way. We had an RfC on this topic not so long ago. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

This makes no sense. All queen consorts are queens. All past British queen consorts have been described on Wikipedia as "Queen of the United Kingdom...", which Camilla is too. Consistency would mean that Camilla is so described.

The fact that she is generally referred to in sources as "the Queen Consort" makes no difference in this instance — it doesn't make her any less of a queen than her predecessors and her title and status is identical to theirs.

The only slight difference is how she has been referred to in the media, which is not what describing the role or status of Camilla and other consorts — i.e. "Queen of the United Kingdom" — is about. This is a separate point to that of the page title, which is, for now, settled. Vabadus91 (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree 50.235.180.174 (talk) 13:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. The current queen (Camilla) and the previous queen (Elizabeth II) have different statuses. The current emphasis of the current queen being “consort” has a simple logic, and is consistent with the “consort” precedent that followed the death of the previous queen regnant (Victoria). Calm yourselves. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I am complete agreement with you. For instance, Queen Letizia of Spain is the title of her Wikipedia article. It mentions she is queen consort in the first line, which is fine, but it referring to Camilla as Queen Consort over and over is political, not objective, which is what an encyclopedia is supposed to be. don Esteban 17:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sconklan (talk • contribs)

I’ve argued for this consistency from the beginning and I do hope that the palace will change Camilla style to “Her Majesty the Queen” as it will put this issue to bed once and for all. As far as I can see this debate will end up continuing again and again until if and when the palace makes that decision. King4852 (talk) 20:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I suspect this will not occur until the coronation. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph, The Times and the Daily Mail have all started referring to Camilla as the Queen, rather than Queen Consort. This should be updated on Wikipedia. Nollie (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Having said that, the Court Circular still refers to Camilla as the Queen Consort. It is said that after the coronation ‘consort’ will be dropped and she will simply be referred to as the Queen. Nollie (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree. During the coronation, change Camilla's title in her bio as simply "Queen of the United Kingdom" instead of "Queen-Consort." She is, in fact, the wife of a reigning King and deserves the same deference as her husband. We all know she is a Queen Consort and not a Queen Regnant like her mother-in-law or Victoria. Not a single person anywhere, for example, referred to the King's grandmother as "Queen Consort Elizabeth." She was simply referred to as "Queen Elizabeth" or as "HM, The Queen" during the reign of her husband George VI and then as the Queen Mother during the reign of her daughter. Same with Queen Mary (wife of George V), Queen Alexandria (wife of Edward VII), Queen Adelaide (wife of William VI), Queen Charlotte (wife of George III) and etc.... I suspect the real reason people refuse to refer to Queen Camilla as such without the consort added onto the end is some kind of post-mortem deference to Diana. Camilla already showed deference to Diana by not using the Princess of Wales title which she was entitled to. She should not have to do so as Queen. [[User:Tristan|Tristan] (talk) 16:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.254.231.173 (talk)

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.

Consort starting to be dropped.

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

---

I believe consort is finally beginning to be dropped from Queen Camilla. As we all know, HM The Queen is her legal and automatic title. Consort has been left in the title in favour of The Queen's reading room, an endeavour started by The Queen as Duchess of Cornwall. I'll attach the link to the page. GandalfXLD (talk) 14:31, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that too. I think it's a gradual process though, and we should wait until it is completely dropped by the palace before renaming the page. Keivan.f^Talk 00:11, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I have added a new link that says consort will be dropped after the coronation, but I think it will be sooner, most likely in late March as the coronation invites are sent out. Late March as the palace usually sends invitations 6 weeks before the event, putting it at the week of 20-25 March. GandalfXLD (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

It’s predictable but Wikipedia mustn’t do predictions. Kate Mansey and the Daily Mail asserting what the palace is set to do is not suitable for Wikipedia to even consider. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm aware Wikipedia doesn't do predications. The reason I created this section was to inform other editors that the ball is finally beginning to roll. GandalfXLD (talk) 09:33, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Good. Agreed, except for your word “finally”. You should suppress your wishes for it to hurry up, as this unashamed bias is unseemly for a good Wikipedian.

Also, I want to remind that per WP:DAILYMAIL, references to the second source should be avoided, and I think, even on talk pages. That sources makes stuff up just to get reader interest. The first source is good. It’s non-independent, but that may make it even stronger in terms of evidence of a BLP right of a person to choose their own name (I know, title / style whatever, but “Queen Consort Camilla” could consider a name, and a name that the person herself rejects (good citation required). SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

This is nice to see hopefully the palace will drop Consort in its entirety so we can put this debate to bed once and for all. King4852 (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Hopefully? Why would Wikipedians be posting their hopes? SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I’m guessing that is because people are quite exhausted of the business of her title which has become so needlessly incessant and causing so much confusion. Naturally, as Wikipedians are still human beings, we will express our hopes that the Palace will refer to her as simply queen and get on with it indeed. AKTC3 (talk) 08:51, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I am quite sure it is because Wikipedia editors tend to hold strong opinions and cannot accept when official sources contradict them. Surname? They do not have one, no matter what the family website and documents say. Queen Consort? She cannot be, the Palace does not know its business! What they hope is that their opinions will be validated. What we should all hope, however, is for the article to be well-written and in line with reliable sources. That is what talk pages are for. Surtsicna (talk) 08:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Just let me know if/when another RM (page title) & RFC (page intro) are begun. GoodDay (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

