Talk:Queen Camilla/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall

After the wedding this page should be moved to Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall. While technically it's the style of a divorced peeress it's the simplest way to combine her name and title. It should not be moved to Camilla, Princess of Wales. Even though she will legally become Princess of Wales (unless the Queen issues letters-patent stating otherwist) she won't use that title and won't be know by it. Even the Court Circular will list her as the Duchess of Cornwall. For a similiar situation see Lady Louise Windsor who is technically HRH Princess Louise of Wessex. (Alphaboi867 04:35, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Since it's so important to get Camilla's title right shouldn't the article's title be changed from "Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall" which is clearly wrong and inappropriate since it reflects the title of a divorced peeress (like Sarah, Duchess of York)? What about simply "HRH The Duchess of Cornwall," which is how she is refered to at the offical website of the British royal family http://www.royal.gov.uk. Of course the artcile could be redirected from Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, Camilla Parker Bowles, Camilla Shand and any other name someone might use to look the subject up.

I agree -- to a point. But isn't Wiki convention (not always followed, obviously) to have entries labeled with birth name? I'm sure this has been discussed ad nauseum but if Wiki is to have a stated rule about this, we should stick to it. So what will it be? "Camilla Shand" or "Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall"? Or something else altogether. Who is the final arbiter about this? BTW, would it not be easier for the entry's title to utilize the name by which she/he is most famously known, ie the one most of the world knows? Again, there must be an arbiter on this. Mowens35 10:05, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Convention is that articles on peers and peeresses include the title of nobility in question. Thus, the article will be at Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall. -- Emsworth 11:14, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Legally, she is Princess of Wales even if she doesn't use the title. AndyL 11:43, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

She is, and it's right that we refer to that. However, everyone is calling her the Duchess of Cornwall, and she has asked to be known as the Duchess of Cornwall. It's not for Wikipedia to go out on a limb on this one - we should use the style Duchess of Cornwall for the article title, and throughout the article (although it is proper, of course, to refer to her technically being the Princess of Wales too), jguk 12:24, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with "Duchess of Cornwall" being used in the article title, and in the introduction. However, since she is (as you admit) legally Princess of Wales, I see no problem in putting such a title in bold. -- Emsworth 12:29, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We're not "going out on a limb" as the government and legal experts, without dissent, have said she is Princess of Wales regardless of what she prefers to be known as. We have a number of articles on royal which say so-and-so "styled as" such-and-such. No reason for this to be any different. She is Princess Charles, Princess of Wales styled as HRH the Duchess of Cornwall. That statement is 100% correct and we need not apologise for it since we are on firm ground making that statement. AndyL 12:46, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Andy, you are correct, and I wish more people would understand this. I have worked for years at newspapers and magazines which often get royal and aristocratic titles wrong and who disbelieve my advice, even when I crack open a copy of Burke's Peerage and show writers the errors of their ways. I am forever arguing in favor of strictest accuracy -- something for all of us to remember since we're putting together an encyclopaedia, which is all about accuracy and information properly delivered. And since so few people understand the terminology and use of titles, but blithely and happily use them like something out of a fairy tale, it is important that Wiki get it right, even if others get it wrong. Mowens35 16:48, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Andy - I a

Surname

What will her surname be after the wedding? That info should go in the article. Pakaran 13:37, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

