Jump to content

Talk:Queen Camilla

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Keivan.f (talk | contribs) at 14:11, 2 May 2023 (→‎Requested move 29 April 2023). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:London Bridge task force

Page title and description

The title 'Camilla, Queen Consort' implies that she is the only queen consort to currently or ever exist, while there exist others whose pages are titled 'Queen X of Y.' Camilla is no different, and the title of the page should be changed to reflect as much. Also, 'is Queen Consort of the United Kingdom and 14 other Commonwealth realms as the wife of King Charles III' is a repetitive statement, as the latter part of the statement already implies that she is consort to the monarch and not monarch herself. All other Queens consort are described as 'Queen of Y as the wife of Z', and their information box then goes on to specify that they are Queens Consort, so the addition of the word 'consort' to every mention of Camilla is unnecessary at this point. NickyReagan (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She ,thereby ,is queen consort. So was queen elizabeth the queen mother. So is gonna be Catherine, Princess of Wales 41.249.136.226 (talk) 18:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s predictable that Catherine will be the next Queen Mum. Wikipedia doesn’t do predictions like this. Wikipedia follows the sources, it must take special care to not lead its sources. - SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The title "Camilla, Queen Consort" does not imply she is the only Queen Consort, but does imply that she is the only or most notable by that name. "Albert, Prince Consort" is similarly titled. Also, the lead statement "is Queen Consort"... was added by consensus of the community. I anticipate that this will be changed at some point, but that is uncertain. Estar8806 (talk) 01:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The other queens consort are simply known as "The Queen". Thus far she's the only queen consort to actually have the word "consort" in her title. Once/if that's dropped, then the page title and lead sentence will change accordingly. Keivan.fTalk 02:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Queen Alexandra was styled “Queen Consort” for a few months. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I'm not talking about deceased consorts. I'm talking about the current queens around the world, because that's what the user who left that comment first was raising concerns about. Keivan.fTalk 13:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“All other Queens consort are”. It’s not about others, it’s about her, now, and how she is named.
Now is a special period. The late queen is dead, and the new king has not yet had his coronation ceremony. Just wait, the coronation of Charles III and Camilla is just a few weeks away. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the first place it was announced, that Camilla, as second wife of Charles and also a divorcee, will never be known as Queen but as Princess Consort. That was later revised and anounced, that she will be know as Queen Consort (see Camilla,_Queen_Consort#Titles, styles, honours and arms. Obviously she is currently know as Camilla, Queen Consort. How it will be in the future is something we can't predict. Theoreticalmawi (talk) 10:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's been confirmed that she will be called Queen as the official Coronation Bible from the King's Printer refers to her as "Queen Camilla" Matt2984 (talk) 18:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reported but not confirmed. Let's wait until the official documents are made available. Keivan.fTalk 23:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It refers to her as "Queen Camilla the Queen Consort." 81.140.89.191 (talk) 19:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If and when that becomes official we can change the article title to Queen Camilla. But the article must reflect what her current title is, not what it may be in the future. TFD (talk) 20:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oxford University Press has made the coronation edition of the bible available and it refers to the couple as "His Majesty King Charles III with Her Majesty Queen Camilla" not "Queen Camilla the Queen Consort". Others appear to be following the same format, but it's just better to wait I guess. The coronation is just a month away now. Keivan.fTalk 05:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sean Coughlan (4 April 2023). "Coronation invites issued by King Charles and 'Queen Camilla'". BBC News. Just heard Nicholas Witchell on the 10pm BBC News say that it's "his understanding" that as from the coronation the Palace will refer to Camilla as "Queen Camilla". Let's wait and see. DeCausa (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I want to change it I agree the best thing to do is to either wait until BP says shes Queen or until coronation day. WiltedXXVI (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious to see the change. One article I read in The Times said that she would be known as Queen Camilla (and therefore The Queen) going forward. I'm not quite certain if that meant at the Coronation and thereafter (which is what I've assumed), or if that meant from now, but I haven't seen BP make any official changes in that regard. Estar8806 (talk) 03:00, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it should be changed. But, best (probably) to wait until the coronation. GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unless anything changes in the interim, it's clear the article can be moved after the coronation. The Guardian states that the royal website will be changed at that point. Can we please stop talking about this forever now? U-Mos (talk) 05:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd preferably do it now, but understand why it might be better to wait until Coronation day. GandalfXLD (talk) 14:38, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently now The Independent is using "Queen Camilla" and "The Queen" (or at least "The King and Queen")[1] Estar8806 (talk) 01:36, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is something! A WP:RSPSS "generally reliable" source, and speaking directly to the question. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of newspapers are running “‘consort’ to be dropped”, or similar. Pretty sure it is the palace planting the story. Still, Wikipedia should wait until it has happened, past tense. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that Camilla will receive the title of Queen upon her coronation. If and when that happens the article title should be changed. In the meantime, it should reflect her current title of Queen Consort. TFD (talk) 14:55, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Queen Camilla has been The Queen since The King's accession. Queen Consort is a position, not a title. GandalfXLD (talk) 14:02, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some editors keep saying that but provide no sources. Basically, her title is whatever the King says it is. Don't expect that a system based on someone becoming head of state because their mother was is necessarily fair. TFD (talk) 04:37, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The king has 'no say' in what their spouse's title is. The wife of the king, is the queen. GoodDay (talk) 05:57, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You violate WP:SYNTH and WP:CRYSTAL. The queen consort's title is the prerogative of the king. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to write a clear proposal in the hope to finally draw this discussion to a close: if events proceed as described in this Guardian article, the page may be moved to Queen Camilla after the Royal Family webpage updates to show that title. This is not a formal move request as the time for the proposed move has not yet come, but with a clear consensus it could be acted on swiftly when that time does come. U-Mos (talk) 08:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:U-Mos, calm yourself. WP:NOTCRYSTAL, WP:SYNTH. Note your fail-words, "if", "may" and "after". When the Royal Family website changes, Wikipedia will be able to respond very quickly. Pre-emptive future-speculation like yours actually muddy the waters and may cause the change to take longer. Multiple prior move requests are a reason to stick to the slow process. Premature bold move attempts lead to the page being move-protected. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:19, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with you, but am attempting to curtail the endless pre-emptive discussions here by being clear how we can indeed respond quickly if events transpire in the way recent reports have indicated, while also being clear that we cannot act ahead of that time. U-Mos (talk) 09:38, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/royal-family/queen-camilla-title-change-maundy-thursday-b2315448.html
GoodDay, could you please provide a source for your assertion, "The king has 'no say' in what their spouse's title is." So he can determine his own title and that of every other member of the royal family and of anyone else within his realms, but he cannot determine his wife's title. And for some reason, despite being better advised than you or I, he is unaware of this. TFD (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess what he was trying to say is that by common law Camilla is The Queen. It is true that the monarch is the fount of all honours but any official change in Camilla's title that would deviate from precedence should come via letters patent. Keivan.fTalk 18:53, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No one has provided any source whether from a legal decision or textbook that is the common law for the wife of the king. The most one can say is that it is the custom. But it's also the custom for the name of the royal house to be taken from the father of the king (i.e., Mountbatten, not Windsor). It's also not the custom for royals to marry divorced women, which presumably is why Camilla heretofore has been treated differently. TFD (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the royal house is legally defined by Royal Proclamation: it's Windsor not Mountabatten because of that. (You seem to have a misunderstanding there - see this for the 9 April 1952 proclamation fixing the name.) There's little discussion on Queen Consort v Queen before Camilla because the distinction has never before been in issue i.e. no one has ever before seen a distinction. Take Prof. Vernon Bogdanor's 1995 The Monarchy and the Constitution, where he uses "Queen" and "Queen Consort" interchangeably but on page 51 makes the unambiguous statement that "the wife of the king automatically becomes the queen" ...not "the queen consort". In 1995, there was no sense that there was a difference between the two. It has only been with Camilla that there has been a sensitivity, for obvious reasons. DeCausa (talk) 21:01, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See context matters: "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible." Furthermore, per no synthesis, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." If you are right, then you should have no problem in finding a source that says Camilla's title is Queen.
Why not wait under Camilla's expected coronation as Queen? TFD (talk) 01:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the coronation invitation, and extensive coverage of it, Queen vs Queen Consort, I would support a a rename now, to happen in this month leading to the coronation. The October 2022 decision “not now” was correct, but the information is different now. It’s no longer WP:SYNTH to deduce that she will be styled as Queen, unqualified, there is clear evidence and secondary sources that it has happened, and the invitation is reliable evidence. To wait until the day of the coronation would be silly. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think that when people are elected or appointed to offices but have not yet assumed them, that we should use their new titles? For example, should Joe Biden have been called president after he was elected but before he assumed office? TFD (talk) 01:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No. A President-elect is not a President. However, a Queen consort is a Queen. I see this as decided by COMMONNAME with a large dose of a BLP factor of what the person chooses as their name (“name” interpreted broadly to include title or style).
    In October 2022, she was not being referred to as “Queen” unqualified, but as “Queen Consort”, predominantly. This has changed already, ahead of the actual day of the coronation, and I think no one doubts that it will be completely changed on the day of the coronation. The rename should happen on the day of the coronation at the latest, but with the invitation and direct commentary on the invitation, I think now is ok. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree that the title should be changed. The question is what is the most appropriate time for the change? The moment she is coronated is the most logical. Are we prepared to make the change then, as thousands of visitors are probably accessing the article? IlkkaP (talk) 06:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Camilla's page title shouldn't be changed.

