Wikipedia

Talk:Queen Camilla/Archive 12

< Talk:Queen Camilla
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Zzuuzz in topic Requested move 29 April 2023
Archive 5 ← Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

Requested move 29 April 2023

Latest comment: 1 year ago232 comments48 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Queen Camilla. The coronation has been and gone, and there's a strong consensus in the discussion that at this time we should no longer be using 'consort' in the title (as the palace and media have also changed their terminology). There remains a valid question about whether this should be 'Queen Camilla' or 'Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom'. I haven't found consensus on this issue in this discussion, and I don't expect an answer to appear either. Policy is not firm on the matter, other than to use concise and unambiguous appropriate titles, and so I'm going with the (mostly supported) proposal of 'Queen Camilla'. If there's going to be a proposal to add 'of the United Kingdom', then it will need a new discussion. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

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 [1], People [2], Vogue [3], and ABC [4]. Most importantly, gov.uk has referred to her by said name [5] and she has been referred to as just “The Queen” in the coronation liturgy [6]. 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)

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)
AKTC3 (talk) 22:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
That's fair. How's The Times [7] and The Independent [8] (And of course, the literal Government of the United Kingdom, and the Church of England). Estar8806 (talk) 02:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
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)
See "King and Queen Consort meet MPs, peers and staff at Westminster Hall reception" (Flora Bowen, Independent May 2 2023). The invitation says the reception was to "to celebrate the forthcoming Coronation of Their Majesties The King and The Queen Consort."[9] So when talking about Camilla following the coronation, sources call her Queen, when referring to her in the present, they call her Queen Consort. Three more days to go! TFD (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
@TFD: Remember you had asked for an official announcement? Well, here it is: https://twitter.com/davidtorrance/status/1653801546658742277?s=20 A royal warrant has been sent by the King and put out by Lambeth Palace which represents the Archbishop of Canterbury. Keivan.fTalk 17:33, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, that seems conclusive. So she will become known as Queen Camilla commencing at 12 AM on the 6th of May. I don't know why we have had all these discussions. We should just follow what the Palace, experts and reliable sources called her rather than get into arcane arguments about common law and historical precedent. TFD (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support - As per the grounds stated by Estar8806, Keivan.f and AKTC3. IlkkaP (talk) 05:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Sorry, you're quite right about the queen mothers. Having a lazy brain day. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
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)
While Albert held the same role that Camilla does now, his title was different. Princes consort are not afforded a royal title ex officio, as 'King' always trumps 'Queen' in power. Members of the Royal Family need to have a title, because they have no surname. Albert was given the title 'Prince Consort', but Prince Philip was not; he was made Duke of Edinburgh instead. Queen Anne's husband was simply called 'Prince George of Denmark' as he was a prince of Denmark.
Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon was also just known as Queen Elizabeth during her husband's reign. However, you can understand the confusion which would have occured from having two Queen Elizabeths, even if one was a queen dowager and one a queen regnant. The decision to style her Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother is sensible, but doesn't really set a precedent, as no other queen dowager has held that title. Queen Mary, for example, was known as Queen Mary until her death [10]. She did not become "Queen Mary The Queen Grandmother". Jèrriais janne (talk) 23:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
  • 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)
    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)
    And also, there's no dispute about the fact she will just be "The Queen" beyond the Coronation, see the Liturgy [11]. Estar8806 (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
    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)
    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)
    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)
    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)
    There remains a dispute until Buckingham Palace announces a change. See WP:CRYSTAL. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:47, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
    Well, it seems that the change has been announced: https://twitter.com/davidtorrance/status/1653801546658742277?s=20 Keivan.fTalk 17:30, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support - As per @Keivan.f. DDMS123 (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
  • 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)
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)
