Jump to content

Talk:Queen Camilla/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 14

Requested move 9 October 2022

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved (for now). WP:CONSISTENT was repeatedly brought up, as it's a big part of our titling policy, so it is hard to overlook. And even if, as many many many people commented, CQC is not her "official" name, that isn't particularly relevant. Convincing arguments were made that we do not have to call her by her "official" name since there's no reason to pursue disambiguation here. And some arguments like "there's a big difference between those terms" and "but Elizabeth wanted..." don't carry much weight either.

But then... sources were provided that at least some sources do call her literally "Camilla, Queen Consort", and very few other sources were provided that call her the proposed title. With COMMONNAME a wash, consistency would win the day, but sources were absolutely not provided that QC is her common name. If (when?) that ever changes, I'm very confident this move will be successful. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 18:37, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Camilla, Queen Consort → Queen Camilla – There seems to be movement on that secondary sources are accepting Camilla as Her Majesty The Queen and dropping the “Consort” bit to reflect the convention for British Queen consorts. I open a move discussion to reflect the dropping of “Consort” in Her Majesty’s title. Also may discuss a move to “Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom” or the like. I do wish to also note that “Queen Camilla” is a more familiar name. Even if “Consort” wasn’t officially dropped, it wouldn’t be wrong for the article to be moved to “Queen Camilla,” since it’s still a personal style for a Queen consort. AKTC3 (talk) 03:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  • Support - as we don't use "Consort" in the article titles of the other current queens consort. See Spain's Letizia, Norway's Sonja, Sweden's Silvia, etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 03:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support for multiple reasons. First per consistency with past female British consorts, who have all been referred to by the same rank as their monarch husbands. Camilla is no different in this respect, per this source, which states As the wife of the King, Camilla is technically Her Majesty The Queen and entitled to be known as “The Queen”. Other sources, like Insider, have erroneously stated that "Queen" typically refers to the reigning monarch, while "Queen Consort" is the official title for the wife or companion of a monarch. This is not the case. Queen consort is a description of the type of queen and is not the title itself. Secondary sources have now started to refer to Camilla as Queen Camilla, like The Cosmoplitan, The Court Jewller, BBC, Town and Country, Hola! among others. Even The Times have stopped calling Camilla as Queen Consort, with their rational as Many will be pleased to know that The Times’ writers have been instructed to drop the term the Queen Consort further explaining that there is no historical precedent for this title (see the Yahoo article and The Times correspondent Jack Blackburn's Twitter thread here). Rose Wild of The Times further clarifies to "expect more of Queen Camilla" as this Queen Consort title is a description that was used to differentiate between Elizabeth II and Camilla during the official mourning period (see article here). Therefore, this page should be moved to Queen Camilla. cookie monster 755 05:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. She is the Queen. No other Queen has Consort in their article title. --GreatestrowereverTalk Page 06:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. I support the move to Queen Camilla due to the increasing number of secondary sources dropping consort in favour of Queen Camilla and the Queen. I am also in favour of dropping consort in all relevant areas and she be listed as either the Queen or HM The Queen. Precedent shows that consort will be dropped, as evidenced by Queen Alexandra in 1901, as referenced in The Times article I attached yesterday. I further agree with what CookieMonster755 and GoodDay above have written in support. Queen Consort is the position, not the title. GandalfXLD (talk) 07:00, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
    Precedent shows that consort will be dropped. Queen Alexandra provides a model for what you think is happening. “will be dropped” is the critical problem, it’s future tense. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per GoodDay and other comments. Randy Kryn (talk) 07:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. No matter whether she is properly called "Her Majesty the Queen Consort" or "Her Majesty the Queen" (all official announcements thus far have used the former), it is indisputably equally correct to refer to her as Queen Camilla as a simpler, more familiar shorthand, just like Elizabeth was formally "Her Majesty the Queen" and yet "Queen Elizabeth II" in common parlance. The UK's most reputable media are calling the subject Queen Camilla, including The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, and the BBC (which calls its entire section about her Queen Camilla). The present title is jarring; it is akin to referring to Queen Victoria (never her formal title) as Victoria, Queen. Surtsicna (talk) 07:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I am happy to support as soon as Royal Family website[1] refers to her as the Queen, not the Queen Consort as it currently does IlkkaP (talk) 09:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
    I wouldn’t say this is a question of her title of Queen Consort, but rather “Queen Camilla” is the more familiar title. Even if her title did not change, she’s still referred to as “Queen Camilla” because that’s the correct title for any queen. AKTC3 (talk) 10:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
    I'd say her familiar title to the people of Britain is just "Camilla" (or "Camilla Parker-Bowles"). However, obviously, Camilla alone would not be specific enough as it's a fairly common name.
    In a similar manner, the Prince of Wales is normally called "Prince William". His article is William, Prince of Wales. "Prince Andrew": Prince Andrew, Duke of York. "Princess Anne": Anne, Princess Royal. "Meghan Markle" (most common sources do refer to her like that): Meghan, Duchess of Sussex.
    I don't think what Wikipedians determine as "correct titles" should come into the play for the article title. For example Queen Elizabeth was still the "correct" title hy convention of Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon after the death of her husband. However, the article refers to her as "Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother", which is title given to her by the royal family to minimise confusion. For similar reasons, the royal family has given Camilla Parker-Bowles the title "The Queen Consort" because the term "Queen" has become synomymous over the last 70 years with Queen Elizabeth II. Jèrriais janne (talk) 13:11, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
    With regards to Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. I'm willing to bet that a good reason her article has that title instead of 'Queen Elizabeth' is to distuinguish her from her daughter, both in the media and on Wikipedia, not because it was the correct title. EmilySarah99 (talk) 07:49, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not yet, there is not yet a majority sources that do not introduce her as “Consort”. Even in the sources given above, there is a lot of “Queen Consort” introductory use. Notions that “she is queen” and other self-righteous blurts are violations of WP:SYNTH. Wikipedia must wait for the sources, not lead the sources. External sources must not cite Wikipedia for a change in trend, ahead of the trend. “Queen Consort Camilla” might persist, in contrary to the precedent of “Queen Adelaide” 120 years ago. Wikipedia can note that the transition of dropping the “consort” for Adelaide and Camilla were similar, but Wikipedia must not make the transition happen with a timing to be similar. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
How many sources call her "Camilla, Queen Consort"? It does not quite roll of the tongue, does it? Sources normally call her either "the Queen Consort" or "Queen Camilla". The present title is hardly ever used outside the world of Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 09:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Since 8 September 2022, most. Initially, overwhelming. Editors here believe it will change, and there is some evidence of change, but they are jumping the gun. No argument about rolling off the tongue, or the unusualness of the present title, but the point is that Wikipedia must not right wrongs, it’s all at WP:SYNTH.
Wait for more sources, for the trend at least to be undoubted, no logic mixed in, and avoid citogensis. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