She will presumably take the surname Mountbatten-Windsor. Strictly speaking, however, she is a peeress, and will therefore have no legal surname. (In other words, her passport or some other legal document would not use a surname.) This is the case not only for princesses, but also for other wives of peers. -- Emsworth 13:56, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. Pakaran 14:05, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why would she take Mountbatten-Windsor, when Charles's surname is Windsor? RickK 07:58, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Charles's surname is not Windsor; it is Mountbatten-Windsor, a hyphenate combination of his mother and father's surnames, as was decided by his parents for their descendants. This is the short story. Someone can go into the complicated version if he/she has the inclination. Mowens35 08:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From House of Windsor: The Queen issued another Order-in-Council, confirming that she and her four children will be known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that her other male-line descendants (except those who are "HRH" and a Prince or Princess) will take the name "Mountbatten-Windsor". Any future monarch could change the dynasty name if he chose to do so. Another Order-in-Council would override those of George V and Elizabeth. For example, if the Prince of Wales accedes to the throne, he could change the royal house to "Mountbatten" in honour of his father, and of his uncle Louis Mountbatten.. In other words, the Queen and all of her children are Windsor, any other descendants who are not HRH's will be Mountbatten-Windsor. Charles is therefore a Windsor, not a Mountbatten-Windsor. RickK 09:50, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Per RickK's info re the Queen's Order-in-Council, I have changed Camilla's new surname to Windsor from Mountbatten-Windsor. I have also gone to the Prince of Wales's entry and made a similar change. Mowens35 12:02, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted to Mountbatten-Windsor, as per published information that the Prince of Wales, as well as his sister and brothers, all use Mountbatten-Windsor as their personal surnames (as opposed to the official House of Windsor name). Despite the Queen's 1960 Order-in-Council cited by RickK, the children of Queen Elizabeth II all have used Mountbatten-Windsor as the surname on their marriage banns and marriage licenses, if a quick search on Nexis-Lexis and other sources is accurate. Mowens35 12:22, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Typo?

At the beginning the page states, "Her Royal Highness the Princess Charles". Charles? Shouldn't that be Camilla? SD6-Agent 14:51, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No. Adam 15:18, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Whilst, historically, that might be how she would have been known, that is not what she actually is known. We really need commonsense here - we should use the name she and everyone else uses first. Anything else looks silly - particularly as this is likely to be a popular page going forward.

It's amazing that the monarchy and aristocracy can change, but there are still some people out there that think we should be inflexible and impervious to change. Citing "this is the WP style for royalty" is really nothing more than sticking your head in the sand - WP style must adapt to the changing world out there. We're an encyclopaedia - so we report, we do not decide whether we like what we report. In actuality, she is called the Duchess of Cornwall, so that is what we should call her first up, jguk 16:10, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Calling her "Princess Charles" is not "historical." If you will look in your nearest copy of Burke's Peerage, circa the time Sarah Ferguson married Prince Andrew, the Duke of York, you will see that Sarah Ferguson became, technically and legally, "HRH the Princess Andrew, Duchess of York," shorted to "HRH the Duchess of York." This is the proper usage and terminology and should be used, if explained in some succinct way. Believe me, I have studied this for years, as both an editor and a writer, and this is correct. I do not think Wiki should be "inflexible and impervious" to change. However, for Wiki to blithely ignore what is correct in favor of what is easier does the encyclopaedia a disservice. As you say, "we do not decide whether we like what we report." So be accurate, even if it makes your teeth grate. Mowens35 16:41, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So when a female is given a royal title, her first name is legally dropped and replaced with her spouse's first name? SD6-Agent 12:14, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

no, it's the same thing as a woman becoming "Mrs. John Smith"; just substitute Princess for Mr ... Mowens35 18:45, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well no, it is not, because if one looks at the article for Britney Spears, she is quite clearly not Mrs Kevin Federline in the introduction.Grace Note 05:14, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Consistency

If this article is to be headed Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, as it should, then why is the late Queen Mother's article headed Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, and not Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother? Adam 15:17, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The policy for monarchical consorts is deeply flawed at the moment, I think. While peeresses are at their married names, unless they are better known by their maiden names, British queen-consorts are always given their maiden name, even when they are never called by that. But the only case where they are never called by it, I think, is the Queen Mum, so it works out okay. It gets more absurd when we move out to other European countries. I would note, though, that we always have a different standard for living people than we do for dead people. A living person is always at whatever name they are currently using. john k 15:26, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