https://twitter.com/davidtorrance/status/1653801546658742277?s=20 Royal Warrant by the King. Is it convincing enough? "The King has directed by Royal Warrant that as of 6 May 2023 the prayers for or referring to members of the Royal Family should be altered so that instead of the words “Camilla the Queen Consort” the words “Queen Camilla” should be inserted." KGOO510 (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
They now have Jèrriais janne (talk) 08:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
WAIT as we don’t often use common name for royals (hence why Diana’s is not just “Princess Diana”. When it becomes more clear that Camilla primarily makes formal use of this style (which she is entitled to unless letters of patent change) we should move SecretName101 (talk) 20:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support, no reason style should change just for Camilla, she should be treated like any other queen consort EmilySarah99 (talk) 08:40, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
She’s also been referred to as the Queen here https://www.royal.uk/coronation-guide King4852 (talk) 06:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Support
She has been referred to as The Queen on todays coronation guide published by The Royal Family Official Website
https://www.royal.uk/coronation-guide 2400:ADC1:165:A00:28C8:6A4C:9508:A209 (talk) 06:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
She has also been referred as The Queen in Coronation Service posted by official royal family website
https://www.royal.uk/sites/default/files/documents/2023-05/The%20Coronation%20Order%20of%20Service.pdf 2400:ADC1:165:A00:28C8:6A4C:9508:A209 (talk) 06:47, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
In the Coronation service published by Buckingham Palace she is referred to as Her Majesty the Queen https://www.royal.uk/sites/default/files/documents/2023-05/The%20Coronation%20Order%20of%20Service.pdf King4852 (talk) 06:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
It’s official https://www.royal.uk/the-queen King4852 (talk) 07:47, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
https://www.royal.uk/ It has happened. She is officially recognized as the Queen. AKTC3 (talk) 07:51, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
@Estar8806 support per nom. My understanding of the relevant guidelines (and I can modestly claim some understanding!) is that a living consort's biography is titled Title Name of Place - except for the Commonwealth realms. DBD 14:18, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

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)

  • Oppose. Even considering just the most recent sources, usage hasn't switched over to "Queen Camilla" yet; 100 results for "Queen Consort" in the past week, compared to 98 for "Queen". Further, the proposed title is less WP:PRECISE and WP:RECOGNIZABLE; it doesn't clearly establish that she only holds her position by being married to a King. BilledMammal (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
    A difference of two results is negligible. WP:PRECISE? Really? There has only ever been one woman called Camilla who was a queen. And WP:RECOGNIZABLE, really? That makes no sense.
    And on your final point, every other queen consort is presently at the wrong title by your logic. And article titles are not descriptions of their subjects. Estar8806 (talk) 19:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
    And given that, per WP:COMMONNAME, we need a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources, to change the title, even if it was two results in favor of the proposed title it wouldn't be enough. The fact that reliable sources continue to, slightly, prefer the existing title is strong reason to not move the article. BilledMammal (talk) 19:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
    Because neither has a significant majority (in news sources), the title should go with whatever the official name is, or whatever name best fits the WP:CRITERIA. And in any case, "Queen Camilla" absolutely trounces any other name in terms of Google Trends.[12] Estar8806 (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
    That position is not supported by our guidelines, and we don't follow google trends - and we certainly don't follow google trends results from only the United States.BilledMammal (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
    I knew you were going to point out the error I made by forgetting to change it to worldwide. So I did, and you're just plain wrong, Queen Camilla still wins by a mile [13]. And I don't know where you got the idea we don't follow google trends, it's been used in more RMs than I can remember. Estar8806 (talk) 19:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
    Then again, a simple google search of "Queen Camilla" returns 53,300 results [14]. A google search of "Camilla, Queen Consort" returns only 20,800 [15]. Queen Consort Camilla, returns 22,300 [16]. Estar8806 (talk) 19:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
    We don't use it for the same reason we don't use simple google results; they don't reflect usage in reliable sources, and we are required to base our titles on usage in reliable sources. BilledMammal (talk) 19:45, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
    NB: We are not. WP:5P5: "Wikipedia has no firm rules". We are not 'required' to do anything. WP:IAR states that "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." That isn't to say WP:COMMONNAME or WP:CRITERIA are not important, but article titles do not have to conform to them if there is a good reason to not do so. Jèrriais janne (talk) 23:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
    Ignoring the end of that sentence:

    When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly.