You miss my point. Most do not call her "Camilla, Queen Consort". Most call her "the Queen Consort". I am not arguing that this is wrong or that it will change; I believe such arguments have little merit. My argument is that the proposed title is not incorrect, is commonly used by the most reputable media outlets, and reads better. Surtsicna (talk) 10:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Just as most sources called Charles "Prince Charles" or "the Prince of Wales", yet we had no qualms about his page being titled "Charles, Prince of Wales". Rosbif73 (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Prince Charles was the King’s common name, but he wasn’t the only Prince Charles. There isn’t any other Queen Camilla, so there would be no confusion. Queen Camilla is not ambiguous in the same way Prince Charles would be. AKTC3 (talk) 16:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
The fact that she is the only queen named Camilla is totally irrelevant (if there were another, we would simply have to decide whether this one is the primary topic or whether a dab page is needed). The majority of reliable sources still refer to her as queen consort and, until that changes, we should do the same. Rosbif73 (talk) 17:03, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
I answered merely to your concern over why there wasn’t any “qualm” over the King’s former article title. Sources are also calling her “Queen Consort Camilla” which is not at all the correct form. Even still she is the Queen Consort officially for now, she is still entitled to Queen [Name] as all other Queen consorts, regnant, dowagers, and regents. AKTC3 (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Queen Alexandra, not Queen Adelaide. Queen Adelaide was the wife of King William IV. As Surtsicna said, "Camilla, Queen Consort" is only really used on Wikipedia. GandalfXLD (talk) 10:12, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Quite right, I miswrote Adelaide for Alexandra. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Google "Camilla, Queen Consort" and you’ll see it being used elsewhere. But importantly, “consort” is used in introduction much more than not. Wikipedia should wait for that ratio to change, or for the official title to be changed. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Google tailors the results based on the search parameters that is inputted. If you search for "Camilla, Queen Consort", you will find articles that use it. GandalfXLD (talk) 11:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support She is legally Queen of the United Kingdom as her husband is King. All previous consorts have not had the term ‘Consort’ added on to their title. Fb26 (talk) 13:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose until the majority of reliable sources drop the "consort". A few sources have started doing so, sure, but the majority are still holding out – including the Royal Family website and official announcements. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Queen Consort is at present what she and/or they have chosen (also Elizabeth II said it months ago, so it can be no surprise to anyone). There is also a new book with Queen Consort [2] in title, and the BBC and Guardian are using Queen Consort, so it is commonname. Of course, there is precedent with Albert, Prince Consort, and consistency in form with the former title of this article, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall (she was married to the Prince of Wales at the time but we did not title, Princess of Wales, despite so-called, "Tradition"), it is also consistent in form with the article titles, Catherine, Princess of Wales and Anne, Princess Royal (it is standard, 'First Name, Who') One publication, The Times, has had people tweet about the future, but we don't go with Crystal or Speculation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
    FYI, the BBC has all the articles related to Camilla under "Queen Camilla". Albert cannot be brought into this, as he was not (obviously) a queen consort. And Camilla's page was at "Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall" because all sources refrained from referring to her as the Princess of Wales per her wishes. That is not the case currently. She is a queen consort in the same way Queen Letizia of Spain, Queen Rania of Jordan, Queen Mathilde of Belgium, Queen Maxima of the Netherlands, Queen Sonja of Norway, and Queen Silvia of Sweden are queens consort. Keivan.fTalk 04:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
    In the actual Reliable Sources, the news articles, the BBC always refers to her as Queen Consort far outnumbering any other use anywhere else which makes it Commonname. She has chosen Queen Consort, and most sources follow along. Just like she chose Duchess of Cornwall and most follow along. ¨Prince Consort¨ is such an obvious precedent for ¨Queen Consort¨ that anyone of any sense can see it immediately. She is HM Queen Consort (a perfectly understandable English phrase) because that is what she and the palace say on the Royal Website. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
    We do not necessarily adhere to what royal courts call the royal family members. For example, Catherine and Meghan are The Princess of Wales and The Duchess of Sussex (not Catherine, Princess of Wales and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex), while Letizia, Maxima, Mathilde, etc. are simply The Queen. It doesn't really matter what Camilla's official title is. It could be either The Queen or The Queen Consort. She would still be entitled to be known as Queen Camilla, just as Albert, Prince Consort was rightly referred to as Prince Albert. Keivan.fTalk 04:44, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
    You don't seem to be paying attention, or are deliberately repeating irrelevant talking points. Most RS have no difficulty, whatsoever, referring to her as Queen Consort, consistent with what the Palace, and basic human decency to call a living person what they say to call them. And Albert's article is at Albert, Prince Consort, like hers is at Queen Consort, perfectly consistent (and the article titles Catherine, Princess of Wales, Anne, Princess Royal, etc. are further consistent in form with the article title ´Camilla, Queen Consort´). There is no reason to whatsoever to move from the commonname Queen Consort, especially for a such a silly reason like 70 or 130 years years ago other people did something else (we are not dealing with coverage from 70 or 130 years ago, we are dealing with a living person, now). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:34, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
    You're the one who's bringing up completely irrelevant articles, including the articles on Catherine and Anne. They are not royal consorts, and the naming method set up at WP:NCROY for wives of kings does not apply to them. And FYI, precedence matters per WP:TITLECON. A man bearing the title "Prince Consort" cannot be compared to a woman who is either "Queen" or "Queen Consort". It's like comparing apples and oranges. Historically a woman married to a British king has been entitled to be known as "Queen [Name]". And to suggest that 'Queen Camilla' is not common is pure nonsense. For example, this article from People 1 which was published yesterday refers to her as Queen Camilla. So your argument that the name is either uncommon or incorrect is simply void. Keivan.fTalk 21:24, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
    No. Commonname is not about what some sources do, it is about what the plurality of RS do, today, and how often they do it. The BBC has, "Coronation on 6 May for King Charles and Camilla, Queen Consort" just in the last 24 hours. And no, WP:CONSORTS does not require that kind of straight jacket, it says go with their "their present name and title", she and the palace say her present name and title is Camilla and Queen Consort which is readily followed in a plethora of RS. The article title consistency of 'Name, [royal]', including, 'Name, _____ Consort', is already established. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
    WP:COMMONNAME is not about going through sources and picking a name that is used the most by them, it is about choosing a 'recognizable' name that is common as well. 'Queen Camilla' would not render a reader's ability to identify the subject. With regards to the issue of sources using one name more than the other, I think I need to remind everyone that Diana is constantly referred to as Princess Diana, Catherine as Kate Middleton, and Meghan as Meghan Markle, yet we have chosen to select titles that are closer to their actual names/titles, but also meet the WP:COMMONNAME and WP:TITLECON criteria. 'Queen Camilla' is common and used in sources; it is historically correct, and it is consistent with every single article on the living queens consort at the moment. I don't know why we should make an isolated case out of Camilla. Keivan.fTalk 00:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
    That's exactly what WP:COMMONNAME is about. To cite that policy, Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources). Rosbif73 (talk) 06:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
