Talk:Queen Camilla/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Diana etc

Well, JTD! I don't want to start an edit war, so let's hold the debate here. What I wrote was correct. I assume you didn't see the recent documentary, but the sources for the statement that Charles and Camilla were...um...intimate throughout his engagement to Diana and right up to the last few days before the Royal Wedding are impeccable. So your statement about their relationship being "rekindled" is ambiguous. It was actually rekindled twice, once after Camilla got married but before Charles did, and again after Charles and Diana fell out. In the ten years or so between, they were "just good friends". As for Diana and Camilla ever having been on friendly terms, that's questionable. It's true that Charles introduced them, intending them to become friends, but it seems unlikely that they were more than social acquaintances, even before Diana found out what was going on. Deb 21:37, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The claim about Chas and Cam in the immediate run-up to his wedding is dodgy. Their 'night together' before the wedding involved sitting in a room chatting with people walking in and out (friends, staff, etc) every couple of minutes. Unless they had the ultimate quickie they could not have done anything. One member of the Prince's staff, who entered the room constantly said the conversation was an 'end of an era', 'do you remember the time . . . ? type conversation that didn't remotely suggest an ongoing affair, merely two friends, one of whose lives was about to change for ever with his marriage. Other suggested liaisons are similarly unreliable. I have seen no credible sources, merely people who certainly don't meet encyclopædic standards of credibility. As for Di and Cam being friendly, apparently they were throughout the engagement and for a couple of months, perhaps as long as a year, into the marriage, with a suggestion from Diana's dressmaker that Diana may even had asked Camilla for advice on her wedding outfits. So that suggests more than social acquaintances.

The article reflected a belief in Diana's interpretation of events and failed to point out that Camilla and Andrew's marriage was effectively over by the 1980s as her husband had a longtime mistress whom he eventually married. The suggestion that the Chas and Cam affair broke up two healthy marriages is distinctly POV. Both were in unhappy marriages with difficult spouses. Both bitterly regretted not marrying when they had the chance. Camilla thought that Charles, by not asking her to marry him before going off for a long stint abroad with the navy meant that marriage was off the cards. He was hesitant because, as he said himself, he was conscious that he was also choosing the next queen. If it was just him personally marrying he would have asked her, but he decided to wait to make sure he felt the same way when he came back because, ironically in the circumstances, he felt he could not afford to get it wrong. When he came back Camilla was engaged to someone else, and realised almost as soon as she had married Andrew that it was a monstrous mistake, by which time it was too late. And their divorce when Charles talked of the affair wasn't because Andrew suddenly had found out; he had known all the time and wasn't put out about it, he had his own lady friends to entertain. It just gave them the chance to end the charade; she to be with the person she had always loved, he to marry the woman he had in reality been with for years.

I know someone who knew both Charles and Diana (he worked as a diplomat in London in the 1980s) and he found Diana difficult in the extreme. He'd get warnings if he was going to an engagement from a member of her staff he knew over the phone before he set off: 'madame is in a mood'. She fell out with every single person who worked for her; she sacked every one of her personal staff, her PR agent when asked by a journalist about her hissing "I never want to work with someone like that again." (It was off the record, but the journalist in question I went to college with and he told me the story recently. On the record comments would be of the poor Diana variety, off the record they would be off the bitch from hell type.) She fell out with Elton John, who had no idea why. By the time of her death she was not on speaking terms with her mother, brother and one of her sisters. At the time of her father's death she had not been on speaking terms with him. She fell out with John Major who tried to look after her interests, her lawyers in the divorce case, the doctor she was seeing after the marriage who accused her of trying to trick him into marriage by secretly visiting his family and telling them they were engaged, even some of the journalists who she had used to plant stories. Even the dim-witted James Hewitt couldn't cope with her, while she almost wrecked James Gilbey's marriage and got herself very nearly prosecuted for more incidents than are publicly known about.