    — WP:COMMONNAME
    "Queen Camilla" meets all five criteria. It is recognisable – anyone will know what "Queen Camilla" refers to, if they are "familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area". In fact, I would argue, they are less likely to know the distinction between a Queen consort and Queen regnant. "Queen Camilla" is more natural, and more likely to be found in common speech, than "Camilla, Queen Consort". It is precise, given there is no other Camilla who has been a queen. It is concise, whereas "Camilla, Queen Consort" is not concise as it is "longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects". Finally, it is consistent with articles of other members of the royal family, for whom their official title is used (e.g. William, Prince of Wales), and other Queens consort, which follow the (e.g. Queen Letizia of Spain). Jèrriais janne (talk) 23:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support the liturgy, invitation and the recent announcement of ceremonial roles all style her as "Queen Camilla" or "The Queen". The "Queen Consort" nonsense is finally coming to an end. Richiepip (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
    See WP:OFFICIALNAME. The fact that the official form is changing to "Queen Camilla" isn't a reason for us to move to article. BilledMammal (talk) 19:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
    Except, it is and has been in the past. OFFICIALNAME/COMMONNAME is occasionally ignored in regards to royalty where appropriate. Otherwise we would have Princess Diana, Prince Harry, Prince William, Princess Anne, Prince George, King Charles and Queen Elizabeth as article titles. Estar8806 (talk) 19:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
    No argument for why ignoring it here is appropriate here has been made; no argument for why "Queen Consort" is inappropriate has been made, and no argument can be made because it is an accurate title, even if the palace might prefer otherwise. (We also can't have Prince George, King Charles, or Queen Elizabeth because the most recent ones aren't the primary topic.) BilledMammal (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
    You're right, those are ambiguous. But by your logic the others should be moved to those titles as primary topics. Estar8806 (talk) 19:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
    Something being the primary topic allows us to have the article at that location, but we only move it to that location if doing so would be supported by our guidelines and policies - otherwise, we just have a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. BilledMammal (talk) 19:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
    You're citing guidelines and policies without naming any but COMMONNAME, which really doesn't support either title strongly over the other. Both names are used in reliable sources. Queen Consort may have a slight edge, but "Prince Charles" undoubtedly still has an edge over "Charles III" simply because that title was used longer, and "Queen Consort" has been used longer.
    Let's actually look at the WP:CRITERIA, shall we:
    Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize. Both names are equally recognizable, so this is a nonreactor.
    Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English. - This one is hard to prove either way, since it relies on what readers are likely to look/search for, again could go either way.
    Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. Also a nonfactor.
    Concision – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. Obviously supports Queen Camilla.
    Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Again supports Queen Camilla. In line with Queen Sonja of Norway, Queen Silvia of Sweden, Queen Máxima of the Netherlands, Queen Mathilde of Belgium, Queen Letizia of Spain and Queen Rania of Jordan. Estar8806 (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
    You're citing guidelines and policies without naming any but COMMONNAME - above, I cited recognizability and precision. BilledMammal (talk) 19:56, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
    You're right, I should've been more clear. COMMONNAME is the only policy you cited that could remotely support keeping the present title. Estar8806 (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
    I disagree, and even if they don't COMMONNAME is sufficient. Also, please stop WP:BLUDGEONING this discussion; you've replied to every single oppose and neutral !vote, often in great length. It's time to let other editors contribute. BilledMammal (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
    Not only does the articles linked in the initial move proposal indicate WP:COMMONNAME is changing, WP:OFFICIALNAME is changing as well, and as Estar8806 pointed out, this is often ignored for royalty, see WP:TITLECON. Richiepip (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
    The articles linked in the proposal are cherrypicked. If you see my oppose above you will see that sources continue to prefer "Queen Consort". BilledMammal (talk) 19:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
    You literally claimed that we cannot support a name based on google search results, but now you're trying to use your original argument (using google search results). Really? Estar8806 (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
    We cannot support a name based on simple google search results. We can support it based on specialized google search results, such as google scholar, google books, and, as I am doing here, google news search results. BilledMammal (talk) 19:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
    And yet the Google news results that you put forward do not support your own argument. A difference of 'two' results can be dispensed with. It shows that both names are common. In that case, WP:TITLECON should prevail as the article's name should be consistent with all other articles on living queens consort. Your argument that the name is not recognizable is simply untrue. There has been only one queen in history named Camilla and it's this person. And there's no need to throw in "consort" anywhere in there either. Queen Letizia and Queen Rania are two examples that come to mind. Keivan.fTalk 20:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
    Being consistent with all other articles on living queens consort is arbitrarily narrow. We should be considering all consorts, and when we do it is clear that the title is not inconsistent; Anna Orbeliani, Queen Consort of Imereti and Albert, Prince Consort are two examples that come to mind. BilledMammal (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
    Do not cherrypick if you want to bring deceased consorts into this. Because there are dozens of articles on queens consort that do not have the word "consort" in their titles: Maria Komnene, Queen of Hungary, Marie of Brabant, Queen of France, Marie of Lusignan, Queen of Aragon, Marie of Luxembourg, Queen of France, Maria of Portugal, Queen of Castile, Maria of Aragon, Queen of Castile, Maria of Serbia, Queen of Bosnia, Maria of Aragon, Queen of Portugal, Mary Tudor, Queen of France, Elizabeth of Sicily, Queen of Hungary, Elizabeth Stuart, Queen of Bohemia, Elisabeth of Austria, Queen of France, Elisabeth of Bavaria, Queen of Germany, Elisabeth of Carinthia, Queen of the Romans, Elizabeth of Hungary, Queen of Serbia, Elisabeth of Bavaria, Queen of the Belgians, etc. Keivan.fTalk 20:25, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