She was at Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon when she was alive, a name she hadn't used since 1920. I objected to this before her death and was overruled. Adam 15:31, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Really? The page Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon only dates back to March 30, 2002. Were you even here in 2002? john k 15:50, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Um, no. On checking I see it was in April last year. Adam 16:03, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Because royal spouses don't have ordinals, it becomes a tangled mess if they are referred to by spouse name. The standard historical procedure to avoid this is to refer to a deceased spouse by means of maiden name, hence Catherine of Aragon and Catherine Howard, not Queen Catherine and . . . um . . . Queen Catherine, Elizabeth of York and Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, rather than Queen Elizabeth and Queen Elizabeth. That is also why history books refer to Mary of Teck, Mary of Modena, etc. It is standard editorial practice. Usually an edition of a hardcopy comes out every decade or so, so there is time for people to revert to using maiden name when referring to a deceased spouse. Wikipedia is more complicated because it is a live encyclopaedia. But in time unless explicitly talking about her in the 1952-2001 era, most will write about Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon rather than Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother I've already sat in two editorial conferences for a major encylopaedia where we discussed whether she should be entered as QE the QM or EBL. The decision was that in the next edition she will be Elizabeth Bowes Lyon. They are (this week) discussing whether to have Diana, Princess of Wales or Lady Diana Spencer. The debate is whether, given her profile as the former, it is too soon to revert to maiden name. However as there now is a new Princess of Wales (even if she isn't called that), opinion is leaning heaving towards Lady Diana Spencer. The editorial committee tends to follow the rule '5 years dead - back to the maiden name'. FearÉIREANN 00:42, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Styles going overboard

I have serious doubts about the wisdom of using styles up front rather than contextualising them in articles (many people internationally in places where styles are never ever used don't understand that calling a pope 'His Holiness' is not expressing an opinion but using a style, for example). But it is really going overboard when an article is filled with paragraphs starting Her Royal Highness was . . . etc. This is an encyclopaedia, not a pro-monarchist publication (or anti-monarchist for that matter). I've removed the ridiculous HRH stuff at the start of paragraphs and replaced it with "The Duchess of Cornwall . . . ". Come on, folks. Don't make wikipedia look ridiculous with over-use of styles. It is one thing to start an article with one, but even Charles and Camilla would find the use of styles in this article sychophantic and embarrassing. This isn't the Court Circular! FearÉIREANN 00:42, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the's no need to constantly use HRH every time you mention her. Camilla or the Duchess of Cornwall will do. (Alphaboi867 00:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Indeed, this is absurd. We should not use HRH to refer to her. john k 03:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Given that recommended protocol (the Palace doesn't insist on any set protocol) on talking to a member of the Royal Family is to refer to them by HRH once only when first referring to them and then Sir/Ma'm in the first person (or in this example Duchess to refer to her in third person) surely this suggestion does not only read better, but is actually quite correct.--Ayrshire--77 13:19, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

She is NOT Princess Camilla

Will people who have no concept of how royal/aristocratic titles are used PLEASE stop making unnecessary and incorrect "corrections." The Duchess of Cornwall, though married to a Prince, is not a Princess, ie Princess Camilla. The former Princess of Wales, Diana, was aware of this and often corrected people who called her or referred to her as Princess Diana. She was technically the Princess Charles, Princess of Wales, as is Camilla now, technically. This is not unlike, in the United States or elsewhere, of a woman being Mrs. John Smith. If people have any questions regarding this, please check the nearest Burke's Peerage, Debrett's, or Almanach de Gotha. Or better, yet, make a call to the British embassy or consulate near you. Sarah Ferguson became "HRH the Princess Andrew, Duchess of York," et cetera. This is correct usage. It may seem illogical to some people but it is correct usage, so please STOP fiddling with the text.

No, she is a princess. She is not Princess Camilla. john k 17:22, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am fully aware she is Princess Charles, just not Princess Camilla, as my postings have made perfectly clear and continual editing/counterediting make clear. End of subject. Mowens35 17:30, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article history is full of people making this change so I've added a comment in the wikitext itself. They don't bother to check the talk page. — Trilobite (Talk) 10:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Grr!! I changed it from "Princess Camilla" to "Princess Charles" and someone called it vandalism! Please, read this talk page before "correcting".

Intro

I made some changes to the intro, namely:

• the opening line should not be HRH The Princess Charles, Princess of Wales, as she is not to be known as this, and it is not the name of article
• mention that Prince Charles is also Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay, hence her use of Duchess of Cornwall title
• only brief mention of entitlement to Princess of Wales, as this should be discussed more fully in the article. Astrotrain 16:53, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

I agree and feel the "HRH The Princess Charles, Princess of Wales" should be put in the "Titles" section with brief explanation as to why this is technically correct -- I've done this in "Titles". I also agree with the Cornwall and Rothesay comment and the Wales one. The only trouble is getting people to realize that this is best and not to keep going back and forth like a pendulum re introduction. Mowens35 17:09, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please stop reverting me without comment.