One thing I always do when reading a book is first of all check some fact I know for sure. If they have that fact right, I trust the book 60%. If they get that basic fact I know wrong, I bin the book unread. In the case of the Charles/Diana/Camilla mess, I know 5 people who knew all three pretty well; a diplomat, an academic and three journalists. All five reported the same experience. Two people who were madly in love, stuck in unhappy marriages and bitterly regretting not marrying when they got the chance; Charles and Camilla. And Diana, whom they found one of the most complex human beings they ever came across; genuinely nice, yet an absolute tempermental nightmare, a paranoid fantasist who destroyed almost every relationship she ever had with her mood swings, more often than not leaving the person she had broken off relations with completely puzzled as to the reason. All five said what amazed them was not that the marriage broke up but that Charles stuck it for so long. Most people with a spouse as difficult would have divorced in a year. Three incidents come to mind. Charles asked to play a cello at a public function (to his embarrassment), so Diana upstages him by getting the eye of a Sun photographer and raising her skirt high enough to ensure that the cameras focused on her rather than her husband. Charles again asked to play the cello, so again to upstage him she pushes past the organisers of the function and to Charles' embarrassment, the organisers' embarrassment, and even the embarrassment of the media there, beginning to play the piano very loudly to drown him out. And Diana, throwing a tantrum because he was going to play polo, demanding to be brought even though she hated the sport. He agreed, brought her, came back straight to directly after the game to find that she had been bored silly. Her response was to scrape his face and kick him in the shins so bad he needed an x-ray. But with blood on his face and hobbling he went over to astonished journalists who had witnessed the event and pleaded with them not to write about it, how Diana was stressed and how any coverage of the event would be traumatic for her, given that she devoted one hour every morning to reading every word written about her. They didn't for over a decade. All these incidents happened long before he and Camilla got together again. In the circumstances are you surprised he ended up with the quiet supportive funny Camilla rather than the shin-kicking, face-scraping tempermental Diana and her long list of ex-friends and even longer list of ex-employees? :-) FearÉIREANN 23:42, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

What a very very non-NPOV interpretation of the events. I'm surprised at you (actually, I'm not really, and I can see how you got there). Diana's character or the state of her marriage to Charles is quite irrelevant to the facts (but you should bear in mind that she was 19, and her character completely unformed, when she became engaged to him). It is now known that Camilla was the woman who boarded the royal train and spent the night there while the press were still speculating on the possibility of Charles and Diana becoming engaged. It is also known that, after the "final" meeting which you describe above, Camilla made a public show of saying goodnight to Charles, then they spent the night together elsewhere. Camilla and Andrew had an open marriage, and both of them had affairs. These facts are as indisputable as the fact that Diana had affairs with other men. I'm now going to go and render the article more NPOV. Deb 18:19, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Good rewrite. As you have may have guessed, I'm not a fan of the Diana as martyr, Charles as villan school of analysis. From what I have heard from people who knew them, both were genuinely good people with mucked up childhoods, both with low self-esteem who needed the companionship of someone who could be 100% supportive, and both were utterly and completely incompatible. Two 'normal' people in that sort of relationship would have had difficulty making a marriage work. But their marriage had no chance because of the incompatibility of their personalities and all the external pressures on them; large periods where their work would keep them away from each other, a rigidly organised life, media intrusion, surrounded by 'his' and 'hers' staff, well really 'hers' and 'hers' as Diana sacked all of Charles' staff one by one, then sacked her own; one poor man with 30 years service was supposedly sacked at 3am!, gotten up out of bed by a screaming Diana who imagined that he was 'one of the enemy' who didn't just want him sacking but for him and his family to move out of their grace and favour apartment immediately, at 3am! Charles is supposed with the help of another staff member to have carried her back to their apartment, kicking and screaming. The next morning Charles consulted a psychiatrist and asked whether his wife needed his serious help. The story never got out and the sacked staff member has been offer blank cheques from the tabloids but won't tell his story. I only heard it from the diplomat who heard it from a friend who worked for C&D and who said simply "Madame is mad. She desparately needs help how can she get it with all the media watching?" Apparently the final breakdown in the marriage followed the birth of Prince Harry. Charles joked that the baby had the red hair of the Spencers and the chubby fingers of the Windsors, and said he wished he had had the hair of the Windsors and the fingers of the Spencers. (Charles hates his chubby fingers!) She took it as a personal slight and never forgave Charles, saying she knew them her marriage was over!!! Those staff who hadn't been sacked left, finding Diana now impossible. Charles turned to Camilla as the one person he felt emotionally on the same wavelength on, leaned on her for support and that led to a resumption of their sexual relationship.