    There are. But the point is that using consort here is not unique; it is not inconsistent - and thus WP:CONSISTENT is not a reason against using the more common and more accurate title. BilledMammal (talk) 20:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
    Two pages are not enough to make a strong argument against using a policy. The page on Anna Orbeliani itself is not consistent with articles on other Georgian queens and was moved without discussion. Also, "Camilla, Queen Consort" is not the more common and more accurate title. She's referred to as "Queen Camilla" or "The Queen Consort" in sources, and the former is perfectly accurate and common. Keivan.fTalk 20:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:NCROY. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
    Which part exactly? Keivan.fTalk 20:43, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
    Article titles are not normally prefixed with "King", "Queen", "Emperor" or equivalent. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
    That's not the right part; that's for monarchs. WP:CONSORTS is the part that sets the guideline for consorts, as quoted by Richiepip below. Keivan.fTalk 21:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
    I see no reason why that part should not apply to consorts. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
    Frankly, our personal reasonings don't matter. If you're unhappy with how it's been set up, you're welcome to open a discussion and change the guideline that affects pages on all queens consort (not that it hasn't been attempted). Until then, it is what it is. Keivan.fTalk 21:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
    Can you point to any other article on a consort prefixed with Queen without "of {Place}" suffixed to the name? (The Queen Mother doesn't count.) ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
    Territorial designations are not used for British monarchs (George III onwards) or their consorts (unless maiden names are used); ex. the page on Prince Albert is not at "Albert, Prince Consort of the United Kingdom" and this page is not at "Camilla, Queen Consort of the United Kingdom" per community consensus reached at this RM. Additionally, the consensus reached at the last RM for Charles III's page also made it very clear the "of the United Kingdom" part is not necessary, since Charles is head of state in 15 countries. Not to mention that Camilla's status is acknowledged as his consort in other realms (ex. Canada); i.e. she's not queen consort only in the UK. That's not the case for other queens whose husbands reign over a single sovereign state. Keivan.fTalk 06:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
    So, in other words, you can't point to any other article. Therefore, there's no precedent for renaming this article as such. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 10:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
    Since when have we named articles based on 'precedent'? There's no such thing in our policies. And I mentioned two pages that do not use territorial designations; this page and that of Prince Albert. Camilla's article needs to be consistent with that of her husband as well. She's not only queen consort in the United Kingdom, and the community opposed to having any territorial designations added to her page title in the previous RM. It's as simple as that. Keivan.fTalk 14:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
    WP:TITLECON. Right, so the title of this page is already consistent with Albert. I see nothing in WP:NCROY that says anything to justify your statement that Camilla's article needs to be consistent with that of her husband. She was born in the UK to a UK family, so her being not only queen consort in the United Kingdom shouldn't be a concern. No prior consort is titled "Queen {Name}" without anything after the name, so Camilla of the United Kingdom makes much more sense as an alternative title that takes into account her country of origin, per WP:CONSORTS. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
    Albert was a male consort and titled "The Prince Consort". Camilla is about to be consecrated as "The Queen" at her coronation. So her being not only queen consort in the United Kingdom shouldn't be a concern. I'm sorry, but it is a concern; and this RM clearly demonstrates that the community thinks the same. Charles was also born in the UK to a UK family. Doesn't mean that he's not King of Canada or Jamaica. Also, WP:NCROY says nothing about taking into account a consort's country of origin, unless the person is already known in English as "{Name} of {Place}". It recommends using the current and most recent title for living consorts. Keivan.fTalk 21:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
    Yes, and Camilla is a female consort titled "The Queen Consort" as of this writing. The coronation is not until Saturday, so, at the moment, the title is correct. No, it's not a concern, no more than Alexandra of Denmark or Mary of Teck should be of concern. Camilla is of the UK, nobody has any doubt about that. Charles is head of state, so that opens a different can of worms. I just think it's good practice to be consistent and maintain the "{Name} of {Place}" format for consorts if "{Name}, {Title}" can't be applied. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:27, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
    But, the pages on "Alexandra of Denmark" and "Mary of Teck" are at their maiden names. Camilla's maiden name is "Camilla Shand", not "Queen Camilla", "Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom", "Camilla, Queen Consort", or "The Queen Consort". And yes, Camilla is British, but she's consort to a monarch that reigns over 15 realms, and if we are to use her 'current' name and title as a living consort, the page should be titled with respect to her role as a consort in all those 15 nations, not just the UK. Keivan.fTalk 23:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
    Yes, because the first was foreign and the second was descended from foreign nobility. Neither is true of Camilla, so Camilla of the United Kingdom would have to do, as it's the only territorial designation she officially has now (I think having "Queen" in the title would be redundant, much like how it is for monarchs). Yes, but she's still a subject of her husband, a British subject. Her role as consort in other nations is neither here nor there. If Camilla was Canadian, I would support having "of Canada" in her article title. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 23:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
    "Camilla of the United Kingdom" generally implies she is of royal birth within the United Kingdom (eg. Alexandra of Denmark was a Princess of Denmark; Mary of Teck, a Princess of Teck, etc). Either Camilla Parker Bowles or Camilla Stand would be the title in the circumstance you're proposing.