Queen-Consort Camilla's page title shouldn't be changed at all. All spouses of any regnant are always a consort, no matter how anyone says it or writes it. George VI's consort, Elizabeth, was always called Queen Elizabeth, but her title never officially changed to simply Queen.


Moving the page could also make some confusion if Camilla is a reigning queen or not. If Charles died she could be called the Queen Dowager or simply a widow, but changing the page just because a coronation invitation and the popular way her name is said doesn't affect her role and title in the Royal Family.


Making up a vote to change a page name for a Queen is not the right path. If there ought to be consensus, it should be done properly when the time has come and done by an administrator, and should be reassured that it truly is the right thing to do. But for now, changing Camilla's page would make a big fuss.


Thanks,

BillClinternet (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. George VI's wife was indeed simply "The Queen" during his reign. Whether the article should be moved or not can and should be decided by editors on the basis of usage in reliable sources. Surtsicna (talk) 17:04, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Upon being married to George VI, she became Queen-Consort. Historically, most, if not all Queens, are known as Her Majesty The Queen [Name]. It even expresses on her Wikipedia page that she was the Queen-consort, in addition to her Empress-consort title (both are shown in her infobox). BillClinternet (talk) 17:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but that wasn’t her title. Queen Consort is a position and her page title will change to be in accordance with her title. AKTC3 (talk) 17:19, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, Wikipedia's aim is to educate people about all topics around many different categories. What is presented for educational purposes and all other information must be the most factual it can. Calling Camilla simply Queen Camilla due to it being popular doesn't mean it will be dropped. Every consort of a reigning monarch in the United Kingdom has always been known as a consort no matter if they'd been simply called Queen or not. BillClinternet (talk) 17:18, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If her page name was changed to Queen Camilla, I can guarantee it could potentially start an editing war between editors. She will be always known as the Queen-Consort, and it is up to the admins to determine whether it would be necessary for such change to be made. BillClinternet (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It isn’t wise to be a crystal ball and speculate so far into the future as to what the Queen will be one day called. But what is guaranteed is that the Palace is starting to refer to her as Queen Camilla as every single queen consort of the past was called. No reason for an edit war. To leave her page title as “Camilla, Queen Consort” would not only be inconsistent with past consorts and current consorts of other monarchies, but likely would be inconsistent with her potentially new reference after the coronation. AKTC3 (talk) 17:29, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Never has any other consort to a British monarch has ever used the form “Queen-Consort (Name),” it has always been “Queen Alexandra” or “Queen Mary.” Calling the Queen Camilla has nothing to do with it being popular but rather with keeping in line with past consorts of her rank. And yes they have all been consorts, no one is contesting that, however Consort is a position not a legal title given to any past queen consort. There is no “Queen Consort Alexandra” or “Queen Consort Charlotte” etc etc. And you are wrong about Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon never simply being Queen. If that were the case, you could say the same for the late Queen, Elizabeth II, who was a queen regnant, but never called “Queen Regnant Elizabeth II” AKTC3 (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changing her title currently just to speculate that her title will change to Queen Camilla would be drastic.
You should definitely wait until after the coronation, to even see if it is the most popular idea of the Royal Household to refer to The Queen-Consort as The Queen.
An administrator should definitely be authorizing the name change and make sure it is truly necessary for the time being. BillClinternet (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see you are a new user. A couple of things you need to know. Firstly, we have a policy called WP:COMMONNAME which means the title is supposed to be what's "popular" (at least among reliable sources) not what's "official" or "correct". Secondly, administrators don't "authorize" things like that. It's a matter of WP:CONSENSUS decided by all editors. DeCausa (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Noticing my account age doesn't attribute to the amount of time I've been editing Wikipedia, and that detail has no relation to Camilla whatsoever, thanks. BillClinternet (talk) 00:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well there’s truth in what they said — consensus, not admins, decide things. And it does have relation to Camilla as you are insinuating that WP:COMMONNAME has no bearing as to how the Queen is referred on her. AKTC3 (talk) 02:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The most commonly used name in reliable sources is Queen Consort. After all, one would expect reliable sources to get titles correct. TFD (talk) 01:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's because the palace has referred to her as the Queen Consort. As soon as she was referred to as "Queen Camilla" in the coronation invitation, all secondary sources picked it up. There's no reason to assume reliable sources will refuse to call her "The Queen" once that term has been used by the palace. Keivan.fTalk 02:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, they didn't refer to her as Queen Camilla and the media has not picked it up. The Earl Marshal announced the coronation of Queen Camilla. When the coronation takes place that will become her title. TFD (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? The words "Queen Camilla" are in bold on the coronation invitation, which is issued by the palace. And the media did pick it up 1. Literally every single source noticed the impending change in her title. Keivan.fTalk 16:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The invitation is to "The Coronation of Their Majesties King Charles III & Queen Camilla" on the "6th day of May 2023." It's a future event when Camilla will be crowned and assume her new title. TFD (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is incorrect. Coronation does not confer a title; it is a symbolic religious ceremony.
There are three ways of obtaining a royal title: by letters patent, by inheritance, or by marriage. Camilla became Queen (by marriage) the moment her husband became King (by inheritance).