    Indeed, Keivenf is quite obviously wrong about guidelines, as with the rest. But we should move on (and trust the closer to know the actual Wikipedia guidelines) -- as has been made clear, there is no good reason for Keivinf to keep commenting over and over again under my ivote, (see also, WP:BLUDGEON). Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
    I'm not wrong about anything. First of all, we don't always pick the name mostly used by some online sources, otherwise Diana, Princess of Wales; Catherine, Princess of Wales; Meghan, Duchess of Sussex; and Sarah, Duchess of York would be at Princess Diana, Princess Kate or Kate Middletion, Meghan Markle, and Sarah Ferguson. It's just amazing how you quote a part of the policy that fits your narrative. WP:AT is about neutrality, distinguishability, and recognizability (those three words are literally in the lede), and in fact WP:COMMONNAME is listed under a section titled Use commonly recognizable names. No one here could argue against what I stated earlier: 'Queen Camilla' is a recognizable name, it has been used by multiple sources, and it has historical precedence behind it. Also, FYI Alanscottwalker, WP:BLUDGEON is about contradicting every viewpoint that is different from one's own view and replying to many "!votes" or comments. I have only engaged in a conversation with three or four people here, one being you. It was your inclusion of the BBC as a basis for your argument which prompted me to respond. And this is an open discussion. You should expect to be challenged on your viewpoints, as contrary to what some people might think, this is not a voting contest. Keivan.fTalk 05:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak Support, upgrade to full Support after coronation Legally her status is the same as Queens Elizabeth (1936-1952) Mary (1910-1936) Alexandra (1901-1910) and others back through history. It is also what Diana's status would have been had both she and her marriage to Charles survived - which makes a nonsense of the idea that this is being done to appease Diana's fans á la Camilla not using the title Princess of Wales despite her being entitled and thus listed on the Wikipedia article for said title. Matters will be emphasised once Camilla is crowned Queen Camilla (it would be EXTRAORDINARY for her to be called "Queen Consort" at the coronation ceremony.) At the moment it is clear that she is only being called Queen Consort in order to disambiguate from the late Queen Elizabeth II and perhaps to emphasise that she is not inheriting her late mother in law's monarchic powers which go solely to Charles, only said mother in law's title as The Queen.Romomusicfan (talk) 18:37, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
    I wholeheartedly agree on this. Upgrading after the coronation. TomAsker (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose – reliable sources are still sticking to the "Queen consort" formulation, at least for now. The Times may have changed its guidance, but this hasn't been followed through by all British publications yet. (Of course, this is probably all a matter of time at this stage, which is why I don't strongly oppose the move – but it does appear premature). – QueenofBithynia (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per all arguments above. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support as per arguments made by CookieMonster755 and GoodDay above. Sanctaria (talk) 21:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Sources have already started using "Queen Camilla", and on Wikipedia we just go with whatever is common or familiar, but not necessarily official. Though I should point out that per English common law her status is the same as Queen Elizabeth, Queen Mary, Queen Alexandra, Queen Adelaide, etc, none of whom were known as "Queen Consort" but simply "The Queen". The suggested name also meets the criteria set up by WP:NCROY, as for current or living queens we use the "Queen [Name] of [Country]" format (see Queen Letizia of Spain, Queen Máxima of the Netherlands, Queen Rania of Jordan, Queen Silvia of Sweden, Queen Sonja of Norway, Queen Mathilde of Belgium, etc.), though in this case the name of the country should be dropped as she's queen consort in multiple countries. Keivan.fTalk 23:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. Although wives of kings are queens consort rather than queens regnant (sovereigns like Queen Elizabeth II) their titles are always Queen Firstname. There is no precedent for a title of Queen Consort in the United Kingdom, Great Britain, England or Scotland. Calling her Queen Consort is just pandering to the voices who don't like the idea that she is what she is. Because of those voices she was styled Duchess of Cornwall although she was legally Princess of Wales. If anyone can find an edict from the Palace that says she should be styled Queen Consort, that's fine, but there is isn't one.TomboPC (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
    https://www.royal.uk/king-and-queen-consort Meets the definition of “edict” that says she is styled “Queen Consort”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
    No, that's not an edict, that's just a website. An edict would mean some sort of royal proclamation by the King stating that the constitutional status of Camilla is different from all the other Queens that have been married to Kings going back through time.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
    No, it’s not just a website. It’s owned by the king, it declares the king’s declaration on his wife’s style, and the adopted style of his wife the queen is within their prerogative. Camilla’s “constitutional status” is a triviality. The officialness of the declaration makes Camilla different to prior queen consorts, except for Queen Alexandra for a time. For how long? That’s WP:CRYSTAL. Collecting precedent to draw a conclusion, that’s WP:SYNTH. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
    I'll grant it's quite a relevant website but it's hardly letters patent TomboPC (talk) 13:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
    This is not about her title. The article lead refers to her as Queen of the United Kingdom.
    It is about the article title. The precedent for article titles for British Queens consort in the past are: Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, Mary of Teck, Alexandra of Denmark, Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen, Caroline of Brunswick etc. Not a single one anywhere refers to the Queen consort as Queen x. Jèrriais janne (talk) 13:17, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. "Queen Consort" is what she is most commonly referred to as. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose it's matter of time. Many resources will describe/mention her as "Queen Camilla" someday. Let's wait until then. For now, I support "Camilla, Queen Consort" as WP:COMMONNAME. -- 125.178.79.199 (talk) 03:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment why are we not consistent and make her article title Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom? Look at other current European royal consorts' articles on Wiki: Queen Letizia of Spain, Queen Mathilde of Belgium, Queen Silvia of Sweden, Queen Máxima of the Netherlands, Queen Sonja of Norway. Why don't we make it match these? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
For the same reason that we don't title her husband's article Charles III of the United Kingdom. Prominent monarchs of English-speaking countries simply don't require that type of disambiguation in their titles on the English Wikipedia. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
King Charles and Queen Camilla aren't just King and Queen of the United Kingdom, but 14 other Commonwealth Realms as well, which is why on Wikipedia it's just Charles III and if this passes, Queen Camilla. GandalfXLD (talk) 08:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
For better or for worse, the English Wikipedia is decidedly Anglocentric.
There's a simpler reason for this - the UK/Commonwealth monarchy is the only monarchy with any substantial body of English-speaking subjects. Therefore, "Queen" in any other monarchy is a translation of that person's title, not their actual title. Romomusicfan (talk) 08:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
If you go to sv:Drottning Silvia, Queen Silvia of Sweden, you’ll see that the Swedish Wikipedia is Swedish-centric. For better for for worse. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Look at es:Letizia Ortiz?
It begins: “Letizia Ortiz Rocasolano (Oviedo, 15 de septiembre de 1972) es la reina consorte de España …” SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:39, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