    But that's for deceased consorts. Living Queens consort are titled "Queen {Name} of {Place}". You claimed above to be seeking consistency, that consistency already exists, you're in fact the one trying to make this article inconsistent by trying to omit the title of "Queen". Yes, "Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom" is what WP:NCROY would require, but that same guideline would require Charles III of the United Kingdom, which has been rejected. Thus, "Queen Camilla" would be consistent with both her husband and living Queens consort. Estar8806 (talk) 00:30, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
    It's true that many articles about queens consort used their maiden names, for example the six wives of Henry VIII. But that complies with common name. Reliable sources are more likely for example to call her Anne Boleyn. It also makes disambiguation easier, since there are no no ordinal numbers or territorial designations. There were approx. five other Queen Annes in the UK and several others in other countries. For consistency, I would agree with renaming the article. Camilla Parker-Bowles (not Shand), but doubt most editors would agree. TFD (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
    WP:NCROY states "Living or recently deceased royal consorts are referred to by their present name and title, as with Queen Letizia of Spain and Queen Rania of Jordan", well, in this case, that is Queen Camilla. Richiepip (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
    In that case it would be "Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom", which is not what you're proposing. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
    The quotation from the policy mentions nothing about territorial designation. Richiepip (talk) 02:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
    So why then are those two articles not named Queen Letizia and Queen Rania? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 10:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
    Because the article on Rania's husband is at Abdullah II of Jordan. The only two queens whose pages lack consistency with those of their husbands are Queen Silvia and Queen Letizia and there is a strong case for moving both, because the community recently rejected the idea of reintroducing territorial designations and upheld WP:CONCISE. Keivan.fTalk 14:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
    I don't think that policy can appropriately apply to consorts, as their very title is dependent on a territorial designation of some sort, either deriving from their parentage or their marriage. It's an integral part of their identity as consort. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
    WP:NCROY is not a policy, it's a guideline. WP:CONCISE, however, is a policy that applies to all pages. And no, a queen's title is not dependent on a territorial designation. Each queen consort is known simply as "The Queen" or "Queen [Name]" in their respective country of origin (Silvia, Letizia). The addition of territorial designations is to help with disambiguation on Wikipedia. That's it. And the pages on Letizia and Silvia do not require such form of disambiguation because there have not been any other queens who bore those names. Not to mention that a monarch's title also derives from their parentage and has links to the state they reign over. That's not ground for moving Felipe VI to "Felipe VI of Spain" when the current name is concise and recognizable. And this is not my opinion; this was decided at an RM that covered that page. Keivan.fTalk 21:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
    Yes, I was referring to the guideline. Each queen consort is known simply as "The Queen" or "Queen [Name]" in their respective country of origin - that is not what I'm arguing. My point is that their title is symbiotic with that of their spouse, whose territorial designation they borrow and without which they cannot be queen. That's it. No, it's not just that, it's a helpful description, much like "Duke of Edinburgh" is helpful for Prince Philip's article title even though he's the primary topic for that name. And the pages on Letizia and Silvia do not require such form of disambiguation because there have not been any other queens who bore those names. Both Queen Letizia and Queen Silvia are redirects, in case you forgot. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
    They indeed borrow their husband's rank, but not any territorial designations. For example, Silvia is simply "The Queen". It is not wrong to refer to her as "The Queen of Sweden", but that is not her actual title. That was not the case for Philip, a prince with a specific royal dukedom, similar to his sons Andrew and Edward. He was "The Duke of Edinburgh"; that was his title not a territorial designation ("Philip of Greece and Denmark" would be a form of his name that includes territorial designations). Btw, I'm not necessarily against using a territorial designation, but if the page on Silvia's husband can be at Carl XVI Gustaf, her page can be at "Queen Silvia" in my opinion. A clueless reader looking at the name "Carl XVI Gustaf" would not necessarily come to the conclusion that he is "of Sweden" unless they read the article; because the symbiotic relationship you referred to equally exists between a monarch and their country. But, that principle has been overridden in favor of WP:CONCISE in recent RMs. Keivan.fTalk 23:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
    I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to Camilla, Queen of the United Kingdom. I just don't like the idea of prefixing articles with "Queen", especially since we don't do so for other monarchs or British consorts, with the glaring exception of Victoria for reasons I begrudgingly accept, and the Queen Mother whose title is very much an eccentric case. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 23:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
