Jump to content

Talk:List of titles and honours of Queen Camilla

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Consort?

[edit]

is she styled HM The Queen or HM The Queen Consort? DenizD28 (talk) 17:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Legally, HM The Queen, officially, HM The Queen Consort until the palace drops consort at some point, as was the case in 1901 with Queen Alexandra. GandalfXLD (talk) 11:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, she isn't "officially" HM the Queen Consort; it is an unofficial styling by the Palace. Her legal title is her official one. Indeed, there is no such title as "Queen Consort".Vabadus91 (talk) 11:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this page should be protected and her title should not be edited on this page until buckingham palace styles Camilla as HM The Queen. DenizD28 (talk) 18:46, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When consort is dropped

[edit]

Can we agree that when consort is dropped it is merely removed like the following, obviously with the references added:

  • 17 July 1947 – 4 July 1973: Miss Camilla Rosemary Shand
  • 4 July 1973 – 3 March 1995: Mrs Andrew Parker Bowles
  • 3 March 1995 – 9 April 2005: Mrs Camilla Parker Bowles
  • 9 April 2005 – 8 September 2022: Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cornwall
    • In Scotland: 9 April 2005 – 8 September 2022: Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Rothesay
  • 8 September 2022 – present: Her Majesty The Queen

And then with a short explanation of when Consort was dropped, for instance: Camilla was styled as "The Queen Consort" from 8 September 2022 to 1 January 2023 for instance. Wishing you all a very Merry Christmas. GandalfXLD (talk) 10:11, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's impossible to decide now unless you have a crystal ball. We don't even know for sure that it will be dropped; the Palace has merely said it's a "question for the future". Rosbif73 (talk) 10:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we now have our proof. The renaming of the reading room to The Queen's Reading Room,[1] and now this article detailing that consort will most likely be dropped before or after the coronation.[2] Personally I think late March when the coronation invites are sent out. GandalfXLD (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to reopen this discussion (@GandalfXLD, @Rosbif73).
Since it appears that "Consort" will be dropped on or after Coronation day, should the list be written as:
  • 8 September 2022 – Present: Her Majesty The Queen[a]
or
  • 8 September 2022 – 6 May 2023: Her Majesty The Queen Consort
  • 6 May 2023 – Present: Her Majesty The Queen
My personal preference would be the former, as the latter could encourage the notion that her position (rather than just her title) has changed to be more like that of a Queen regnant since Elizabeth II was just "The Queen". Thoughts? Estar8806 (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
8 September 2022 to present is the preferable version as her position remains the same, her title has simply reverted to her legal one. GandalfXLD (talk) 16:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC) 16:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This list article is about her titles, not her positions. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we should keep the former with a footnote. Nothing has much changed from her position, but she’s just taken her legal title. She’s always been the Queen. So I support the former. AKTC3 (talk) 00:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This list article lists her titles and honours, not the positions she held. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And why is a footnote not applicable? She was still legally the Queen and there was no letters patent or official document that change her legal title upon the King’s accession. AKTC3 (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What she was "legally" is irrelevant, she didn't use the title until yesterday. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:58, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think legality is entirely relevant. There isn’t any letters patent, like most other titles mentioned in subsequent lists of titles and styles for other royals, and as wife of the King, according to common law, she has legally been Queen since her husband’s accession as every other queen consort. She was called Queen Consort to distinguish herself from the late Queen, but there was no change in position or status. Thus, having both titles is horribly redundant. I believe a footnote should suffice as the Queen Consort title is still mentioned as what she was called until the coronation. AKTC3 (talk) 04:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, we should follow the Duchess of Cornwall precedent. She was legally Princess of Wales since her marriage until her husband's accession, yet she did not use this title for similar reasons to why she was called Queen Consort, namely to distinguish herself from the late Princess. It's not horribly redundant at all, it's exactly what this list article is meant for and what readers will expect to see. A footnote would be wholly inadequate. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn’t think so. And yes, she was legally entitled to be known as Duchess of Cornwall because, according to common law, Charles is the Duke of Cornwall as heir to the throne; though the Queen used Duchess of Cornwall, she there wasn’t a legal document needed as it was one of her courtesy titles as wife of the Duke of Cornwall. There is no precedent or legal document of any kind of granted her the style Queen Consort. Having it as one of her styles suggests that there was some sort of legal backing. Having a footnote would be adequate to recognize that she was called The Queen Consort for a specific reason between the accession and coronation and that it wasn’t exactly a legal title as there is no precedent nor letters patent that supports it. Legally, she’s been the Queen since the accession based on an actual precedent. AKTC3 (talk) 03:14, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would think so. The point is, she was legally entitled to be known as Princess of Wales according to common law, as Charles was Prince of Wales, yet chose to use a courtesy title. I don't know why you're bringing the Queen into this, who never even held the title of Duchess of Cornwall and whose husband was the Duke of Edinburgh. There doesn't need to be a "precedent or legal document" to grant her the style. Buckingham Palace has the authority to style her and the government grants them that power. There's no reason whatsoever to believe they hadn't had legal backing to style her The Queen Consort. Reducing this to a footnote would be absurd. What she was legally is neither here nor there, just as it wasn't when she was legally Princess of Wales. The fact of the matter remains that she was officially The Queen Consort. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 00:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First off, I never referred to the late Queen (Elizabeth II), but I referred to the Queen (Camilla). Second off, she was legally entitled to be referred to as Duchess of Cornwall because it was one of her courtesy titles as exists as Charles was the Duke of Cornwall. There absolutely needs to be precedent or legal backing because there isn’t a single British royal title or style that exists that hasn’t been gazetted or created via letters patent. What does have absolute 100% complete legal backing is her title Her Majesty The Queen because she holds it by courtesy of her husband, His Majesty The King. This is backed by common law, a precedent set by every single legal wife of a British king. Reducing the mention of Queen Consort to a footnote would be absolutely adequate as it recognizes that she has always been legally Her Majesty The Queen, and only referred to as The Queen Consort for reason of distinction. AKTC3 (talk) 10:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You know full well that "the Queen" is still commonly understood to mean Elizabeth II. If you meant Camilla, just say Camilla. This argument about precedent and legal backing is ridiculous, she was officially referred to as The Queen Consort in Court Circular and that should be good enough. Reducing it to a footnote would be absolutely inadequate. This article isn't about Camilla's legal position, it's about her titles and honours. Nor is it true that she was only referred to as such for reason of distinction, since Court Circular continued to refer to her as such following the funeral right up until the coronation. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 11:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I use “the Queen” instead of “Camilla” because Her Majesty is the Queen, and I feel that the only means of getting used to that reference is by using it. If I was talking about the late Queen, I’d refer to her as such or as “Queen Elizabeth II” or such variants.
I don’t feel that legal backing ridiculous because titles and styles after granted through a legal system — that’s how it works. And the legal fact is that Camilla has been the Queen since Elizabeth II’s passing. And this article itself spells out why the whole “Queen Consort” style was ever used, so it indeed is true. I still fail to see where “Queen Consort” is gazetted was officially granted via letters patent like all other titles. AKTC3 (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I won't be able to understand you then, as I have never understood simply "the Queen" to mean Camilla, just as I wouldn't understand it to mean any other queen in the world. "The Queen" is still widely understood to refer to Elizabeth II and to ignore that fact is completely juvenile. As for a legal system, it's clear that the law grants Buckingham Palace the power to style members of the royal family. The legal fact of her position is, again, irrelevant, as this article is about her titles and honours, not the positions she's held and the legalities of them. There's nothing in British law that demands letters patent to create a title. The Queen, yes the Queen, announced the title "The Queen Consort" in February 2022, and the Gazettes would use the term to refer to Camilla in supplements on 12 September 2022. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 01:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it to be juvenile to still be referring to Queen Elizabeth II as “the Queen” because she is not “the Queen” anymore. Camilla is now the Queen, and it’s imperative that we get used to the reference as the late Queen is no longer living. It’s time to move on.
And again, every single British royal title was created via letters patent. A title is a legal reference, not a colloquial name. Until one can find the letters patent that supports the creation of the unique style, “Queen Consort,” I believe a footnote will suffice as it recognizes that it was what she was referred to, be the title of Queen was what she was entitled to as per common law since the King’s accession. AKTC3 (talk) 02:25, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can't seriously believe that. The Queen was known as such for 70 years, the entirety of both our lifetimes. She absolutely still is the Queen for many people, myself included. Camilla is not the monarch, she's just the wife of the king. Just because she's called the queen doesn't mean anything. For half a millennium, every English and British monarch styled themselves King or Queen of France, but that didn't make it so, even if they had letters patent proving that they held that title. It's not at all "imperative" and I'm sure even you know how ridiculous that sounds. She's either Queen Camilla or just Camilla, "moving on" has nothing to do with anything.
And again, that doesn't mean a royal title can't be used without it. The Queen in her authority created the title of Queen Consort in February 2022, to be used upon her death when Camilla becomes the king's wife. She was legally known as The Queen Consort, as evidenced by Court Circular, all Gazettes as well as Warrants Under the Royal Sign Manual from September until last week. To reduce this all to a footnote would be to present a blatant lie to readers. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 02:46, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, she was officially styled "The Queen Consort" until yesterday. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://royalreadingroom.uk/
  2. ^ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11792721/Camilla-officially-known-Queen-Queen-Consort-Kings-coronation.html

Bullet points

[edit]

This example illustrates just how cancerous those bullet points are. Which sources say that Camilla's style changed from "Her Majesty The Queen Consort" to "Her Majesty The Queen" on 6 May 2023? Which sources state that she adopted the style "Mrs Camilla Parker Bowles" on 3 March 1995? Which sources state that she was known as "Miss Camilla Rosemary Shand" from 17 July 1947 to 4 July 1973? Why do we need this absolute OR hogwash? Surtsicna (talk) 19:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 May 2023

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

The result of the move request was: Moved following main article. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of titles and honours of Camilla, Queen Consort → List of titles and honours of Queen Camilla – Given the overwhelming support for moving her article to "Queen Camilla" and the Royal Warrant dated 3 May 2023 taking effect 6 May 2023. Richiepip (talk) 14:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_titles_and_honours_of_Queen_Camilla&oldid=1204944446"