The curious thing about Charles and Diana is that neither realised how good they were at their job. Diana, in a classic case of clinical depression, negatised everything around her, saw her own mistakes and magnified them out of all proportion, then imagined everyone was against her, hence the sacking of staff, the breakdown in the relationship with the Queen (who apparently did far more than was realised to try to get close to her but gave up in the end) and her paranoia about Charles' friends, not just Camilla. Charles continually thinks of himself negatively; on an official visit to Ireland some years ago he thought he performed "adequately". Not in the eyes of Irish politicians who met him; having read media reports and been prepared for a difficult, slightly loopy character we wowed them with his slick professionalism in the job. One senior minister at the time told me "god but that man is good." He charmed the Irish media, delivered a personally researched and written speech on anglo-Irish relations, rather than the Foreign Office draft, that highly impressed people, etc. When he left Irish leaders described him as one of the most impressive foreign visitors ever to visit Ireland, not least because they found him very well briefed and in contrast to most official visitors, not putting on an act but genuinely interested and clearly trying to do the right thing. In fact most felt sorry for him. The British press sent journalists to cover the visit not to report what he did or said, or the favourable impression he made, but simply to be there in case he was pelted with eggs or assassinated! They openly said it. It must be horrendous as a human being to find that people from your own country are watching you not to see you do a good job but to watch out for a mistake or to see will someone kill you! I know if I was in that position, I'd tell them to fuck off, quit the job and try to live a normal life somewhere else. But he feels that it is his duty to keep doing the job inspite of the 'assassination watch' around him. It is not a life I would like to have. As a result I don't blame him for a relationship with the one human being he found a bond with, someone already in a marriage over in all but name, the person whom he regards as his soulmate. Everyone deserves that at least. Here endeth the Lesson. :-) wikilove, FearÉIREANN 20:02, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Wow! I have no fondness for the Royal family at all, I think it's a dozy institution and we should grow up and scrap it. I avoid reading newspaper stories about the Royals. But, blimey, I'm glad I read that lot. Thanks for that extraordinary insight. Truly, horribly marvellous. --bodnotbod 08:41, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Parker Bowles is not Parker-Bowles, then?

And references to "Parker Bowles" always refer to Mr Parker Bowles. The misuse gives an unintentional "gay" subtext, that's humorous but distracting. Affectations of familiarity do need to be correct. "Camilla" would do, if "Mrs Parker Bowles" just won't. ...I inserted a reference to Thomas Cubitt, who is not utterly unknown... Wetman 01:58, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What's the gay subtext then? (maybe it doesn't work outside the USA?) 82.44.93.140 09:50, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Scotland & legal matters

Her title will be HRH the Duchess of Rothesay in Scotland. In order for her not to become Princess of Wales doesn't the Queen need to issue new Letters Patent? And isn't an Act of Parliament needed to prevent her from becoming Queen-consort.