    The prefix "Queen" does not appear in the articles for non-British consorts either (Ingrid of Sweden who was Queen of Denmark is an example). It's just that currently we have one format for living consorts and another for deceased ones. As I pointed out earlier there was an attempt years ago to have the prefix removed but it failed back then. As long as the convention does not change, we should stick to the established pattern of using a living consort's current title. Keivan.fTalk 17:30, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
    Recent British monarchs and their consorts are not referred to as "of the United Kingdom" as, uniquely, the British monarch is also, equally the monarch of more than a dozen other realms. Jèrriais janne (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support - Also as per @Keivan.f. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 21:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Support It seems that going forward, Camilla will be referred to simply as the Queen. The title Queen Camilla also seems more natural than Queen Consort Camilla. Векочел (talk) 21:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Her official website still lists her title as "Queen Consort", so that's what we should be using for the title. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
    Even the official website has referred to her as The Queen elsewhere: This will be followed by The Procession of The King and The Queen which will be led by the Marquess of Anglesey, the Duke of Westminster, the Earl of Caledon and the Earl of Dundee …. And it was previously announced that her page will be updated on coronation day, the day on which this RM will probably be closed and this matter can be put to rest. Keivan.fTalk 23:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
    Would you be so kind as to provide the source that says Her Majesty’s page shall be updated? Thanks! Would be much appreciated :) AKTC3 (talk) 05:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
    @AKTC3: The Guardian: The royal website will be updated post-coronation to reflect Camilla's change in title, with queen consort being replaced with Queen Camilla, the palace said. Keivan.fTalk 15:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
    It will likely be Her Majesty the Queen therefore dropping the word Consort. King4852 (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
    ‘Preciate it! AKTC3 (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
    https://twitter.com/davidtorrance/status/1653801546658742277?s=20
    The King has directed by Royal Warrant that as of 6 May 2023 the prayers for or referring to members of the Royal Family should be altered so that instead of the words “Camilla the Queen Consort” the words “Queen Camilla” should be inserted 223.16.62.17 (talk) 17:05, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm amazed it's taken this long for Wikipedia to catch up with the rest of the world and refer to her as Queen. -85.255.236.86 (talk) 07:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Wait: there is evidence to suggest that the "most official" sources (i.e. Buckingham Palace or the BBC) will change terminology on 6 May, and it seems particularly appropriate for us to coordinate the page move accordingly. At any rate (as has been explained in the past), article titles about royalty and nobility uphold a slightly different standard to what might be the most common form of the name as used in the media – which is how we ended up with the present title in the first place. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 11:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
    Given the royal warrant pointed out by others, I support moving this page to "Queen Camilla", but on Coronation Day. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 21:06, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support. That's her title, now being used by the Palace. This "Queen Consort" nonsense has only been used up to now to avoid confusion with the late Queen. The sooner it dies a death the better. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
    You are 100% correct but it seems there are a few wokes in Wikipedia who will never accept her as the rightful Queen because they loved her predecessor as Princess of Wales for some reason as so have a strange vendetta against the current Queen. -85.255.236.89 (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
    She's not "the rightful" anything. She's not the successor of the Queen. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
    As the wife of a king, she's by law a queen. So were Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, Queen Mary, Queen Alexandra, etc. This has nothing to do with Elizabeth II. Keivan.fTalk 21:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
    That's just legalese, nothing more. She's not the queen in the same way as Elizabeth II. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
    Of course. Nobody said that she's the sovereign. The title for a queen regnant or queen consort, however, is usually "The Queen". And Camilla is referred to as "The Queen" in the order of service for the coronation. Keivan.fTalk 23:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
    Yes, that's all it is ultimately, a title. Like "first lady" in the United States. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 23:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
    The fact that she is legally Queen is not "just legalese", it simply common law. You may be right that her being "The Queen" is simply a title. But then again, so is Prince of Wales, Princess of Wales, Duke of York, Duke of Edinburgh, etc. Estar8806 (talk) 00:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