She is Queen consort of 14 countries. Her husband is referred to as Charles III, not "Charles III of the United Kingdom". Her mother-in-law is referred to as Elizabeth II, not "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom". Jèrriais janne (talk) 13:20, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support: The usage is certainly beginning to shift and although I would not necessarily have nominated for the change just yet myself, I think her WP:COMMONNAME has now tipped over to just Queen Camilla and, critically, we generally seem to agree it is bound to continue going that way. No point in perpetually discussing this when there seems to be consensus about the direction of travel and there has been a clear shift in the sources. Even if some might find moving the page now a little premature, I would argue this is a case where WP:BURO applies. We should just do it now and move on to more productive things; we all seem to agree we will end up doing it eventually and there is now clear reasons why. I am, strongly opposed to "Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom" as suggested by Willthacheer for the same reasons that Rreagan007 and Gandalf gave; it would exclude the other realms and she needs not disambiguation in the English Wikipedia. Jtrrs0 (talk) 09:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. I supported it last time for consistency with other queen consorts, and it seems general usage is now shifting that way too. See [3] for some discussion on the matter.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
    See that source indeed!
    It is not evidence for the proposed as COMMONNAME, but encourages WP:SYNTH.
    “So, when will we get to the bottom of all this? Basically, it all boils down to what King Charles III decides during his coronation, which is scheduled to take place at some point next year.” SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
    It doesn't matter what 'official' title they choose for her. It could be "The Queen" or "The Queen Consort". In either case, she is entitled to be known as Queen Camilla, just like any other queen. Keivan.fTalk 03:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
    How do you know this? How is that not WP:SYNTH? What source says that Camilla is like every other queen? SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:16, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
    What source is there to say that she is *unlike* every other queen? None of the other Queen consorts have ever had "Consort" as part of their official title. It would be EXTRAORDINARY for her to be actually called that at the coronation. It's one thing for the palace to disambiguate her in official statements from the recently deceased person who has been called "The Queen" for nearly a lifetime now. It's quite another thing to invent a brand new title for the new Queen to be called all her reign instead of just The Queen or Queen Camilla.Romomusicfan (talk) 08:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
    What source? How about https://www.royal.uk/queen-consort? This queen has “Consort” as part of her official title, doesn’t that make her *unlike* other queens? The unusual title (not brand new) was made up by them, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia should not be making up rules to ignore the official title and the preponderance of reliable sources that still repeat it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
    That website also has a page called https://www.royal.uk/queen-elizabeth which contains multiple references to Elizabeth II as "The Queen". As I said, adding on "... Consort" with a capital C is just disambiguation, not evidence of any different status for this particular Queen consort. Romomusicfan (talk) 10:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
    First of all, as I repeated earlier we do not necessarily adhere to what royal courts call the royal family members. Catherine and Meghan are The Princess of Wales and The Duchess of Sussex, not Catherine, Princess of Wales and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, while Letizia, Maxima, Mathilde, etc. are simply The Queen. Camilla's title could be either The Queen or The Queen Consort. She would still be entitled to be known as Queen Camilla, just as Albert, Prince Consort was rightly referred to as Prince Albert. And there's such thing as English common law, by which Camilla's status and rank is similar to all the other previous queens consort, including Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, Queen Mary, Queen Alexandra, etc. Keivan.fTalk 04:47, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. She is Queen of the United Kingdom as her husband is King of the United Kingdom.Yeungkahchun (talk) 04:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Diana must be rolling in her grave. Shwcz (talk) 11:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
So? She'll already be rolling in the grave over Charles being King (she wanted the crown to skip him and go straight to William with Andrew as Regent.) Diana would be queen consort too if she and her marriage had both survived. Camilla didn't use the title "Princess of Wales" although entitled to do so, and by the middle of the 21st century the entire senior royal family will be either descended from Diana or married to someone who is. By the end of the century, this will extend to the whole Royal family so far as the term is meaningful. Surely that is enough compensation for her, to be Banquo to Camilla's Macbeth - "Thou shall have queens though thou be none."
(To the rest of you, I know I'm indulging this individual, but what the heck I feel like arguing this.)Romomusicfan (talk) 13:00, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Queen Sonja is the Queen Consort of Norway as she is the wife of the King in the same way Camilla is the Queen Consort of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms. Both individuals can be referred to as Queen Camilla or Queen Sonja. The only difference been is one is styled and known as Her Majesty the Queen and the Other is styled and known as Her Majesty the Queen Consort. Both Camilla and Sonja are in effectively and legally are in the same position. Camilla is in effectively and legally in the same position as other Queen Consorts such as Queen Maxima of the Netherlands, Queen Letiza of Spain, Queen Mathilde of Belgium, Queen Silvia of Sweden, Queen Rania of Jordan and a few others including Queen Sonja of Norway. King4852 (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Support Camilla's legal title would be "Her Majesty the Queen" the addition of "Consort" is purely to help with confusion about the late Queen. I would ideally support the name "Camilla, Queen of the United Kingdom", but I would fully welcome "Queen Camilla". WiltedXXVI (talk) 11:51, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
The problem is that the King and Queen aren't just king and queen of the United Kingdom, but of 14 other realms as well. I think Queen Camilla is a good middle ground. GandalfXLD (talk) 16:51, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support The insistence on referring to Camilla as a "queen consort" is pedantic and inconsistent with the way every other British consort has been addressed. Zacwill (talk) 16:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose No compelling reason given to re-litigating the lengthy move request that closed less than a month ago. As noted above, the royal family website continues to name Camilla as Queen Consort, and secondary sources from the last few days continue to unanimously favour this title as well: [6] [7] [8] [9]. The proposer offers no evidence for secondary sources having shifted away from "Queen Consort". Per the closure of the last remove request, "if consensus emerges that 'consort' should not be used, [the page] should probably moved to Queen Camilla"; it is clear from this discussion that that has not ocurred. U-Mos (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Furthermore, just noticed the discussion and source around her title in the "Titles and styles" section of the article, which sets out clearly - and with good secondary evidence - that she is currently known as Queen Consort. There is no justification for the article title to contradict this clarity. U-Mos (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
I've just seen an article from the Telegraph stating that consort will be phased out between now and the coronation.[1] GandalfXLD (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