The coronation invitations mark the moment that the Palace drops its temporary styling of her as "Queen Consort". Her style will match her legal title. She already is the Queen because she is a queen consort — the clue being in the name. Vabadus91 (talk) 08:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No one is speculating about anything. She is already referred to as Queen Camilla in the coronation invitation and in the official coronation edition of the Bible. All consorts of kings have been simply referred to as The Queen, not only in Britain, but in all other countries as well (Queen Letizia of Spain, Queen Rania of Jordan, Queen Silvia of Sweden, etc.). Once the change in her title is confirmed at the time of the coronation, the page will be moved accordingly to reflect both the common and official use of her name. That such change would be "drastic" is just speculation on your part. In fact, I don't see why the wife a king simply being called queen could be drastic anyway. Keivan.fTalk 18:41, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mhm. Thanks for the info. BillClinternet (talk) 00:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If another RM is opened on this matter (that's if one's is needed), I hope to be made aware of it. Same, with the page's intro. GoodDay (talk) 02:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When the palace referred to Prince Harry's children as Prince Archie of Sussex and Princess Lilibet of Sussex the RMs for those two pages were abruptly closed and the pages were immediately moved. Once she has been referred to as "The Queen" there will be no argument left in favor of the current page title as secondary sources will quickly pick it up. Keivan.fTalk 02:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why all this? just because someone hasn't seen the coronation invitation yet: "King Charles III and Queen Camilla". Seems to me that hard-working Wikipedians could be doing something more productive. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Though I won't put up much of a fuss over it. By waiting until the coronation to have the page name changed. It would appear as though we'd be suggesting that the coronation will magically change her public title from Queen consort Camilla, to Queen Camilla. When in fact, she's been Queen Camilla since the death of her mother-in-law. GoodDay (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I said all along. Her "title" may be "The Queen Consort" at the moment but she has always been entitled to be known as "Queen Camilla". Just like Albert who was titled "The Prince Consort" but was known as "Prince Albert" not "Prince Consort Albert". It's just that people understandably need tangible evidence to accept this and we now have that in the form of the coronation invitation, etc. But there's no need to rush. Once she is crowned on 6 May, there will be no ground left for anyone to oppose a page move. So, it's better to wait until then instead of getting involved in endless debates. Keivan.fTalk 16:54, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, Albert was known as Prince Albert because he was the son of the monarch of Saxe-Coburg. Seventeen years after their marriage, Victoria added the title of Prince Consort by letters patent.
Goodday, when an archbishop "consecrates" someone by putting holy oil on their body and a crown on their head, that's pretty close to magic. TFD (talk) 23:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
His status as a foreign prince is not really relevant. Philip Mountbatten was born Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark, yet he was not formally known as "Prince Philip" in the UK between 1947 and 1958. My point is, that no one has ever been known as "Queen Consort [Name]" or "Prince Consort [Name]". Not even the palace refers to Camilla as such. She's either "The Queen Consort" (although that's presumably going to change) or "Queen Camilla". Keivan.fTalk 03:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Albert was only called Prince Albert because he was a prince of Saxe-Coburg, otherwise he would have been Mr. Saxe-Corburg. Philip did not use his foreign title of Prince because he renounced it before his marriage.
Indeed the consort title follows the name. It's similar to Princess of Wales. It's Kate, Princess of Wales, not Princess of Wales Kate or Princess Kate.
AFAIK the palace has not referred to Camilla as Queen Camilla. There's probably confusion because the coronation invitation suggests that will be her title in the future, when we can revisit the topic. TFD (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The coronation invitation is issued by the palace, not by any other entities. So in essence they have already referred to her as "Queen Camilla". Keivan.fTalk 19:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She has always been entitled to be known as "Queen Camilla", in exactly the same way that before Charles' accession she was entitled to be known as "Princess of Wales" (but was never referred to as such). Many reliable secondary sources have noted that the coronation invitation omits "Consort" but the majority have not yet dropped the descriptor in their own reporting. When they do, we can change the article title. Most editors here seem to expect that the change in usage by reliable secondary sources will occur at the time of the coronation, but we won't know for sure until it actually happens. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She has always been entitled to be known as "Queen Camilla". True, but that's not what half the community thought when the last RM took place, because they needed tangible evidence for it and now we have it. Now that this issue is resolved, the only remaining matter is to determine the frequency with which she's referred to as either "The Queen Consort" or "Queen Camilla". This matter will be settled once her title changes to "The Queen" after the coronation. And I have no reason to believe that secondary sources will refuse to call her "Queen Camilla" or anything like that. We saw that recently when Archie Mountbatten-Windsor's title changed to Prince Archie of Sussex. There's not a single source that does not call him Prince Archie at the moment. Keivan.fTalk 19:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On my part, I never denied that she was entitled to be known as “Queen Camilla”. That was not the pertinent question. The pertinent questions for me where two: (1) Do the majority of reliable secondary sources introduce her as “Queen Camilla”; and (2) does she, eg through the royal website, name herself “Queen Camilla”. Subsequently, reliable secondary sources have already routinely named her “Queen Camilla”, and a number of things indicate that she names herself “Queen Camilla”, the latest and strongest being the coronation invitation. We’ve past the point of seeing secondary sources refusing to call her “Queen Camilla”, that’s already moot. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coronation invitation says "Queen Camilla" (this is not a move request!)