    She's not the successor of the Queen who died, that's what I mean. Camilla is a de jure queen, not a de facto one, in other words. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
    Can you please provide the Case law in common law or something from a legal textbook that sets the title of the ruling monarch. TFD (talk) 22:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support per RS and the fact it makes more sense as a page title Yeoutie (talk) 03:05, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support The time has indeed come. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support, per SergeWoodzing, time to close this and change the title. Even the Prime Minister is using the honorific 'Queen'. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:38, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support*, No other female consort on Wikipedia is referred to as "Queen Consort", just "Queen". It is time to move the page. Coronation invitation even says Queen Camilla, and a spokesperson of the Royal household mentioned the transition I think.MicroSupporter (talk) 15:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support We don't need to discuss anymore, the king has issued the Royal Warrant. It's offcial: Queen Camilla".The King has directed by Royal Warrant that as of 6 May 2023 the prayers for or referring to members of the Royal Family should be altered so that instead of the words “Camilla the Queen Consort” the words “Queen Camilla” should be inserted.The full text of the Royal Warrant can be found in this tweet:https://twitter.com/davidtorrance/status/1653801546658742277?s=20 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.16.62.17 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
    This literally says "From 6 May 2023", ie in the future, not now. In what possible world is it a source that supports this change today? Gugrak (talk) 02:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
    @Gugrak This change is not being proposed to be made today. The change will be made (if the RM passes) at least one week from when the RM was opened (eg. it would be closed on 6 May 2023. The "support" !votes are not support for the change at the exact moment they are commenting, but from 6 May (ie. when the source says her title will be changed). Estar8806 (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
    It's still worth pointing out, as evidenced by the attempts to update the page based on this RFC and the Warrant Gugrak (talk) 17:17, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
    Then there is no real point to the move request. There was no move request for example after Sunak won the Conservative leadership to replace Liz Truss, even though the succession was not immediate. There are of course always editors who jump the gun on title changes, then get reverted. That doesn't mean the other editors never wanted Sunak to be described as PM because for some reason they didn't like him, but just wanted his title to follow sources. TFD (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support as per the royal warrant issued on 3 May 2023. Her title is Queen Camilla. Yeungkahchun (talk) 23:58, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
    Her title is Queen Camilla "from 6 May 2023". Gugrak (talk) 02:12, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
    I don't understand the logic either. The fact that something will happen in the future does not mean it has already happened. And it's not as if there was any ambiguity in the royal warrant or in any of the other reliable sources that have explained her title. TFD (talk) 03:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
    Because it is not a clear-cut matter. For example, the Prime Minister referred to her as "The Queen" at yesterday's PMQs. The change in her title will be reaffirmed on 6 May. Otherwise, she has been "The Queen" legally since the moment her mother-in-law died (not that she's her successor, but in her role as a consort). Keivan.fTalk 18:23, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
    He actually didn't, he said "the King and Queen". She's still the queen consort regardless of any title change. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:28, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
    Thanks for confirming what I just said. He said "The King and Queen", not "The King and Queen Consort". And how many more times should I repeat that no one is saying she's a successor to Elizabeth II? I even wrote that in my previous comment. She is a queen consort and her title is "The Queen". So are Silvia, Letizia, Sonja, Mathilde, etc. all of whom are queens consort and all of whom are known as "The Queen". It doesn't mean that they are sovereigns because "The Queen" can be used for both queens regnant and queens consort. Keivan.fTalk 21:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
    Because that's clearly what "The Queen" implies, much like how "The Duke of Edinburgh" implies the successor to Prince Philip, which it is in that case. Her title is "Queen Camilla", not "The Queen" until Buckingham Palace says otherwise. Those other spouses you mention are obviously referred to as such in their own language, given that none of them are referred to as "The Queen" by anglophone media. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:37, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
    Okay. Let me get this straight. You're trying to argue that the page should not be moved, but you literally said straight out Her title is "Queen Camilla". Even if she were just to be called "Queen Camilla" (and not "The Queen" or "The Queen Consort") then that would still be the proper title for this article.