An Act of Parliament would be needed for both. (Well, there's a slight chance that she could be styled HRH The Duchess of Cornwall with Letters Patent, but an Act of Parliament would definitely be needed to stop her actually being HRH The Princess of Wales.) As to her style in Scotland, I'm not sure what it would be even without all this nonsense Clarence House is putting out. The Prince of Wales, of course, is HRH The Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay, but HRH The Princess Charles, Duchess of Rothesay seems unlikely. Anyway, he's only really styled that because it was the style of the heir to the Throne of Scotland, and as the Princess of Wales (which she will be, short of Tony Blair taking Parliamentary time to pass a law to say otherwise) will not be heir to the Throne of Scotland normal rules should really apply (the Duke of York, for instance, isn't called "HRH The Earl of Inverness" in Scotland). Proteus (Talk) 18:43, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Unopposed Acts of Parliament don't take very long at all though (and I can't imagine this would be opposed in any significant way). It would surely just be a one-line Bill (something like "On her marriage to Prince Charles, Camilla Parker Bowles can not take the title 'Princess of Wales', or Queen Consort on his ascent to the throne), and they then have the Second Reading, no speakers beyond the actual reading, Speaker calls for a (verbal) vote, which takes less than a minute (they literally just shout "Aye" or "Nay" when prompted) the Ayes Have It, go to the Lords, same again (except it would be Contents and Non-Contents, not Ayes or Nays), and once more for the Third Reading, run round to Buckingham Palace, it could be an Act in three or four hours, taking up less than an hour total of Parliamentary time. -- SoM 19:52, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The whole thing's really weird, but I've got a feeling that Camilla's title is just a question of what Buckingham Palace decides. I think the act of Parliament, if it had been needed at all, would have been needed to allow them to marry, not to decide which title she takes. They seem to be considering legislation purely for reasons to do with the Civil List. Deb 23:05, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Prince of Wales's previous wife was known as the Duchess of Rothesay in Scotland (I could hardly imagine using awkward forms such as "Their Royal Highnesses The Duke of Rothesay and The Princess of Wales"), so I presume that the same would apply to Parker Bowles. -- Emsworth 23:31, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is no need for an Act of Parliament to allow them to marry. Afterall Parliament would be pretty busy if they needed to pass legislation any time a person in the line of succession decided to marry. In any case, Charles is a citizen of the UK, and free to marry without Parliament meddling in his affairs. The UK government could have advised the Queen against giving permission under the Royal Marriage Act, but there is doubt over whether the Act can be enforced (eg against human rights legislation) Astrotrain 15:14, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

It's not about being in the line of succession. It's about being the heir to the throne and about being the future head of the Church of England. Deb 15:56, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There's an interesting precedent. When His Royal Highness the Duke of Windsor (formerly Edward VIII) married, his wife became the Duchess of Windsor. However, against all precedent she was never allowed to call herself Her Royal Highness. This was no doubt due to the hostility between her and the new Queen. - RB

the Commonwealth

Would she still become Queen of the Commonwealth Realms? Do any of their governments need to give their consent? Didn't Canada's privy council assemble to approve Charles's marriage to Diana? (Alphaboi867 19:12, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC))

• British royality do not need the permission of the Commonwealth realms to marry, because they are not citizens of those countries, therefore not subject to their laws and regulations. Camilla will automatically become Queen consort of the realms to which Charles becomes King upon his accession. They can of course pass laws preventing this, but I imagine that a unified Commonwealth position would be set. I would guess that the UK Parliament would pass the necessary legislation for Camilla to become a Princess Consort, and that the other realms would give permission for the laws to be applicable in their own lands, under provisions in the Statute of Westminster 1931 Astrotrain 22:11, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

• • I should have been more clear. Does the Queen act on the advice of the Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth Realms on whether or not to give her permission under the Royal Marriages Act. She does act on the British PMs adivce. And a Queen-consort's style make no mention of a realm ie Her Majesty, Queen May. Prince Phillip is only a prince of the UK, not Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. There hasn't been a female royal consort since seperate styles for each realm were intrduced. Are Queens-consort of a specfic country or to their husband? The UK parliament does need to pass a law to preven her from becoming Queen, but I don't think the Commonwealth Realms' parliaments need to do anything unless the they decide to exclude any children that may result from the union from the line of succesion (I know how unlikely it sounds). The confusion over the Lady Louise Windsor's style won't compare to the one over Camilla's unless the British government introduces new laws. (Alphaboi867 23:34, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC))