That fact ("Queen Camilla" on invitation) has been widely publicized now. Thus it is not necessary or good information for our readers that we continue to repeat "Queen Consort" twice in the lead. Thus I emphatically disagree with this reversal. We have to abide by nothing that is obsolete today. I will restore what Keivan and I have tried to do to update the lead, unless someone can give us a valid reason not to. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:39, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you and Keivan and you'll get no arguments here. GandalfXLD (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In principle, I also disagree with my reversal. However, the same edit has been reverted multiple times before me, leading me to believe that there isn't quite consensus for the change yet. The lead as it is written is the result of an RfC. I wish to update the article to reflect her change in status (if we can even call it that, considering she's been Queen since her husband became King). I don't intend to revert that edit again, assuming there is consensus to do so.
Regardless, my personal opinion is in agreement with you, so count me in for a consensus to remove should it appear. Estar8806 (talk) 19:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main problem with all those reversals is that many eager reverters aren't up-to-date on what media is reporting now. The coronation invitation should reasonably have put a stop to all the multiple-"Queen-Consort" advocates. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They may not be. But I would caution all of us, many of the sources I've seen have reported the change to be occurring "after the coronation". While, The Independent quickly adopted the change, and The Times and People have been using "The Queen" and "Queen Camilla" (respectively) for some time now, the BBC has continued to use "Camilla, (the) Queen Consort" [1]. Not to say that we should prioritize the BBC over other sources, I've seen this continuity reflected in several other sources, including Today [2]. I think that there's an argument for keeping it as it is (until the coronation) or changing it now. I personally favor the latter argument, but I think the notion that those reverting the edits are "eager" and "aren't up-to-date" isn't necessarily completely true. Estar8806 (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also I should mention, BP hasn't made any changes to the official website or how they refer to the Queen in other contexts. It's become an emerging trend, particularly since the late Queen's death for us to rely on the Palace for any changes in titles, without respect to our other policies, which we assume will fall in line with any changes by the Palace. TL;DR The Palace hasn't formally changed anything, we shouldn't jump the gun, is a fair argument, particularly considering our recent reliance on primary sources regarding royal titles.. Estar8806 (talk) 20:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may have misunderstood the reason for this new section. This is not about renaming the article. It is about what it says it is about in my section opening. Nothing else. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm aware as to what your point is. I'm simply pointing out that sources still continue to use Queen Consort. Not that I've read through the RfC that caused for the lead to be phrased is at is, but I assume at least part of the change was for consistency with the title. Estar8806 (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why point out what nobody has challenged? It has no relevance on what the updated lead should say now. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We never should have defined her as "Queen Consort" because such capitalization is severely outdated (or, worse yet, deferential) orthography; in matters of style as well as content, Wikipedia should look up to modern media and especially academia. Ideally it should say "Queen of the United Kingdom" because the rest of the sentence says "as the wife of King Charles III", so "consort" is superfluous. At the very least it should be "queen consort", not only because we should not be capitalizing common nouns, but also because it no longer appears to be her official title anyway. Surtsicna (talk) 19:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It never has been her official title, only how she was styled. But how is capitalisation "outdated orthorthography? What's outdated about it? Vabadus91 (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does everyone posting on this subject on this page feel the need to open a new thread as though they are making a new point? The coronation invite has already been raised in the open thread above (5 threads up - from yesterday). I, and others, have been closing the threads to keep this in one place but as fast as one thread is close some comes along to raise their "new" point. Can we keep it in the one place please. DeCausa (talk) 20:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, not for those reasons.
We start new sections when something specific needs to be discussed, whether or not it's been mentioned in text in other threads, and especially if it's being ignored or overlooked by many. This needs to be discussed now as a specific item. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The post you opened this thread is the exact point being discussed 5 threads up. It was being discussed now. There is nothing new in what you said, but it was said yesterday. DeCausa (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No use in explaining what the creation of new sections is all about if you aren't even going to read it. I'll try again: This needs to be discussed now as a specific item under it's own specific heading. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:39, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it's laziness or ego but it was being discusse now as a specific item. YOU JUST DUPLICATED POINTLESSLY. DeCausa (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your remark about laziness and ego looks like a personal attack, and you should also stop SHOUTING. Step back before your behavior becomes an issue! This page is for discussion of article content, not for us to bash each other. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It should read "is Queen of the United Kingdom". Look at Alexandra of Denmark, Mary of Teck, and Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. Queen, Queen, and Queen. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:10, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't need to convince me. I was & still am in favour of changing the page title & the intro, to bring it in line with other current queens consort BLPs. GoodDay (talk) 21:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I second you. AKTC3 (talk) 22:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry AKTC3 I misclicked! Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 01:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is just odd to refer to Camilla as Queen Consort. It needs to be changed. MicroSupporter (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was odd to refer to her as Duchess of Cornwall when she was the wife of the Prince of Wales. Unfortunately, it's not up to us to correct her title used in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The coronation invitation says, "The Coronation of Their Majesties King Charles III and Queen Camilla" will take place on 6th May, 2023. A straightforward reading is that Camilla will be crowned as Queen on 6th May. It has not happened yet, which is why the Palace, reputable news sources and Wikipedia continue to use her current title of Queen Consort. TFD (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Such a contrived, not to say concocted, theory is not how it works IRL. She is being called Queen Camilla now, on the wedding invitation and in other respectable places. That means she is also known as Queen Camilla, which then belongs in the lead. We are only talking about the lead here, not moving the article. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that's how language works. She will be crowned as Queen Camillia. And no, reliable sources are not calling her Queen Camilla, which is another reason this article doesn't. TFD (talk) 20:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am actually seeing a lot of reliable sources refer to her as Queen Camilla. AKTC3 (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve found something here that’s titled Her Majesty the Queen on the Buckingham palace website when I click on the link it’s says Access denied and that I’m not not authorized to access this page seems rather unusual from Buckingham Palace. Here’s link
https://www.royal.uk/her-majesty-the-queen
there’s a possibility it could be the Queen Elizabeth old page but it’s seem weird.
King4852 (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That sort of thing happens sometimes on that website. The site does say that it is being updated and information may not be current. TFD (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That page was on Queen Elizabeth II. In fact, we had to change the external links on her page at the time of her death because details about her were moved to a new address (https://www.royal.uk/queen-elizabeth). Keivan.fTalk 00:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Royal family website has just uploaded information https://www.royal.uk/news-and-activity/2023-04-27/roles-to-be-performed-at-the-coronation-service-at-westminster-abbey. It said The King and The Queen.... Directly from the website.... 2A00:23C6:F11:6B01:91B4:5C32:916C:E49B (talk) 22:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
4th paragraph. "This will be followed by The Procession of The King and The Queen" 2A00:23C6:F11:6B01:91B4:5C32:916C:E49B (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reversals are being made again on this without the talk page being used. The RfC referred to here became obsolete when the coronation invitation was published. I have written to both editors and asked them not to make such changes without up-to-date discussion. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SergeWoodzing Please provide a link to where new consensus was reached after the RfC. —C.Fred (talk) 03:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This talk section. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see consensus, especially given there are multiple threads on this page interwoven about the topic. Until new consensus clearly emerges, the old one should be respected. —C.Fred (talk) 03:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, C.Fred, that there seems to be a misunderstanding. I am only talking about the clear consensus we have had in this section of talk, not about the many earlier sections, which seem to me to be obsolete. Also, in my experience, up-to-date consensus can be achieved in regular talk, not only by RfC. Am I wrong? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where is it? Several editors have referred to it, but I can only find discussions about moving the page. This section is not about that. That has been made very very clear. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Camilla, Queen Consort/Archive 10#RfC on description in lede. It will be appropriate to change the lede when it is appropriate to move the page. BilledMammal (talk) 03:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That RfC is obsolete as of the subsequent publication of the coronation invitation which is when it became necessary for Wikipedia to acknowledge the indisputable fact in the lead of her article that she also is called Queen Camilla (in several other reliable media also). You and one other person have reverted against the consensus achieved at that time and in this talk section to include the aka. Please be more careful that you are up to date, not months behind, before reverting, and discuss before you revert! Discussion occurs on talk pages, not in edit summaries. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The invitation is a primary and non-independent source, and even if it wasn't it is just one source; when sources prefer "Queen" over "Queen Consort" then we can switch both the lede and the article title. BilledMammal (talk) 07:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And as I mentioned above, the invitation refers to a future event when it is assumed Camilla will be crowned by the Archbishop of Canterbury as Queen Camilla. TFD (talk) 11:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Camilla's title