The sources you listed refer to her as 'Camilla', 'The Queen Consort', or 'Camilla, The Queen Consort'. There are other sources that refer to her as 'Queen Camilla' (examples have already been given including the BBC's listing of articles related to her, People, etc.). The combination 'Camilla, Queen Consort' is rarely used directly in any of the sources when mentioning her. And with regards to historical precedence, I looked up The London Gazette and in this piece published in 1901, it states we offer our deepest and sincere sympathy with Your Majesty for the grievous loss which Your Majesty and the Queen Consort have, in common with the Nation, sustained in the demise of the late greatly beloved and lamented Queen…. The "Queen Consort" clearly refers to Queen Alexandra, and this is a clear attempt to distinguish her from her then-recently demised mother-in-law, Queen Victoria. Similarly Queen Mary is referred to as Queen Consort here. Both these women were referred to as Queen Alexandra and Queen Mary during their tenure as queens consort and later as queen mothers. Thus, no matter whether Camila is a queen consort or a dowager queen, she could be rightly referred to as Queen Camilla. Keivan.fTalk 22:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Just to be clear, the sources I listed above were found by searching for the publication name and "Camilla" only, and they are the first Google news results for each publication. U-Mos (talk) 22:46, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Indeed, though results can vary depending on what exactly we're looking for. And I never said Queen Consort was uncommon. It's that 'Queen Camilla' is also recognizable and common, and consistent with the titles of articles on other royal consorts (WP:TITLECON). Keivan.fTalk 00:41, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment. For anyone interested I thought this article is pertinent to the conversation. I'm linking an artcle from the Telegraph which states that consort will be phased out between now and the coronation to bring Queen Camilla in line with prior Queen Consorts. I have also linked it to a reply above.[2] GandalfXLD (talk) 21:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
    “Royal aides” giving anonymous interviews about their expectations? That is an unworthy source to add to the discussion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
    An interesting article, that could maybe be used in the section I refer to above, but still specifically describes any change as an expectation or prediction. Until that comes to pass, the article is at the correct title. WP:CRYSTALBALL. U-Mos (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose While I personally strongly prefer Queen Camilla to Camilla, Queen Consort my opinion is not what matters here. The royal family website [10] consistently refers to Camilla as the Queen Consort and never as Queen Camilla. To me that source--and not the personal opinion of anyone else including myself--should be considered definitive. Dash77 (talk) 23:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Secondary sources, take priority over a primary source. GoodDay (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Although others support the proposed move, you are the only one so far (despite your previous use of the royal 'we') in this thread to base your view on secondary sources taking precedence over primary sources, so I'd ask you to defend your personal position a bit more. In particular your personal position seems inconsistent with WP:PRIMARYCARE, which does seem to support the use of the primary source in this situation: An article about a person: The person's autobiography, own website, or a page about the person on an employer's or publisher's website...can normally be used for non-controversial facts about the person. In this case the royal family website [11] is in fact the employer, so this situation is well covered by WP:PRIMARYCARE and appears to justify my personal position. Dash77 (talk) 23:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
I think people are assuming that moving the page to 'Queen Camilla' would imply that she's a queen regnant or is not a queen consort. Well, nobody denied that she's the Queen Consort, in fact the formal form of her title (either The Queen or The Queen Consort) does not matter because she's equally entitled to be known as Queen Camilla. Queen Alexandra and Queen Mary were also queens consort and were referred to as "Queen Consort" especially in the period after their husbands' ascension (I already gave The London Gazette links as an example), but they have always been equally known as Queen Alexandra and Queen Mary. In other words, having the page at Queen Camilla does 'not' violate any conventions, so to speak. Keivan.fTalk 00:48, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Comment The current support to oppose ratio is 28 For and 14 Against. Just thought I'd share. WiltedXXVI (talk) 20:40, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia is WP:NOTADEMOCRACY. WP:CONSENSUS is determined not by counting !votes, but by evaluating arguments with respect to how well grounded they are in applicable policy and guidelines. Consistency and some of the other WP:CRITERIA are especially useful for cases where COMMONNAME per usage does not give an obvious answer. Here it does, and it’s the current title. Just thought I’d share. —В²C ☎ 00:10, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, AND in line with all british Consorts' wikipedia page (with the Exception of The Queen Mother) to the common man, when you think of "The Queen" you think of Elizabeth II. not Camilla. when you think about the "Queen Consort" you immediately think of Camilla. per the Royal Family's own website. her Title is "HM the Queen Consort". nowhere does it states its to differentiate from Elizabeth II. that's pure assumption made by our American editors. King Charles said in his first speech as King "“In recognition of her own loyal public service since our marriage 17 years ago, she becomes my Queen Consort" all Female British consorts (with the exception of The Queen Mother for obvious reasons) dont have the title of "queen" in their name on their wikipedia page. if you're going to change this page to include it, then you might as well change all the other ones too. examples have been made again by our american editors that European consorts have "Queen [name] [name of country]" as their wikipedia page. all of them abide to WP:COMMONNAME — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlesViBritannia (talk • contribs) 17:09, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
    Queen Consort is the position, not the title. The title is Her Majesty The Queen, The Queen and Queen Camilla. Consort is merely to differentiate from Her late Majesty and will be dropped by the time of the coronation as written by the Telegraph, a highly respected British publication and by subsequent British publications. Queen isn't mentioned in prior Queen Consorts Wikipedia names as deceased persons are listed by their maiden names (Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, Mary of Teck, Alexandra of Denmark). You can't have United Kingdom in the name as King Charles and Queen Camilla aren't just King and Queen of the United Kingdom, but of 14 other Commonwealth Realms too. GandalfXLD (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
    will be dropped by the time of the coronation as written by the Telegraph - that's an argument that we should rename the article after the coronation, not that we should rename it now. and by subsequent British publications is also a WP:CRYSTAL argument. BilledMammal (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
    There is also the precedent set by Queen Alexandra in 1901 where she was known as the Queen Consort after the death of her mother-in-law Queen Victoria. Consort too was dropped. GandalfXLD (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
    Trying to apply historical precedent to a current situation is known in wiki policy terms as WP:SYNTH. Trying to guess when that precedent might apply to the current situation is WP:CRYSTAL. Neither is acceptable. Rosbif73 (talk) 21:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
    Queen Consort is in fact her current title. TFD (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose as it is literally not her royal title. Additionally, previous monarchs and people in monarchal positions have not had their article titles beginning with "Queen" or "King". Such examples of this are Elizabeth II and Charles III, so it would not make sense to name this article "Queen Camilla". - Therealscorp1an (talk) 01:05, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per the above. She is not 'Queen Camilla', and I agree with the good point raised above by Therealscorp1an that with Charles III etc., the article title is not 'King Charles'. It wouldn't make sense and it wouldn't be consistent to change the article title to 'Queen Camilla'. Compusolus (talk) 04:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Both the oppose arguments claiming that she is not "Queen Camilla" and the support arguments claiming that she is actually "HM the Queen" should be disregarded on the basis of factual inaccuracy. She is formally styled "HM the Queen Consort", which does not make calling her "Queen Camilla" any less correct. The most reputable of sources use both interchangeably. As for the article about her husband, the title analogous to the present title of this article would be Charles III, King. Surtsicna (talk) 06:17, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree with this. She is the queen (legally), it's therefore reasonable to call her "Queen Camilla" (but in practice this isn't used formally), and is formally styled "HM the Queen Consort". To me it looks like most secondary sources call her the Queen Consort on first mention, and it varies on second mention. Charlie A. (talk) 15:35, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with her formal title either. And since when do we go with formal titles? For all that I know Queen Letizia of Spain's formal title is "Her Majesty The Queen" (Su Majestad la Reina). Camilla's title at the moment is "Her Majesty The Queen Consort", but as you said it yourself that doesn't make "Queen Camilla" an incorrect term; whether she drops the "Consort" or not is irrelevant. Keivan.fTalk 18:39, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether you are agreeing or disagreeing with me...? Charlie A. (talk) 11:35, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