• • • Both Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth were Queen consorts after the division of the crown. Both were styled Queen in the Commonwealth realms. Under the Statute of Westminster 1931, the Commonwealth realms would not pass individual laws on the line of succession. The only ever case when the line of succession has been changed since the Act of Settlement was His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936 which allowed the abdication of Edward VIII. That Act was passed by the UK Parliament, and the realms gave permission for the Act to be applicable in their lands (except Ireland, which passed its own law). I would imagine that the Queen informed the realms of Charles decision to marry Camilla, but would ask Tony Blair's advice on the Royal Marriages Act, as this is a UK law, and not related to the line of succession. Astrotrain 15:09, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

The Royal Marriages Act is not just an UK law. Due to the Canadian Patriation of the Constitution in 1982, the Royal Marriages Act became Canadian law as well as it became part of the whole Constitution of Canada. Similarly, the Act of Settlement, 1701, became Canadian law as well. (Eddo)

As I understand the legal framework in New Zealand, we don't have a peerage. New Zealanders have, however, been made peers of the United Kingdom using New Zealand territorial designations. The most recent was Lord Cooke of Thorndon (Thorndon is a suburb of Wellington). Now this may seem to be off-topic but it might be that a similar situation applies to royalty. By custom and convention, perhaps, we honour the UK styles and titles, because we share the same fount of honour. The term "Prince of the United Kingdom" was used in the letters patent that made Prince Philip an HRH. We still call him Prince Philip in New Zealand. So I'm coming to the conclusion that there is no reason to think even Diana, had she remained married to Charles, would have become Queen of New Zealand automatically. There would have had to be letters patent to style her that way. Otherwise it would be "Their Majesties, the King of New Zealand and the Queen of the United Kingdom".

You said that Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth were Queens consort after what you call "division of the crown". New Zealand has only formally had a separate title since the Royal Titles Act 1953, under the current Queen. Other realms may have been quicker to act, but it's possible that this has never been tested.

Ben Arnold 15:00, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• As far as I know, NZ was a seperate monarchy after 1931, the British Act of Parliament, the Statute of Westminster allowed for this. I don't think NZ confirmed the position for some time, till after the war. NZ was still legally independent tho (eg the NZ govt gave permission for His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication 1936 to apply in NZ and allow Edward VIII to abdicate. Although NZ doesn't have a peerage, I think the consort of a NZ King would still be called Queen of NZ as a courtsey title, even if there is no specific NZ law to confirm this or say otherwise. Of course, the Queen consort would have no legal position in NZ. Astrotrain 16:08, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

• It could be difficult to change the rules in every Commonwealth country. Australia requires every state parliament and the Commonwealth Parliament to pass a so-called 'Request and Consent' act in order to apply the Statute of Westminster or the Australia Acts (these are the laws that allow changes to law that were once the province of Westminster). The problem is that requires 7 different parliaments, all but one bicameral, i.e. 13 different chambers to agree. Each of these chambers has a different make-up, though. Some are Labor, some are Coalition and some are hung with some combination of Greens, Democrats and independents holding the balance of power. Now, this is just one country. A similar process would have to occur in every Commonwealth country for the Commonwealth to present a unified face. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it would be difficult.

Catholicism

a couple of interesting links:

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/news/world/10869600.htm which says "Parker Bowles, a Roman Catholic, also is divorced."

and http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_050211brien.shtml which says "were [Camilla] Parker-Bowles a Catholic, the Prince of Wales would, by marrying her, automatically lose his right to accede to the throne"

so i figured i'd come here and find out whether she is or isn't, and the consequences for the inheritance of the throne, but i couldn't find any mention of her religion on this page. anyone know what the facts are? will the 1701 act of settlement be repealed?

additional: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/02/10/ureaction.xml says "Her previous husband was Catholic, but she was never Catholic." Is this where the confusion is coming from?