An Rfc determined that Camilla's title is Queen Consort, not Queen. See Talk:Camilla, Queen Consort/Archive 10#RfC on description in lede (closed 16 December 2022).) Since then a number of editors have continued to argue against the consensus and change the text in the lead.

Based on the invitation to the coronation on May 6, it appears that Camilla will become known as Queen Camilla. I suggest that we have a moritorium on the wording until that date, only 17 days away, when, assuming that is the case, there will be no disagreement about changing the text.

Alternatively, if any editors consider that that is too long to wait, please consider setting up a new RfC rather than reverting the text. ~~~~ TFD (talk) 03:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC by Wikipedians does not determine what anyone is, what titles they hold, and that one is obsolete now anyway (see above). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia editors determine content based on policy and guidelines. If you disagree with their consensus, you can pursue dispute resolution, such as a new RfC or posting to BLPN. TFD (talk) 18:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote "An Rfc determined that Camilla's title is Queen Consort". I repeat, Wikipedians, in RfC discussions or otherwise, do not determine what people are or what their titles are. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
will become known as Queen Camilla: many of us, more than you and one additional editor, do not agree with that interpretation and several reliable media are calling her that now. Your actions, in my opinion, are an example of what we are not supposed to do according to WP:OWN. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK no rs call her "Queen Camilla." except in reference to her coronation. And no, it's not WP:OWN, because other editors are also reverting you. TFD (talk) 18:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of us should be well-informed as to what WP:OWN is and what it is not. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not for you to decide when an RfC is needed or should be considered, nor when not to revert supported by consensus. There is consensus above in this talk section that she is also know as Queen Camilla today, and that belongs in the lead now, not when you desire. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see a consensus. TFD (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes we can't see what we do not wish to see. Nine people agree with me in this section, if I'm counting OK. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TFD has it right and your accusations that their actions constitute wp:own and making false accusations based on that are out of line, to put it mildly. North8000 (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is not a vote (and even if it were, I don't see a majority in favour of making any change now). Consensus is about policy and guidelines, and the applicable policy tells us to follow usage in the majority of reliable sources. What she is merely entitled to be called, or what previous consorts were called, or what editors expect she will be called in the near future, have absolutely no bearing on the matter. Only actual usage matters, and while that usage is starting to change in a few sources, "consort" has definitely not been dropped by the majority yet. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources are already enough, though, to add Queen Camilla to the lead's info. That's all I've suggested. The vehement resistance to that from some users is hard to understand. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources, such as The Independent say that her title will change to Queen following her coronation.[3] TFD (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that source only says that her title is expected to change, which is still firmly in WP:CRYSTAL territory. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what her title is. It could be "The Queen" or "The Queen Consort". She is entitled to be known as "Queen Camilla" and she's already referred to as such. The recent newsletter from the College of Arms clearly shows that. Keivan.fTalk 03:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That’s another convincing source. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the College of Arms is an independent source. BilledMammal (talk) 07:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Independent sources do not determine Camilla's style. The King does. And secondary sources are already following: 1, 2, 3, etc. Keivan.fTalk 07:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some independent sources are; others aren't: 1 2 3. And Charles determines which style he prefers; independent and reliable sources determine if we follow his preference. BilledMammal (talk) 07:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The question has always been whether "Queen Camilla" was being used in secondary sources and whether it was common. It has been used in independent secondary sources. No one can deny that. And it's the style approved by the palace and preferred by her, otherwise her charity would not have been name "The Queen's Reading Room" and the name "Queen Camilla" would not have appeared on the coronation invitation, official coronation souvenirs, the coronation edition of the Bible, the College of Arms' newsletter, etc. Not to mention the other aspect of it which is WP:TITLECON. No living queen consort's page is titled in this manner. Keivan.fTalk 08:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It has been used in independent secondary sources. No one can deny that. Which is why the question is, as you say, whether it's common. When WP:COMMONNAME supports this article being titled "Camilla, Queen" then we will change the lede. BilledMammal (talk) 08:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that reasoning such as otherwise [...] would not have been [...] and [...] would not have appeared [...] is WP:OR. And the titles of other consorts' articles are irrelevant (for now) because a majority of reliable sources do not (yet) refer to Camilla in the same way as they do those other consorts. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not WP:OR when the BBC has reported on it. Nearly every single newspaper/news agency noticed the sudden change in her style. And since she has already been referred to as "Queen Camilla" in secondary sources WP:TITLECON applies. Thus, the argument that she's not treated in the same way as the other consorts is moot. Keivan.fTalk 08:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That BBC article reports on the change of style, sure, as did many others, but it does not back your claim that it is her preference because otherwise [...] which appears to be pure OR. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It has been put out by the institution that represents her. So it was clearly someone's preference. The only thing that matters is that it has been used officially now. And it has been picked up by secondary sources. Keivan.fTalk 08:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Headlines: "News headlines—including subheadlines—are not a reliable source. If the information is supported by the body of the source, then cite it from the body." Most if not all of the supposed examples of the term "Queen Camilla" used in reliable sources are actually headlines: the text of the articles refer to her as "Camilla, Queen Consort." Many publications also used "Princess Diana" as a headline, but as we know that was not her title. TFD (talk) 11:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it has been used in the body of articles and reports and as well, it's not only the headlines 1, 2, etc. And, yes, many publications used "Princess Diana" and many use "Princess Catherine/Kate" at the moment, neither of which are technically correct. "Queen Camilla" is correct; it has been used by the palace (thus found its way to secondary sources) and has historical precedence. Keivan.fTalk 14:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I had not come across its use in reliable sources before. I note that CNN also refers to Princess Diana and Lord Jeffrey Archer, so I wouldn't expect them to get it right. I expect that the usage will become more common following the coronation. Where was it used by the Palace? TFD (talk) 18:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Princess Diana" is incorrect anyway. No British princess is entitled to be known as "Princess [Name]" unless they are born into the royal family (detailed article by the BBC before anyone throws around WP:OR accusations). That is not the case for queens consort; for example nobody can dispute the fact that Alexandra of Denmark was "Queen Alexandra". And it was the palace that issued coronation invitations for Charles and Camilla and put forth the official coronation souvenirs programme which is managed by the Royal Collection. Not to mention the official coronation edition of the Bible, and the College of Arms' newsletter which granted the arms of "Her Majesty Queen Camilla". So the name is accurate and pretty common and consistent with the title of other articles on royal consorts. But, it's apparent that you want a change to occur on the Royal Family's website. Fine, but as I stated earlier, the fact that she's styled "The Queen Consort" does not mean that she cannot be referred to as "Queen Camilla". They are not mutually exclusive. Keivan.fTalk 01:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suppose you are right. Before Charles succession to the throne, Camilla was entitle to be called Princess of Wales, but chose not to use that title and instead her Wikipedia article merely said she was married to the Prince of Wales. Following Charles' succession, Harry's children became prince and princess but chose not to use those titles and so their Wikipedia articles omitted them. What's different here? TFD (talk) 02:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The situation is not even comparable. When Elizabeth II was alive, Camilla was always styled "The Duchess of Cornwall". None of the entities mentioned above (some of which are affiliated with the royal household), and no secondary sources ever referred to her as "The Princess of Wales". That is not the case here. She's styled "The Queen Consort", but she has been referred to as "Queen Camilla" officially in different instances. This situation is not the same as the one concerning Harry's children. The dispute here is concerning Camilla's title, not rank. She is a queen consort; whether you refer to her as "The Queen Consort" or "Queen Camilla" makes no difference. The issue with Harry's children was that their rank as prince/ss had not been acknowledged publicly. Keivan.fTalk 16:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only "official" references I have seen are in the coronation invitation and the grant of arms. The first is about a future event and the second, which is an article from the College of Arms, refers to a warrant from Charles, but I cannot find a copy of it. I suggest we wait 12 days, when it is expected that Camilla's title will change. TFD (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian reported, "From the coronation on, it will be officially Queen Camilla." ("King Charles’s coronation invitation confirms use of title of ‘Queen Camilla’" Tue 4 Apr 2023.) Note at the end it says, "This article was amended on 5 April 2023 to clarify that the title of Queen Camilla will be used after the coronation, not before."

I understand why some editors might have been confused and hope that this clarifies the matter.

TFD (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's going to be a feverish race to edit the article as soon as crown touches hair. F5 F5 F5! Gugrak (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect they may change the title on the coronation day itself so broadcasters can refer to her as Her Majesty Queen during the coronation either that or the day before the coronation. King4852 (talk) 18:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Editors should avoid editing the article until we can see what the WP:COMMONNAME is. It is possible that reliable sources will continue to prefer Queen Consort over Queen. BilledMammal (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Editors should try to remember that this talk section is about mentioning "Queen Camilla" in the lead (now) as an aka, not about changing the name of the article (yet). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That article did not age well I guess. Because "Queen Camilla" is in use pretty much everywhere. In fact, the same outlet reported yesterday that the Royal Mail will be applying a special postmark from 28 April to 10 May, to mark the coronation, which reads: "Coronation of Their Majesties King Charles III and Queen Camilla 6 May 2023". Keivan.fTalk 00:53, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No one questions that she will become Queen Camilla upon her coronation. Assuming that happens editors will agree to change the article to reflect her new title. Only eight days to go! TFD (talk) 01:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The coronation Order of Service clearly lists Queen Camilla as The Queen. I have attached a link, can we drop this consort nonsense now.[1] GandalfXLD (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We will, following the coronation, assuming she assumes the title at the coronation. See "Why Camilla will be crowned during King's coronation - and why it seems her title will change to Queen after the coronation." (Sky News Friday 28 April 2023) TFD (talk) 16:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Hatnote