An RM can only start if there's a change in how the palace refers to her. And, if "consort" were to be dropped and an RM were to follow, naturally there would be no need for an RfC for the intro. It can be amended according to the page's new title. Keivan.f^Talk 20:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Another link, this time to Westminster Abbey, with the intro stating the following, "The Coronation of Their Majesties The King and The Queen". While Consort is still used in the article, it does show a shift. GandalfXLD (talk) 07:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Here are images from the official Coronation Bible 2023. Here the intro shows, "To commemorate the Coronation of Their Majesties King Charles III and Queen Camilla". GandalfXLD (talk) 15:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

It also says overleaf "Queen Camilla the Queen Consort." Perhaps she will retain the word Consort following the coronation. 81.140.89.191 (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Wether she does or doesn’t is unknown but it looks fairly possible she will be. King4852 (talk) 14:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

If the King wanted to retain the title 'Queen Consort' for Camilla, then he wouldn't have had 'Queen Camilla' in the Bible. The King wants Camilla to be known as 'the Queen', like his grandmother was during the reign of King George VI. Otherwise, the Palace would have stated that Camilla will always be 'Queen Consort'. The title 'Queen' is used by the King's wife when there is no Queen. This happened in the UK before Queen Elizabeth II's reign and currently in other monarchies in Europe and Asia. 109.158.164.85 (talk) 19:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Also The official Westminster Abbey shop calls her Queen Camilla in the description of this product:

https://shop.westminster-abbey.org/king-charles-iii-coronation-fine-china-mug DenizD28 (talk) 22:27, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

This is from the Royal Family twitter page showing the coronation invitation with the wording, "The Coronation of Their Majesties King Charles III and Queen Camilla." As well as Their Majesties new coat of arms. GandalfXLD (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

This link is from ITV Royal editor Chris Ship, confirming that consort is to be dropped in favour of The Queen from the Coronation. GandalfXLD (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

https://www.royal.uk/new-photo-coronation-invite

Here is the official royal family link 2400:ADC1:165:A00:E9D4:AED1:4670:F501 (talk) 21:59, 4 April 2023 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2023

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

---

Change Queen Consort to Queen because she is the Queen by marriage and Queen Consorts have been called "The Queen". 50.235.180.174 (talk) 13:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: She's described as Queen Consort on the official website. M.Bitton (talk) 13:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree completely. Queen Leticia of Spain is her title. The Wikipedia article refers to her as Queen Consort once by virtue of being the wife of King Felipe VI. That's how it should be done. Not doing this correctly is political, not based on objectivity. don Esteban 17:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sconklan (talk • contribs)

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.

Title Change

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

---

I propose, Camilla’s title should be changed to Camilla Shand. Also, change is Queen Consort of the United Kingdom to Queen of the United Kingdom as all female consorts have been known. 2601:47:4380:83E0:747B:C781:D0F3:DEA0 (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Her maiden title wouldn’t be appropriate as the title of the article. She isn’t a queen dowager and all current queens consort in other monarchies use the format “Queen (X) of (Country).” AKTC3 (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

We better put Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom (but not fo now ,maybe on coronation day)2601:47:4380:83E0:747B:C781:D0F3:DEA0 (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Title change

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

---

Camilla is now referred to as Queen Camilla please change her title from “Camilla, Queen Consort” to “Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom” 2601:47:4300:B6F0:3D3C:DBAD:4EFA:18D1 (talk) 18:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I’m beginning to see multiple sources refer to her as “Queen Camilla” now since the release of the coronation invitation. It might be some grounds for a move given the secondary sources. AKTC3 (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I am not seeing that and in fact most sources I have seen say that her title is Queen Consort but after her coronation will be referred to as Queen. Foreign and even British publications frequently get British titles wrong. CNN called referred to Princess Diana and Lord Jeffery Archer for example. What's the rush anyway? TFD (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I’m seeing many articles referring to her as “Queen Camilla,” including AP News, NPR, BBC, NBC, Yahoo, etc etc. And as to publication getting titles wrong, that might be true, but their source for “Queen Camilla” is coming from an official invitation, not an erroneous colloquial title like Princess Diana. AKTC3 (talk) 23:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

See "Queen Consort Camilla" on the BBC website, which collects their articles about Camilla. I don't see them calling her "Queen Camilla," except to say that will be her title upon her coronation. TFD (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Coronation invitations from Buckingham Palace and the British government already refer to her as Queen Camilla, so the Wikipedia title can now be changed without waiting until after the coronation, as the invitation is an official document. It's impossible for Buckingham Palace to call someone who isn't a queen a queen. KGOO510 (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Take a look at the section "Page title and description". The matter has been discussed and everyone seems to agree that we should wait until the coronation day. Also, her page should be titled "Queen Camilla", to match her husband's page which is simply titled "Charles III" instead of "Charles III of the United Kingdom". And there have been no other queens named Camilla so the disambiguation is unnecessary anyway. Keivan.f^Talk 20:37, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