What does Charles' page have to do with this? Monarchs use regnal numbers which indicates that they are sovereigns, thus there's no need to include "King" or "Queen" in their page titles as it would be redundant. That is not the case for queens consort, as the only thing that indicates they are queens is via the inclusion of that word at the beginning of their name (examples: Queen Letizia of Spain who is the wife of Felipe VI, Queen Silvia of Sweden who is the wife of Carl XVI Gustaf, etc.) And as I stated earlier, the argument that 'Queen Camilla' is inaccurate is not plausible. Her status as queen consort is no different than Letizia or Silvia's as the wives of kings, and as Surtsicna mentioned the way this page is currently titled is very awkward and goes against WP:TITLECON when pages on other consorts are considered. Keivan.fTalk 07:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Oppose until most secondary sources (and/or the court circular, cf WP:PRIMARYCARE) drop the "Consort" at first mention. Wikipedia should follow, not lead. Charlie A. (talk) 15:32, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Oppose The ONLY relevant factor here is usage in reliable sources. I don’t see evidence of that usage switching to “Queen Camilla” being more common. The gold standard source, The NY Times, uses “King George and Camilla, the queen consort”, for example. I urge the closer to discount the nom and support here for ignoring COMMONNAME. —В²C ☎ 23:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
The NY Times is an American publication so I don't why we should give preference to it when the subject is obviously British. Americans are notorious for getting royal titles and names wrong. Not to mention that the article's title (if indeed that's how it was written) is pointing out to her 'position' as the queen consort, thus the lower case letters otherwise it would have been "Camilla, Queen Consort" or "Camilla, the Queen Consort". And WP:COMMMONNAME is not the only policy when it comes to naming pages, and there's no indication that "Queen Camilla" is uncommon. Keivan.fTalk 00:20, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
We give the NYT weight because of their reputation to get it right, and that applies to titles of English royalty. The NYT is a very reliable source for reflecting common English usage. But there no reason to rely solely on it. Consider usage in the London Times as well[13]. And yes, COMMONNAME is not the only policy, but it’s the main one by which almost all WP titles are determined. For a small minority of titles there is no clear most common name and so other policies come into play, but that’s not the case here. “Queen Camilla” is not even common, much less most common. —В²C ☎ 05:54, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Oppose for the immediately preceding above, above, above, above, and above reasoning. Omnibus (talk) 13:22, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Camilla's formal title is "Queen Consort," and it is incorrect to call her Queen Camilla just as it is incorrect to call Catherine, Princess of Wales "Princess Catherine." According to The Telegraph, Charles wants to change this so she will become Queen Camilla.[14] What may confuse editors is that "Queen Consort" is rarely used as a title, although "Prince Consort" is. But the last two princes consort, Albert and Philip, were foreign princes by birth and created princes of the the UK. So they were correctly called Prince Albert and Prince Philip. TFD (talk) 16:01, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
    It isn't incorrect to call her Queen Camilla. Queen Consort is the position, not the title. From his accession Her Majesty has been Queen Camilla, like all prior Queen Consorts. Your argument makes zero sense. GandalfXLD (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
It can be both a title and a position. See the article in The Telegraph: "Former consorts in modern history, including the Queen Mother, have been called by the simpler title of Queen plus their Christian name....An exception has so far been made for Camilla." In order for Wikipedia articles to refer to someone by a title, there should be some evidence it is correct. Note btw that Camilla was previously Princess of Wales, but never referred to as such. Princes Andrew and Harry are HRHs, but do not use the titles. Incidentally, royal titles do not have to make sense, otherwise there might not be any. Essentially, they are whatever the King says they are. TFD (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Elizabeth II said she would like Camilla to be queen consort. That describes her position, not her title. "Queen Consort" has never been a title. "Queen Consort Camilla" is a media invention which Wikipedia should not promote. This woman is Queen Camilla. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
    The question here is not what is her title, but what is she most commonly called in reliable sources. For reasons that are irrelevant to us, it ain’t “Queen Camilla”. —В²C ☎ 05:57, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Nearly every reliable source refers to her as "Camilla, Queen Consort" and as such that is the appropriate title. It is not for Wikipedians to determine what the Queen consort should be refered to as, but reliable sources. I present he following: [15](The National Portrait Gallery); [16](the BBC); [17](YouGov); [18](The Telegraph); [19](The Guardian). A number of sources have reported that 'Consort' will be quietly dropped in due course, but note the use of the future tense: "Palace TO drop". UNTIL this happens officially, Wikipedia should follow the driving convention. https://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/reports/a41553508/camilla-queen-title/; https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/10/14/palace-quietly-drop-consort-queen-camillas-title/. Jèrriais janne (talk) 12:59, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - none of the reliable sources in the UK media are referring to her as Queen Camilla. The Royal Family website, which is surely the definitive source, refers to her clearly, consistently, and unambiguously as "HM The Queen Consort" (with capital C, so a title not just a description) - HIGHFIELDS (TALK • UPLOADS) 14:50, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
    Queen Consort is most definitely not a title. It's a position, the same position held by every other Queen Consort in British history. And while the Palace is currently adding consort it will be dropped by the coronation, following the precedent set in 1901 by Queen Alexandra after the death of Queen Victoria. GandalfXLD (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong Support The points in favour have already been made; I need not repeat them. Snowgrouse (talk) 18:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
    What about addressing the counterpoints which annihilated the points in favor? —В²C ☎ 04:41, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
    What are the counterpoints that are against renaming this article to Queen Camilla?
    Sincerely, Thenewright22 (talk) 07:00, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
    The main one is the fact that most reliable sources continue to refer to her as queen consort, and thus "Queen Camilla" is not yet the WP:COMMONNAME. There are sources saying that the "consort" will be dropped in the future, probably by the time of the coronation, but we shouldn't take those into account yet in accordance with WP:CRYSTAL. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:34, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
    Ok then, I will make my statement on the naming debate:
  • Oppose. I agree with Highfields and @GandalfXLD, since from what I see, most sources continue to refer to Camilla as the Queen Consort. Sincerely, Thenewright22 (talk) 10:27, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. - My comment on the move closed less than 1 month before this started - this is too soon both procedurally and with regards to source changes to establish a different precedent - The Royal household and the press are [largely] using Queen consort, and Camilla has previously expressed opinion against being called Queen. I don't think therefore there is a strong case for Queen Camilla, convention is not a strong argument c.f. COMMONNAME and BLP matters - remember this is a living person, not a deceased Queen. |→ Spaully ~talk~ 
  • Strong Oppose - Camilla is the Queen Consort, not the Queen. There's a big difference between those terms. "Consort" is still heavily used with her name. – Handoto (talk) 16:08, 24 October 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.