This shows an example of my clarification. You have now reverted it twice, both times without explanation.

The changes is as follows:

From:

[...] she wished to use her future husband's subsidiary titles of Cornwall and Rothesay. Presumably, this is because [...]

To:

[...] she wished to use the style of her subsidiary title of Duchess of Cornwall; this is presumably because [...]

The reasoning is quite simple - your text suggests that her useage of DoR has anything to do with Diana, something which is doesn't. Also, starting a sentence with "Presumably," is awkward, and the close relationship of the flow of logic strongly suggests the use of conjoining via a semi-colon.

Thoughts?

James F. (talk) 18:05, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

James, read your sentence carefully ... "she wished to use the style of her subsidiary title of Duchess of Cornwall; this is presumably because [...] ... any editor would not allow it to be printed at all due to its illogic as well as its disinformation ... At the time the decision was made for Camilla to use the Cornwall title, she was NOT married to the prince, so it was not HER subsidiary title at that time. The Cornwall and Rothesay titles were not created for her; they belong to the prince, and Camilla would take the female form upon her marriage NOT before, which is my argument against staying "her subsidiary title". It seems very clear to anybody who has been following the marriage issue that Camilla and Charles decided to have her use the Cornwall and Rothesay titles because of the outcry that would result from her using the Wales title. Anyone following the story can see that, particularly with the public polls going so much against her use of the Wales title. I have reverted with a small edit to clarify this. Mowens35 07:37, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

MOwens, read your own - your line clearly implies that her use of Charles' subsidiary title of the Dukedom of Rothesay is different from how she would normally be referenced in Scotland. It isn't. Only the failure to use "Princess of Wales" is different from normal protocol, and (presumably) related to Diana. Stop putting it back. Please.

James F. (talk) 12:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

whilst

I add to all the other nit-picking in this discussion by noting that the word "whilst" should not be used when the word "although" can logically be substituted. The word "while" can be used, though. Yanks seem never to use "whilst" and Limies seem never to use "while". They are different words, which, while somewhat similar in meaning, are not synonymous. I have, accordingly, made a change in the subject article. Too Old 17:46, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)

I use both - but if one word is easier for an international audience to read than another, then it's best we change it. Be bold, Too old :) jguk 19:03, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Whilst, amongst and amidst are pretentious and unnecessary variations on while, among and amid, which should always be used. Adam 02:04, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bollocks. Whilst is a perfectly natural construction often used by Brits, myself included. Jooler 22:22, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

While a Yank, such as myself, would not ordinarily use the word, it would be politic to use "whilst" whilst in the UK, so as not to rile the natives. (Strange creatures, the Brits: drink warm beer, eat cold toast, and drive on the wrong side of the street.) Too Old 01:50, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

Whilst we may be "strange creatures", we drink beer at a temperature where we can taste it, and we do not drive on the wrong side of the road (iirc you deliberately decided to drive on the right as an act of defiance - and thus it is intrinsicly wrong!) :D

As to the actual issue in hand, I use "whilst"/"while", "amoungst"/"amoung" and "amid"/"amidst" interchangably or in different contexts, e.g. "Whilst Bob was not a qualified mechanic, he had learned a lot while working at the garage". "With, fear, suprise and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope amoung their many weapons, The Spanish Inquisition was amoungst the most memorable Monty Python sketches". "Amidst the chaos of battle, the young soldier gallantly and fearlessly stood his ground and protected his wounded Captain. However when receiving his medal at the Palace he felt decidedly uncomfortable amid the Gentry and all the pomp and circumstance".