I have restored the hatnote, not because I was plugging Sue Townsend's book, but because that's not the way Wikipedia works. The crucial issue is not whether the hatnote is "worthy" or even whether the article on the book is notable, but because people searching for the article on the book might well do so by its title, and would be directed here by the redirect, so the hatnote is legitimate. Some people may consider that the book is not notable, but if so this should be raised at the article on the book, not at this article. PatGallacher (talk) 11:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The number of people looking for the book would be minuscule compared to the number of people looking for this article, and yet you think it appropriate to put the book at the top, immediately below the title? Are you blind to the intrusion of hatnotes? Someone actually looking for the book will find it in the See also section. Nearly everybody else should be allowed to read the article without being forced to read about this book. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The hatnote is totally unnecessary, and the book should not even be mentioned in the "See also" section. A mention in Template:Camilla, Queen Consort along with other cultural references is enough. Keivan.fTalk 21:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Not worthy" is an absolutely ridiculous reason to remove it. What on earth is that supposed to even mean? It doesn't have to be "worthy". Hatnotes are an absolutely standard and necessary means of disambiguation from a near identical article name or disambiguation page. That's the only criteria. See Also is irrelevant. This isn't about seeking an article with related information. DeCausa (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is a ridiculous hatnote. It's intrusive and of vanishingly small value.Gugrak (talk) 04:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SIMILAR tells us When two articles share the same title, except that one is disambiguated and the other not, the undisambiguated article should include a hatnote with a link to the other article. It is not necessary to create a separate disambiguation page.
There isn't an exception because we don't think the topic is worthy - if the book is not notable then take it to WP:AFD. BilledMammal (talk) 23:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the part of the guideline that applies here because the two pages do not share the same title at the moment. WP:AMBIGTERM is the correct one which states {{redirect}}, or a related template, can be used when an ambiguous title is redirected to an unambiguous title or a primary topic article. "Queen Camilla" is not an ambiguous title IMO. Keivan.fTalk 03:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. No plausible reader knows about a book, a satire on Queen Camilla, and doesn’t know of Queen Camilla. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a level of ambiguity; while the primary topic is the Queen Consort, another (presumably) notable topic is the book. Hatnotes are simple navigational aides; we put them everywhere that a reader might end up in a location that they did not intend. We shouldn't start complicating that by discussions of whether the hatnote is "worthy"; navigational assistance is always worthy. BilledMammal (talk) 03:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That guideline overreaches even with the flexibility of “should”. It is utterly absurd to believe that a commercial product that uses a common meaning for its name title, for the commercial marketing benefits entailed, automatically gets a top-of-page advertisement.
It is also BLP issue to put on the top of a biography, ahead of the lede, supplanting the lede, a link to a relatively obscure satire on that person.
Improving Wikipedia does not mean blindly following obscure rules. Hatnotes are a nuisance in cluttering prime real estate, especially when benefiting no one. No reasonable reader looking for that 2006 satire is going to astonished that entering “Queen Camilla” into the “Go” title auto-complete box is going to be astonished that they arrive at the biography of Queen Camilla. Obviously, they already know the book. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They're not going to be astonished they ended up here, but hatnotes aren't to prevent astonishment; they're to help the reader get to the article they are looking for. BilledMammal (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per SmokeyJoe This is a pretty clear example of where we shouldWP:IGNOREALLRULES. Gugrak (talk) 05:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. The closest I could find to guide us is from an essay, What about other content?, which says that comparisons with other articles may be helpful. In this case, there are many articles about persons, places and things that have books written about them, yet hatnotes are not typically used. Instead, if those books are significant to the topic, they may be included in "Further reading." TFD (talk) 00:52, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@The Four Deuces: Do have any examples? I looked for some, but I haven't been able to find any and I suspect those that do exist will be due to error, not conscious decision. BilledMammal (talk) 07:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen any biographies that have hatnotes for books about the subject. However I concede this case is unusual because both the title of the book is the same as the subject and it has its own Wikipedia article. There is for example a book called Hillary Clinton by Catherine Wells (2007), but there is no article about it. TFD (talk) 11:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's even more unusual because in the cases where the book does have the same name and does have an article there are normally enough topics using that name that we have a dab page rather than a two-dab primary - for example, Napoleon and the numerous works of the same name. One exception is Vladimir Lenin, which has a hatnote to Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (poem).
It's unusual, but I think that is just more reason to follow policy; there are many other unusual circumstances that could justify an argument against using hatnotes, and if we start allowing such arguments we are going to waste a lot of time debating whether we should be including basic - and so far uncontroversial - navigational aides. BilledMammal (talk) 12:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

King and Queen's joint cypher.

Evening, I've seen Their Majesties joint cypher on coronation memorabilia and thought it prudent that we added it to the King and Queen's pages, I sadly don't know how to recreate the image. I've attached a link to the twitter page that shows a close up of the joint cypher so that someone who does know can do so.[2] GandalfXLD (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GandalfXLD: I suggest taking this request to Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop. Keivan.fTalk 03:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I actually went ahead and made the request myself. Let's see if someone will pick it up. Keivan.fTalk 06:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ Coronation Countdown [@CoronationCount] (April 29, 2023). "Coronation Order of Service" (Tweet) – via Twitter.
  2. ^ https://twitter.com/Cathy57600977/status/1646655657268113408

Arms Re-granted

Her Majesty has received another grant of arms. It is essentially just updating the coronet, and the illustration matches the update that Sodacan has already made. It may be worth mentioning in the accompanying text. [[4]] Robin S. Taylor (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on how to refer to Camilla in her brother's article

Editors may like to contribute to the discussion at Talk:Mark Shand § Referring to his sister Camilla. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Coronation Trailer

The BBC's trailer for the Coronation TV coverage refers to the Coronation of King Charles and Queen Camilla. I presume that this counts as a reliable source and so we can go ahead and change the title of the article now.

I would also add that there are hundreds of other references to Queen Camilla across other Wikipedia articles but it only seems to be this one that people are being silly about keeping the consort suffix. :195.213.41.254 (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect Buckingham palace will update Queen Camilla Title on the day of the Coronation or the day before from Her Majesty the Queen Consort to Her Majesty the Queen. King4852 (talk) 18:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As the Guardian pointed out in the article I linked to above, "the title of Queen Camilla will be used after the coronation, not before." TFD (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At the minute it’s speculation when Buckingham palace will update the Website.
nothing is confirmed as of yet.
my logic is only based on the fact they’ve used Queen Camilla in the invites for the coronation which would suggest she will be Queen during the coronation ceremony itself. King4852 (talk) 11:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What the Guardian wrote a month ago is neither a verse from Bible nor carved in stone. The title is in use pretty much everywhere. In fact, the same outlet reported yesterday that the Royal Mail will be applying a special postmark from 28 April to 10 May, to mark the coronation, which reads: "Coronation of Their Majesties King Charles III and Queen Camilla 6 May 2023". Keivan.fTalk 00:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Statements in reliable sources are reliable, conclusions made by editors based on their interpretation of primary sources are not. In any case, as Camilla will be crowned Queen at her coronation (which literally means crowning), it makes sense to refer to the coronation of Queen Camilla. In the same sense if we talk about man landing on Mars, it doesn't mean a man has actually landed there, because we are discussing a future event. TFD (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't alter the fact that the title "Queen Camilla" is in use in multiple secondary sources. And unlike the landing on Mars, her rise to the rank of a queen consort has happened already. Keivan.fTalk 22:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References to Camilla

Throughout this article Queen Camilla is referenced as Shard, shoud we not be referencing her as Queen or Queen Consort or just Camilla in line with others in the royal family? For example, The Princess of Wales is not referred to as Middleton when metioning her throughout her page Jord656 (talk) 11:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m seeing The Queen referred to as Shand only before her marriage to then-Prince of Wales. I think it’s due to her legal name and reference before becoming British royal family member. AKTC3 (talk) 12:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The usage in the article complies with Changed names in the Manual of Style. TFD (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 April 2023