I disagree with the closing decision, but that's alright. Eventually, the page will be moved to Queen Camilla. GoodDay (talk) 02:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

user:GoodDay Other non reighning queens or consorts of the UK are reffered to as Mary of Teck or Alexandra of Denmark or Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen. I do realise that they are all dead and that, apart from Camilla, there hasn't been a living queen-consort in the times that Wikipedia existed. But I do agree that the consort thing has no antecedents in the past styles and will have to go eventually. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Well the media keeps calling her the "Queen Consort" and her official website continues to call her the "Queen Consort", so that title might stick around. Just because something is unprecedented doesn't mean that it can't happen. Camilla never used the title "Princess of Wales", which was unprecedented at the time. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
There is a definite possibility that in English, the use of the unqualified courtesy title “Queen” for a king’s consort is now a thing of the past, despite wishes for continuity of tradition. Either way, Wikipedia must be silent on WP:CRYSTAL matters and wait to follow quality sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:33, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree that we will just have to wait and see how English-language usage evolves over time. And now that we live in an age that highly values gender equality, one might wonder why Camilla should be called "Queen" if Prince Phillip was never called "King" or even "King Consort". Hopefully with all the coverage the King and Queen (Consort) get during the coronation next year, things will become more clear. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/10/14/palace-quietly-drop-consort-queen-camillas-title/
  2. ^ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/10/14/palace-quietly-drop-consort-queen-camillas-title/