Those might not be the best examples ever, but its the best I could do at 3:45am! Thryduulf 02:45, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems that my original point has been missed: "while" is sometimes roughly synonymous with "although"; "whilst" is not. If you can substitute "although" for "whilst" without making the sentence nonsensical, you should use "while" instead. In other respects "while" and "whilst" are synonymous. Last word from me. Too Old 16:50, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

I'll stop using "whilst" in British articles when Americans stop using "sidewalk" or "raincheck" or "broil", "canola", "take out", "flatware", "pantyhose" etc.. in American ones. Jooler 08:37, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For the record - British beer is not warm is it just not frozen to death. Ideally should be served at about 10-12 degrees centigrade. British beer is brewed using top fermenting yeasts which rise to the top of the vat an like high temperatures. The resultant beer has a complex flavour that is reduced when served too cold. German style lagers use bottom fermenting yeasts which sink to the bottom of the vat and like cold temperatures. Before efficient refrigeration, German beer was only brewed in the colder months. Unlike lagers which are mostly unpalatable when not served chilled, British beers can be enjoyed "warm" :-) or cold. Jooler 08:55, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

clarification needed

"Wales has said that "it is intended" that the Duchess of Cornwall will be known as the Princess Consort if he becomes King."

In this sentence, is Wales a person or a governing body? please make it more clear in the article. Kingturtle 00:52, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let's not get carried away or we'll end up starting the article saying "Her Royal Highness The Princess Charles Philip Arthur George, Princess of Wales and Countess of Chester, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay, Countess of Carrick, Baroness Renfrew, Lady of the Isles, Princess and Great Stewardess of ScotlandAndyL

Title Problems Again

FYI: The Duchess of Cornwall's grandmother Rosalind Cubitt was NEVER "Lady Rosalind," she was born the Hon. Rosalind, daughter of a baron. A baron's daughter may be a lady but she's never a Lady with a capital L. I have changed the text back to Hon. Mowens35 08:15, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is it not wonderful that so much time and energy is wasted on such absurdities? Bring on the republic. Adam 10:02, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you there Adam! Thryduulf 10:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree as well, but both of you, Adam and Thryduulf, are wasting as much "time and energy" on this entry as any of us. (And if you each of you honestly feel that way, perhaps it would be best if you attended solely to entries on which no such "absurdities" are present.) Until titles are abolished and we all somehow manage to live as mere humans, without titles of any sort, it helps to be accurate. Otherwise, why are we working on this encyclopaedia? Attention to detail, in this instance, counts immensely, otherwise we're all wasting our time, yes? By the way, I'm an editor by profession, so what you see as "absurdities" I have a professional obligation to correct and clarify. Mowens35 10:55, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nature hath no fury like a humourless editor. Adam 11:10, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Humorless, no, just ask anyone. A stickler for perfection, yes, I'll admit that. Mowens35 11:11, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree completely about accuarcy, but I was basically saying that life would be a whole lot simpler without all these titles. To be honest I can't even remember why I got involved in this article, as although I'm British (and a civil servant to boot) I am not that fussed either way about whether we have a monarchy or not! Thryduulf 12:47, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What would Sir Humphrey think! -- Emsworth 14:36, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article on British princess says that the term "Princess Charles" is incorrect. This certainly is consistent with the usage I've seen - eg I never heard Diana called Princess Charles. The article should also comply with WP policy and refer to the article title to begin with. In particular, (1) it seems silly to refer to Camilla by a "name" that is never, ever used; and (2) it is courteous to refer to people by a name and style that they have asked to be referred to as, rather than one which they have clearly chosen to avoid for reasons of appreciating public concerns on the point - in fact, in this case, where the "alternative" is very politically sensitive, it is even more important not to unduly highlight the alternative, jguk 18:03, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

and what do we do about the Duchess of Kent? She and the duke are separated and in the midst of a divorce. She long preferred to be known as Katharine Kent and now prefers to be known as Katharine Worsley. Doesn't the title of her entry need to be changed to reflect this preference at this point, if you say it is courteous to "refer to people by a name and style that they have asked to be referrred to as"? Mowens35 19:19, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think that it's fine where it is until the divorce goes through. When she is divorced, we can move it to Katharine Worsley. On the other hand, we have Michael Ancram. This seems a similar kind of thing, no? john k 19:34, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

actually, if you wanted the article title to be correct, re Wiki, we all know it is incorrect but the clearest possible title under the circumstances. She is not a divorced peeress, which is precisely what Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall implies, but again, it is the clearest entry heading ... if you want the article title to be the finest and highest arbiter, it shoul-----------------------------7d530461b01be

Content-Disposition: form-data; name="wpTextbox1"