Yes. She isn't Catholic; her former husband is. Proteus (Talk) 11:06, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I just made an edit that could be controvercial - that she won't be called Queen because someone who has married a Catholic can't be on the throne. I'm not 100% on this. — PhilHibbs | talk 12:36, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

She isn't covered because a consort is not the sovereign. She isn't in the line of succession, so she isn't covered by the Act of Settlement Astrotrain 19:33, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

The Catholicism issue is critical (no matter how abhorent) to Prince Charles' succession as the Act of Settlement 1701 is very clear on this matter and hence the question as to whether Camilla Parket-Bowles ne Shand is Catholic should be tested. So, is it possible to clarify where she was formerly married, what type of marriage ceremony was conducted, and whether she ever took Catholic communion?

>The Catholicism issue is critical (no matter how abhorent) to Prince Charles' succession as the Act of Settlement 1701 is clear

What about the new EU constistution? That would probably annul all domestic UK law containing any religious discrimination. Although it is already illegal under diverse UN declarations. Otherwise the Pope and the King of Spaim could try to scramble a new Great Armada and take the matter in their own hands. Or just contract the IRA.

The constitution wouldn't do this. This sort of thing has been debated before. It's likely that the succession arrangements are already incompatible with the UK's own human rights and anti-discrimination laws, but an exception is made because of the massive complexity of the work that would have to be done to remove the remaining anti-Catholic rules from laws concerning royal matters. For example, all of the Commonwealth Realms would have to pass identical legislation at the same time. This is unlikely to happen at all unless the issue becomes pressing (e.g. Prince William converts to Catholicism, thereby excluding himself from succession under the present arrangements). I doubt the succession will ever be reformed until the monarchy is eventually abolished. — Trilobite (Talk) 21:14, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• If the monarchy is abolished, then there will be no succession! Astrotrain 22:31, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Article title

After the 8th of April, what would the title of the article be? "Princess Charles, Duchess of Cornwall" seems ridiculously obscure, while "Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall" suggests that she has divorced her royal husband. "Camilla Parker Bowles" would, similarly, be incorrect, as she would no longer have the surname Parker Bowles. -- Emsworth 19:52, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I guess a new article should be created with her offical full title/name and everything else (including this page) should forward to it. I dunno if the is wiki-precedent for this type of thing, I'm sure there must be. -- Adam 19:56 GMT, 12 Feb 2005

It should be at "Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall" jguk 20:30, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. We have Sophie, Countess of Wessex as a precedent. (And thanks to our helpful Royalty intro format, we can quite happily write "Her Royal Highness The Princess Charles, Princess of Wales (Camilla Rosemary Mountbatten-Windsor, née Shand, formerly Parker Bowles) (born 17 July 1947), styled HRH The Duchess of Cornwall, is..." :-) ) Proteus (Talk) 20:44, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Let's just hope Charles never ascends the throne, otherwise we'll have to have that debate again. Precedent dictates that she will have to go back to either "Camilla Parker Bowles" or "Camilla Shand" once she becomes a consort. Deb 15:53, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) would seem to suggest that, as an existing Queen Consort, she should switch to Camilla of the United Kingdom, only going back to Camilla Parker Bowles after her death. Proteus (Talk) 16:16, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Camilla, Princess Consort would be more in line with her wishes - and consistent with Anne, Princess Royal. However, God willing, the Queen will continue to enjoy good health, so that this question does not arise for real for many years, jguk 18:01, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