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 November 2022

Change Queen of the United Kingdom to Queen consort of the United Kingdom 188.25.103.17 (talk) 17:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:22, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The Queen's cypher.

The palace have released the cypher of The Queen, CR, Camilla Regina, under what appears to be a version of the Queen Mother's Crown. I've added two links showing both the colourised and black and white versions. [1][2] GandalfXLD (talk) 06:37, 8 November 2022

References

  1. ^ https://twitter.com/CameronDLWalker/status/1589739477445971968?t=yJdRd_Z7BtkqArLWRgKbWQ&s=19
  2. ^ https://twitter.com/RE_DailyMail/status/1589744793441009664?t=ExFB692shC8HfUnaciR96w&s=19

Queen Camilla Cypher

Hello,

Today the Royal Family of the United Kingdom officially released the Royal Cypher of Queen Camilla, Queen Consort. I suggest it be put onto her Wikipedia article.

File:Queen Camilla Cypher.png BillClinternet (talk) 22:02, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

here here WiltedXXVI (talk) 12:57, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Tampongate

Is this already covered? 88.97.108.45 (talk) 22:42, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes. See Camilla, Queen Consort#Relationship with Charles. Keivan.fTalk 01:10, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Signature

The new signature of the Queen Consort has been released, "Camilla R". A picture of it is on the daily mail site, https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11344693/King-sends-telegrams-reign-people-celebrating-100th-birthdays.html. Jjfun3695 (talk) 03:31, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I see they are still using the title "Queen Consort" for her. It seems to be sticking. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:01, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Other Queens have the same in their Signature such as Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, Queen Mary, Queen Elizabeth II and other Queens of the United Kingdom. King4852 (talk) 11:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Is the signature section in her infobox going to be changed to reflect her new signature? Jjfun3695 (talk) 13:46, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Doubtful. Daily Mail is not generally considered reliable. If some other reliable source exists, we can use that. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Daily Mail may not be a reliable source. Yahoo News is however. https://uk.news.yahoo.com/100-old-receives-card-king-105500998.html?guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAC7rm-YdUZoUizX5ovqP6R2hQRF2ZV-boRGPoVAhm07dP2GKsGByxg9r8H9gdjqbwn_JlwR0QaEcMKkj1_VjB6BjuO2ejL0Xwzse9UmfgkJCf8o_NGn912YTfXUjdkaxR8qQPCDrbKXbwD5OlRa4KQPbsmESntJ8NiDzT6nWBnDL Estar8806 (talk) 21:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

From WP:RSPS: Yahoo! News runs both original reporting and syndicated feeds of other sources...Take care with syndicated content, which varies from highly reliable sources to very unreliable sources. The original article is from the Lancashire Telegraph. How reliable is the paper? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 11:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Actually, I think it is not to require people to read the Daily Mail, but the official letter from Buckingham Palace that appears in it. Why do you think the signature in the official letter from Buckingham Palace: Camilla R is not credible.This tweet is from the recipient, you can also refer to the signature picture inside. According to the official letter from Buckingham Palace, I think it's time to update her signature to Camilla R. In fact, The Sky News has photographed Camilla signing Camilla R in September.
https://twitter.com/lilianfaithfull/status/1585952819018104832?s=46&t=8B_c-oh-EJg_zRMwbjN4lQ
https://twitter.com/camilla17071947/status/1570734587189538819?s=46&t=GcthzXtNzm9u9yScjawMFg KGOO510 (talk) 16:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

This shows The Queen's signature on a letter of condolence from Queen Camilla it shows her signature, "Camilla R", quite clearly, particularly the close up image. Hopefully this can be used to update Her Majesty's signature. [1] GandalfXLD (talk) 09:44, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://twitter.com/RealRoyalMail/status/1589547029315063808

The new cypher of Camilla, the Queen Consort, has been unveiled by Buckingham Palace.Designed by Prof Ewan Clayton, it combines Camilla's initial "C" and "R" for Regina - the Latin word for queen.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63547165.amp

“CR” cypher has been announced, I think it's time to update the queen's signature and royal cypher. This tweet has a very clear signature that can be used to update：https://twitter.com/realroyalmail/status/1589547029315063808?s=46&t=w8Uol0O8BsxZN_gnt-FlZA — Preceding unsigned comment added by KGOO510 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

CR, as in Camilla Regina & not Camilla Regina consort. Interesting. GoodDay (talk) 01:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, interesting, and again you need to beware WP:Synth. She signs “Camilla R”. Obviously R ([citation needed]) means regina. Obviously, or at least one can guess, Camilla is not enamoured with the “consort” appendage. If Camilla had her way, she would have married Charles in their younger days. What’s going to happen? Is this the turning point where gender neutrality is applied to consorts? Or is this a simple rerun of Q. Alexandra, avoiding confusion with a recent queen regent? Note “queen regent” is a confusing term, In 1513, the queen consort Catherine served as queen regent while Henry VIII was in France. Queens consort can be queens regent. Wikipedia must not lead the way. Wait for reliable sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:22, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

"Tampongate" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Tampongate and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 15#Tampongate until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 15:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Article wrong

Repeat of discussion above U-Mos (talk) 12:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

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

Article says she is Queen of UK in beginning. Not true. She is Queen Consort. Needs to be revised 2600:1700:7CA8:E070:D10C:7C21:3800:62F6 (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

This is a subject of discussion at Camilla, Queen Consort#Rfc on description in lede above. TFD (talk) 01:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
It is indeed true. A queen consort is a queen, the clue being in the title. It's like saying that the Prime Minister isn't a minister.79.71.87.243 (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Blame it on today's media, IP. It's been over 70-years since there was last a queen consort of the UK. So, it's gonna take them a while to get used to saying "Queen Camilla". Heck to this day, some of 'em are still calling Prince William's wife "Kate Middleton". GoodDay (talk) 08:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
You wouldn't call Queen Elizabeth (Consort of George VI)/Queen Mary (Consort of George V) the Queen consort of United Kingdom. They are all Queen consorts but will be called Queen. Queen Camilla's Royal Cypher is CR : Camilla Regina(means Queen).So she is absolutely Queen of UK. KGOO510 (talk) 15:09, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
The difference, as reported in numerous reliable sources, is that the Palace has decided that she should be called Camilla, Queen Consort, rather than Queen Camilla. TFD (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
No, the Palace is referring to her as "the Queen Consort" rather than "the Queen". "Queen Camilla" is informal, and is appropriate regardless of whether she is formally styled with her legal title (Queen) or the Palace's current preference (Queen Consort).79.71.87.243 (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Increasingly the UK press are referring to her as Queen Camilla or simply The Queen, see The Times Yesterday as an example. I think it's about time the article was changed to here proper name of Queen Camilla. ---GreatestrowereverTalk Page 13:47, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

You can read articles in The Telegraph about Camilla listed under "Camilla, Queen Consort." While they are using the title Queen in headlines, they refer to her as Queen Consort in the text. It is reminiscent coverage of the late Princess of Wales, such as CNN's section, "Remembering Princess Diana." Anyway, reliable sources indicate that Charles may give her the simple title of Queen before or at the coronation, in which case I would support using her new title. ~~~~ TFD (talk) 02:04, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Greatestrowerever. Though the King can't give or take the title "Queen" to/from his wife. Sources are increasingly (and correctly) describing her as "Queen". GoodDay (talk) 02:26, 22 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 Consort" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect The Queen Consort and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 16 § The Queen Consort until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. DrKay (talk) 09:01, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Queen_Camilla/Archive_9&oldid=1153467464"