But of course there are no other Queen Letizias, Queen Máximas, Queen Mathildes, Queen Rainas, Queen Sonjas, nor Queen Silivias, however their article titles use the “Queen X of (Country)” form. AKTC3 (talk) 23:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@AKTC3 That was my second point. The main point is that her husband's article does not follow the [Name] of [Country] format per community consensus as he's the king of 15 countries, and she's his consort by rank in all those 15 states, not only in the UK (e.g. here's the Government of Canada acknowledging her status as queen consort). Keivan.f^Talk 00:09, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

The "Queen Consort" title seems to have had its origin in the initial announcement of Elizabeth II's death: "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." Of course this announcement couldn't refer to Camilla as simply "The Queen" without causing confusion with the late Queen. But Camilla was on 8 September 2022, and is now, "The Queen". Opera hat (talk) 01:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Except, if it had been referring to Elizabeth II, they'd have said "the late Queen" or "Her Late Majesty". But I understand that references to "the Queen" to mean someone other than the person those words referred to for over 70 years would take more than a few hours for it to settle into the public's mind. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:01, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

The origin of the title "Queen Consort" lies with Queen Elizabeth herself. At her Jubilee in February 2022, she "said she wants Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, to be known as Queen Consort when Prince Charles becomes King." Before that, it was thought she would be known as "Princess Consort". 2001:BB6:47ED:FA58:8C78:63B2:5EB4:67EB (talk) 12:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

When the change takes place and consort is dropped, the page name can't be Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom, as she and her husband are King and Queen of 15 countries. It should simply be renamed to Queen Camilla. GandalfXLD (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

You can directly read the coronation invitation issued by Buckingham Palace: Coronation of Their Majesties King Charles III and Queen Camilla. It is impossible for the invitation issued by Buckingham Palace to have a title error. KGOO510 (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Editors seem to be getting her position and title confused. Queen Camilla's position is Queen Consort. The title of a Queen Consort, like a Queen Regnant, is legally HM The Queen, The Queen and Queen Forename, as with all prior Queen Regnants and Queen Consorts. Consort, as I'm sure well all know, was used to avoid confusion between Queen Elizabeth II and Queen Camilla as both were/are The Queen. Lastly, when consort is dropped the page should name should change to Queen Camilla without "of the United Kingdom" as she and King Charles are King and Queen of 15 Commonwealth Realms. Best wishes, GandalfXLD (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Vote on Title

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

---

Let’s take a vote on wether to change Queen Camilla’s title on Wikipedia. Yes is to change now and No is to wait. The first 10 votes is the winner. I vote yes 2601:47:4300:B6F0:7445:44AD:31D6:5B7B (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Please see WP:CON which states that "Consensus on Wikipedia does not require unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." DDMS123 (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

The title is expected to change from the day of the coronation, I don't see the point of the endless "lets vote" discussions. People need to chill and just wait out. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 06:04, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Extremely speedy reversal

I do not understand the relevance of the edit summary here (none of those queens are named "consort"), reverting within 7 seconds my attempt to add what I strongly feel the time has come for. I will try again soon, unless someone can give us a relevant reason here not to. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

The lead sentence already says "is Queen of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms as the wife of King Charles III". I assume the article title will be changed to "Queen Camilla" following the coronation, I personally would support it now rather than later, but I doubt most will. Estar8806 (talk) 17:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

It should say "is Queen Consort" since that is her title and position until her coronation. TFD (talk) 13:18, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Her Position will always be Queen Consort as the wife of a reigning king that would only change should she’s outlive Charles as King.

Her title will likely change after the Coronation from Her Majesty the Queen Consort to Her Majesty the Queen. Therefore dropping the word Consort. King4852 (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

This has been discussed ad nauseam over the last six months - simply consult the archives of this talk page. The article title reflects usage in the majority of reliable sources. That usage is slowly starting to change, and most editors here expect that the article will be renamed by the time of the coronation or shortly afterwards. Rosbif73 (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I too expect that this article will be moved soon, but if some people want to wait until after the coronation that isn't a big deal. Given that this issue has generated some heat I think it would need to be dealt with by a formal move request. PatGallacher (talk) 13:43, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Infobox image suggestion

This is a photograph cropped from the Royal Family website of the Queen. This is merely a suggestion but I think this could be a decent image for the infobox photo post-accession perhaps. What do y’all think?

File:QueenCamilla2023.jpg

AKTC3 (talk) 06:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Are you sure this image is suitably licensed? The Royal Family website doesn't seem to be have any specific licensing for images, so it would appear that this is subject to the "© Crown Copyright" specified at the bottom of every page. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:14, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps so. I would apologize if it is unsuitable the copyright seems to be a tad ambiguous to me but it’s taken from an image that’s on here already, at least from what I’ve seen a few days ago. AKTC3 (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)