She won't be "The Princess Charles" any more than Diana was. Camilla, Princess of Wales known as the Duchess of Cornwall. AndyL 04:26, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Since Diana was "HRH The Princess Charles, Princess of Wales" during her marriage, I fail to see what you're getting at here. Proteus (Talk) 08:15, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We're really jumping the gun here. She is NOT the Duchess of Cornwall until they marry. I'm going to rever the title. When she becomes invested with the title, THEN move her here. RickK 05:21, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Ha! I was hoping Emsworth would be able to answer this one, but he's asking the question. I think "Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall" would be the best title, but not until the wedding of course. Then, when she's Queen, "Camilla, Princess Consort" will probably be best as that's how she will be known. This may change of course, and she may end up being known as Queen, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. Probably years off yet. — Trilobite (Talk) 21:06, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jumping the gun!

Will people please stop moving this page to Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall and refering to her as Her Royal Highness in the opening paragraph! She isn't married yet. Untill April 8 she's just plain Mrs. Camilla Parker Bowles. While it's true that barring some catastrophe she will marry, Wikipedia doesn't predict the future. Either Charles or her could die before the wedding, preventing her from ever holding the title. And she should not be list on the Royal familly template either. (Alphaboi867 05:28, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC))

>Will people please stop moving this page to Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall

In fact no wiki article should have any similar styled title. People must always be encyclopedically referred to by their birth name, because that one is unchangeable. Titles are not. Countless numbers of monarch has been kicked out or executed and ridiculized by the PEOPLE thorughout centuries. The chance that QEII will be dethronized and become a pauper some day after a republican revolution in the UK or an Islamic invasion of Europe is very low, but not nil.

I think this issue should be more generically discussed in the Wikipedia administrative grand council. I insist corresponding articles should always be under the people's birth names, not titulars or otherwise honorary or fantasy names. E.g. typing Marilyn Monroe in Wiki should redirect to Norma Jean and John Paul II should redirect to Karol Wojtyla, not vica versa! Titles can be taken away and faiy tales do collapse, the only thing you have unchanged is people's birth name. Should it become ever proven conclusively that Jesus of Nazareth did not in fact exist at all, he will not be pope any longer, but he will still be Karol Wojtyla. OK, this example is a very steep one, but you should get the gist.

There are also legal issues. Some countries (e.g. USA) do not recognize noble titles or otherwise feudal badges. Some countries (e.g. my country Hungary) outright ban their use. Using people's birth names is free of problems. Warning: if Wiki intends to integrate with Google this will a big issue.

• That is a ridiculus suggestion. A large percentage of people are not known by their birth name, either because they took on a different name for commerical reasons (eg Reginald Kenneth Dwight became [{Elton John]]), marriage (Camilla Shand became Camilla Parker Bowles) or titles (eg Princess Elizabeth of York became Elizabeth II). Even if QEII was deposed, she would still be on wikipedia as EII of the UK, as that is what she is and always will be known as. It is not illegal in the USA to mention or call someone by a regal or noble title, President Bush always addresses QEII as Your Majesty. I'm sure the Hungarian President would do the same. Perhaps you mean of course that Hungary bans its ex-royals from using their royal titles, but they cannot ban anyone else using them. Astrotrain 20:38, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Sincerely: Tamas Feher, Hungary <etomcat@freemail.hu>

Future Titles

Re the future titles entry ... The inclusion of these seems unnecessarily speculative, so I have removed this section. It also was uninformed. For one example, though Camilla will become after her marriage, technically and correctly, HRH The Princess Charles, Duchess of Cornwall, she will not be "Princess Camilla," unless she is granted that distinction (see entries re Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester, and Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent). Even Diana, Princess of Wales's entry notes that she objected to being called "Princess Diana," because technically she was not that. It was a casual convention used by the public and the media. Mowens35 13:39, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Signature

The new signature of the Queen Consort has been released, "Camilla R". A picture of it is on the daily mail site, https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11344693/King-sends-telegrams-reign-people-celebrating-100th-birthdays.html Jjfun3695 (talk) 03:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)