Camilla, Queen Consort → Queen Camilla – I intended to open this RM earlier with the intent that it be closed by the day of the coronation, but I have arrived a little late. Regardless, “Queen Camilla” has become the WP:COMMONNAME of the subject, being used by reliable sources such as CNN [5], People [6], Vogue [7], and ABC [8]. Most importantly, gov.uk has referred to her by said name [9] and she has been referred to as just “The Queen” in the coronation liturgy [10]. And of course, all this supports the long held presumption that she will just be “The Queen” and “Queen Camilla”, post coronation. Less than a week out from that date, I see no reason to not follow the changes sources have made. Cheers! Estar8806 (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I've just noticed that the sources I provided do not appear in mobile view, but they do in desktop view. I'm unsure of how to fix that so if anyone does know it would be greatly helpful if you could do so. Thanks. Estar8806 (talk) 21:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AKTC3 (talk) 22:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That article is a day old, and was published before the order of service for the coronation became available. Also, no one said anything about moving the page now. It takes seven days for it to run its course anyway, which means that by May 6, it will be at the title it ought to be at. Keivan.fTalk 23:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is no different from the invitation: it is talking about a future event when it is expected Camilla will be enthroned and assume the title "Queen Camilla." Note the liturgy says "For use on Saturday 6th May 2023." It even begins, "The Liturgy will be." Furthermore it's synthesis to draw conclusions based on your own interpretation of sources.This article has been moved twice but in each case based on reliable sources.
The Royal Family website and official lists of royal family members in the other Commonwealth realms continue to refer to her as Camilla, Queen Consort. I assume they are in a better position to know what her title is than Wikipedia editors. TFD (talk) 00:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So the Church of England, which incidentally Charles is the supreme governor of, has no idea what it's talking about! We should wait for official list of royal family members in other Commonwealth realms to get updated. Based on that logic Camilla's page should not have been even moved to its current title when Charles's mother died, because the Government of Canada was referring to her as "The Duchess of Cornwall" for days after Elizabeth II's death. And Camilla will not be assuming the title of "Queen Camilla". She already is "Queen Camilla". Her title will simply change from "The Queen Consort" to "The Queen". Keivan.fTalk 02:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's WP:OR. She will still be referred to as the Queen Consort in common parlance due to the recency of the Queen's death for a long time to come. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What you just said is WP:OR. Here's the Constitution Unit making it clear. Not to mention that she's already referred to as "The Queen" by the Church of England. Keivan.fTalk 20:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They make no mention of "the Queen" as her title in that article, just "Queen". ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:39, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, see the gov.uk source I provided. It consistently refers to Charles & Camilla as "Their Majesties King Charles III and Queen Camilla". So clearly the government, along with other sources are not only referring to her as Queen Camilla in future tense, but in the present as well. Queen Camilla is both correct and common. And in any case, official names are trumped by common names almost every time. Estar8806 (talk) 02:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First, Camilla, Queen Consort, is the common name used in reliable sources. A number of editors have claimed it is not, but have provided little evidence. Mostly it is used in headlines and references to the coronation.
Anyway, reliable sources have explained that it is likely her title will change on May 6. If they are wrong, you need a source that her title has already changed, not arguments which is synthesis. Are you seriously claiming that her title was changed from Queen Consort to Queen by the issuance of a program from the Church? Wouldn't one expect an official announcement from the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Palace?
In any case, once her title is changed, we can add information about how and why this was done. No doubt reliable sources will further explain this in times to come. TFD (talk) 02:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Little evidence? I provided six sources in my nomination statement, you've provided one so far. If anyone, it's certainly not us who've provided little evidence. Mostly it is used in headlines and references to the coronation. - CNN, People, and Vogue use "Queen Camilla" throughout in the articles I've provided. In regards to the second half of that statement, you're right that "Queen Camilla" has only been used regarding the coronation. But it doesn't matter why/in what context a name is used, it is used nonetheless.
Second, why should we expect an official announcement from the Archbishop or the Palace? What if it simply never comes? They've referred to her as Queen Camilla in the coronation invite, and there is absolutely no way the Church of England would publish a liturgy calling her "The Queen" and "Queen Camilla" without consent of the Palace. Estar8806 (talk) 02:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Official announcement on what? She has been "Queen Camilla" from day one, because according to English common law the wife of a king is a queen. And this is not synthesis. Here's the Constitution Unit making it clear:
Q: Is Camilla now Queen Camilla?
A: Yes, under common law the spouse of a King automatically becomes Queen, and the matter was put beyond doubt by the Queen [Elizabeth II] in her Accession Day message of 5 February 2022 when she said ‘it is my sincere wish that, when that time comes, Camilla will be known as Queen Consort as she continues her own loyal service.’ ... In normal parlance, Camilla should be known simply as ‘Queen’: it is not usually necessary to use the term ‘Consort’ to distinguish between a Queen who – like the two Elizabeths – ruled in their own right, and those Queens who bear the title following marriage to a King. Elizabeth II’s own mother was never during her husband’s reign customarily, if at all, referred to as ‘Queen Consort’. Keivan.fTalk 03:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All major, reliable newspapers in the UK have begun using 'Queen Camilla' in some capacity, whether or not it is related to her and the King's coronation is irrelevant.
Jèrriais janne (talk) 10:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, sources are still using the name now. You're right, many are holding on until after the coronation, but others are also using the name Queen Camilla now. And as Keivan said, the page won't be moved until coronation day anyway so the argument that this is too son is moot. Estar8806 (talk) 00:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see many sources calling her Queen Camilla. Mostly when that title is used it is in headlines (which are not considered rs), while the article itself will use her current title of Queen Consort. TFD (talk) 00:17, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You’re partially right. The sources I listed either say “Queen Camilla” throughout, while still using “the Queen Consort”. The two titles can exist together. Estar8806 (talk) 00:20, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some "reliable sources" also refer to her as Queen Consort Camilla. That's journalese, abbreviating terms especially in headlines. But mostly she is referred to as Camilla, Queen Consort. And common name only applies if the correct name is rarely used. But in this case it appear to be the common name. In any case, CNN, Vogue, People and ABC News are not my go to sources for royal titles, otherwise we'd have Princess Diana and Lord Jeffrey Archer, which CNN actually uses. TFD (talk) 02:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. How's The Times [11] and The Independent [12] (And of course, the literal Government of the United Kingdom, and the Church of England). Estar8806 (talk) 02:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, The Times has made it known in a leading article that they're referring to Camilla as "the Queen" to illustrate a point, so there could be a potential WP:NPOV issue there. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - As per the grounds stated by Estar8806, Keivan.f and AKTC3. IlkkaP (talk) 05:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as of 6/5/2023 - It’s now becoming clear that Camilla will be known as the Queen and will be referred to as Her Majesty the Queen from the 6th May 2023. She has also in sources been referred to as Her Majesty Queen Camilla or Their Majesties King Charles and Queen Camilla when referring to both the King and Queen.
Camilla became Queen when her husband became King at 15:10 on the 8th September 2022 as per English common law.https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/research-areas/monarchy-church-and-state/accession-and-coronation/planning-next-accession-and
Camilla Position will always remain Queen Consort as the wife of the reigning King but officially we will start to her been referring to as Queen Camilla or Simply just the Queen which is consistent with how previously Queens Consorts were referred to. King4852 (talk) 07:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I supported this from the beginning. Queen Consort is a position, it was never a title. The title has always legally been HM The Queen, The Queen, and Queen Camilla. Hopefully we can put this behind us. GandalfXLD (talk) 09:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for 6/5/2023; weak support for now. It is clear that the palace, representing Camilla, consider her to be Queen (no “consort”), and this is part a question of a BLP issue of a person determining their own name. Separately, enough reliable secondary sources have dropped the “consort” including many reputable sources commenting directly on the dropping of the consort. “Officially”, this is to happen 6/5/2023. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    People get to determine their own name, but "Queen" vs "Queen Consort" isn't a name, it is two forms of the same title, and there is no aspect of BLP that tells us people get to choose their title or which form of the title is used. BilledMammal (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It is all but clear that the Queen Consort will be referred to as "the Queen" or "Queen Camilla" after her coronation. Most especially, the invites say "the Coronation of Their Majesties King Charles III and Queen Camilla". Therefore, from 6 May 2023, the article title should be changed to reflect that.
The Telegraph: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/04/28/the-queen-consorts-hairdresser-and-friend-jo-hansford/
The Independent: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/royal-family/coronation-guide-timeline-events-charles-camilla-b2329346.html
The Times: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/camilla-queen-charles-coronation-wedding-inner-circle-xgn7lv0m9
The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/28/royal-mail-issues-four-stamps-mark-king-charles-iii-coronation (though their page for her says still 'Camilla (Queen Consort)' Jèrriais janne (talk) 10:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your first source only uses Queen in the headline; per WP:HEADLINES we consider this unreliable and don't use it. In the body, it uses "Queen Consort". Further, your sources aren't representative of the preference of the others. For example, in the past week there have been ten Guardian articles using "Queen Consort", compared to three using "Queen"; in the Independent there have been thirty-nine using "Queen Consort", compared to seventeen using "Queen". The Times has had equal preference for "Queen Consort" and "Queen" over the past week.
On the basis of this, I oppose this proposal. BilledMammal (talk) 19:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Albert was known as "The Prince Consort" and his title did not change to the best of my knowledge. Every queen consort in British history, including Camilla, has been entitled to be known simply as "The Queen". I have already listed all the other living queens consort, and I think we do not need to make an exception out of this article's subject. Also, "Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother" was Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon's actual 'title' (note that we don't have "Queen Alexandra The Queen Mother" or "Queen Mary The Queen Mother"). She would have been known simply as "Queen Elizabeth" as a dowager queen if her daughter had not been named Elizabeth as well. Keivan.fTalk 15:04, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I know, you don't need to keep telling me this: you've said it twice already. I have supported "is Queen of the United Kingdom" in the opening sentence, but I've no strong feelings on the title. You've also missed the point on the "Queen Elizabeth" title; was focusing on the "Queen Elizabeth", and not so much on the "Queen Mother" bit: i.e., we don't have "Elizabeth, Queen Consort", we have "Queen Elizabeth". Thought the reason why we don't have "Queen Alexandra The Queen Mother" and "Queen Mary The Queen Mother" would've been obvious; because they aren't queen mothers. So yes, both "Camilla, Queen Consort", and "Queen Camilla" are correct; it's just that I don't care which is used. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I told you elsewhere doesn't matter. Arguments should be laid out here for readers to see. And you're wrong with your assertion that Queen Alexandra and Queen Mary were not queen mothers (see British queen mothers, Alexandra of Denmark#Queen mother (1910–1925) and Mary of Teck#Queen mother (1936–1952)). Queen mother is not a title, it's a rank (like queen regnant, queen consort, queen dowager). What title a queen mother chooses to use varies depending on circumstances. Though, you're entitled to your opinion; if you truly feel neutral about this then so be it. Keivan.fTalk 16:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you're quite right about the queen mothers. Having a lazy brain day. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And further, the stronger argument should be for consistency with living Queens consort elsewhere, not deceased former British consorts. So we have Queen Sonja of Norway, Queen Silvia of Sweden, Queen Máxima of the Netherlands, Queen Mathilde of Belgium and Queen Letizia of Spain. By that logic, this article's title should be Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom, but since her husband is simply Charles III, I figured that there wouldn't be support to have "of the United Kingdom" for Camilla either. Estar8806 (talk) 15:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose for now, per WP:CRYSTAL. This has never been about what she is entitled to be called, only about what she is actually called by reliable secondary sources. Even supporters of the move are peppering their responses with presumptions, all buts and other conditional phrasing. We shouldn't be second guessing what the sources will do in the future, however likely it seems. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you actually claiming secondary sources don't use "Queen Camilla". Did you even read the sources I provided.
    From CNN (image caption) Queen Camilla in the Blue Drawing Room at Buckingham Palace.
    From People Queen Camilla also wore the late Queen Elizabeth's pearl drop earrings set with a sapphire and ruby. (emphasis on the fact this is in past tense)
    From The Independent The coronation of King Charles and Queen Camilla is taking place just a week from now.
    From The Guardian Four new stamps and a special postmark are being issued to mark the coronation of King Charles and Queen Camilla
    None of these say "Camilla is entitled to be Queen" or "Camilla will be Queen after the coronation". Nor do any of them use conditional language, all of them use "Queen Camilla did/will do X", or some other mention of her as "Queen Camilla" without conditional phrasing. Estar8806 (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And also, there's no dispute about the fact she will just be "The Queen" beyond the Coronation, see the Liturgy [13]. Estar8806 (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm saying that the change has not yet occurred in the significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources (my emphasis) required by WP:COMMONNAME. Rosbif73 (talk) 17:12, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The change has pretty much occurred in all secondary sources, especially in the new articles that are being published. You cannot possibly bring up the sum of online articles from months ago to argue that "Camilla, Queen Consort" is more common (which incidentally is not; it's either "Queen Camilla" or "The Queen Consort"). Based on that logic, Charles III's page should be at Prince Charles, because he held the title for 70+ years and obviously there are more sources available calling him with that name. We go with the name that is common for the subject and preferred either by them or the institution that represents them per MOS:IDENTITY. Keivan.fTalk 17:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I beg to differ. The change has been mentioned in many sources, but the significant majority continue to use the term consort in their recent reporting (note the use–mention distinction). Rosbif73 (talk) 17:34, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The change you are referring to, is the change in her title from "The Queen Consort" to "The Queen". On the other hand, she has been "Queen Camilla" legally from day one (sources already given), a name that is now in use in secondary sources. So it's not even a question of entitlement. She's already referred to as such. Keivan.fTalk 17:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There remains a dispute until Buckingham Palace announces a change. See WP:CRYSTAL. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:47, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - As per @Keivan.f. DDMS123 (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stongly Support First of all, I don't understand why the previous objectors said that there is no reliable source to prove that "Queen camilla" is the correct title. In fact, Buckingham Palace has officially used "Queen camilla". The official coronation invitation issued by Buckingham Palace has already used "Queen Camilla". Secondly, the official coronation memorabilia produced by the Royal Collection Shop also uses "Queen Camilla". Finally, The Liturgy for the Coronation, revealed by Buckingham Palace and the Church of England yesterday, officially refers to Camilla as "The Queen". Not to mention that CNN, The Times and even the official website of the UK government call her "Queen Camilla". Isn't the above three official sources reliable enough?
The official coronation invitation from Buckingham Palace: https://www.royal.uk/news-and-activity/2023-04-04/the-coronation-invitation
Royal Collection Trust:https://www.rct.uk/about/press-office/press-releases/official-commemorative-range-to-mark-the-coronation-of-their#/
The Liturgy for the Coronation:https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2023-04/23-24132%20Coronation%20Liturgy%20Commentary.pdf page29: The coronation of The Queen — Preceding unsigned comment added by KGOO510 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As soon as Buckingham Palace Drops the Word Consort on this page https://www.royal.uk/the-queen-consort
This issue will have been settled in the most conclusive fashion and we will largely be able to template the page based on other Queen Consorts of the United Kingdom to bring consistency to the page. King4852 (talk) 07:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another source: Wesminster Abbey. "Westminster Abbey has today released the words and music of the Vivat acclamations which will be sung at the Coronation of Their Majesties The King and The Queen on Saturday 6th May.The words which will be sung at this Coronation are: Vivat Regina Camilla! Vivat Regina Camilla! (Or ‘Long live Queen Camilla! Long live King Charles!')" — Preceding unsigned comment added by KGOO510 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

D-day anniversary 'celebrations'

article currently reads 'In June 2014, Camilla and Charles attended the 70th anniversary celebrations of D-Day in Normandy'.

celebrations is an inappropriate word, I suggest commemorations instead. 195.213.213.219 (talk) 14:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Keivan.fTalk 15:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Queen_Camilla&oldid=1152819079"