    And you're also simply incorrect, the coronation liturgy has said "The Queen", and royal.uk has said "The Queen"[17]. Estar8806 (talk) 22:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
    Yes, there's no contradiction in that all. I'm basing my argument on WP:NCROY, which discourages the use of "Queen" in article titles. Buckingham Palace hasn't yet formally announced any change of title from "The Queen Consort", no matter what those links may claim. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 02:41, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
    "The Duke of Edinburgh" does not imply successor to Prince Philip. Philip's successor was Prince Charles, and when he became king he created Edward "Duke of Edinburgh". And "The Queen" does not imply successor to a queen regnant. Alexandra of Denmark, daughter-in-law of Queen Victoria, was titled "The Queen". That doesn't mean that she was her successor. Keivan.fTalk 23:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
    If it's not her title, why does the Palace, Parliament and British media refer to her as "Camilla, Queen Consort?" No one referred to the late Queen as "Elizabeth, Queen Regnant." Instead they would have said "Queen Elizabeth is the queen regnant." Notice titles are capitalized, which positions are not. TFD (talk) 00:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
    "Duke of Edinburgh" remains the same substantive title, so the implication is there. Yes, the current holder isn't the immediate successor but that's irrelevant to the point. It's the same dukedom, whereas Camilla's isn't the same queendom. As for Alexandra, that may be so but it's also irrelevant since her article isn't titled Queen Alexandra. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 02:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
    Neveselbert. In point of fact it isn’t the same Dukedom. The third creation (1947) of the Dukedom of Edinburgh passed to His Majesty the King (when Prince of Wales) upon the death of the first holder, HRH Prince Philip, on 9th April 2021. When His Majesty the King acceded to the throne on 8 September 2022 the Dukedom was merged in the crown, and the title thus became extinct.
    The title was recreated on 3 April 2023, and the current Duke of Edinburgh, HRH Prince Edward, is the first holder of this, the fourth creation of the Dukedom. Svs02 (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
    Yes, that's what I mean, it's the fourth creation of the same dukedom. Whereas Camilla's title isn't the nth creation of the same queendom. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
    The royal family webside is update. Camilla is the Queen
    https://www.royal.uk/the-queen KGOO510 (talk) 07:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
@Keivan.f:, in Sunak's statement, he referred to sending best wishes to "the King and Queen, ahead of the coronation." The coronation of course will confirm Charles as King and and Camilla will be crowned as Queen. Had he referred to her as Queen Consort, it would have implied that she would be crowned with that title.
Furthermore, what any PM says is not a reliable source. A better source is the UK Parliament, which reported the royal couple's visit the day before: "Their Majesties the King and Queen Consort visit Parliament ahead of the Coronation". Do you think they don't know what Camilla's title is?
TFD (talk) 00:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
And the Church of England has referred to her as "The Queen". I presume they also know what her title is. Besides, these arguments are becoming pointless and repetitive. Nobody is saying that Camilla is not a queen consort or that she's a successor to Elizabeth II. She's the wife of a king, and as such she's entitled to be known as "The Queen". And she will be referred to as such from 6 May onwards. Keivan.fTalk 02:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
No, Buckingham Palace is the sole authority on her title and they are yet to formally announce such a change. If and when they do so, I'll concede the point. But we shouldn't be soothsaying before then. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 02:59, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
She will be anointed as "The Queen" per the order of service. Are you seriously suggesting that this was put together without the palace's consent? Keivan.fTalk 03:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
No, she will be anointed as queen, not "The Queen". The anointment relates to her position, not her title. It doesn't matter whether there was consent or not, it's still not a formal announcement from the palace. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 03:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
I think that capital "T" "The" is only used for substantive rather than courtesy titles. Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, for example was not referred to as "The Queen." If a king divorced and remarried there would be two queens consort. TFD (talk) 10:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
@TFD That is indeed incorrect; and a search though the London Gazette demonstrates that. Here's George VI referring to his wife as "The Queen" and here's the entry for a ceremony at the Court of Saint James at which "Her Majesty The Queen" and "Her Royal Highness The Princess Elizabeth" were present. Keivan.fTalk 19:08, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
And in the event of a king's divorce there wouldn't be two queens consort. The divorced consort reverts back to using her previous title. Catherine of Aragon became "The Dowager Princess of Wales" once she got divorced. Keivan.fTalk 19:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
The word "the" is not usually captialized in HM the Queen and not used at all when the actual name is used, e.g., "HM Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother." Note this differs from the usage for her daughter, who was "HM The Princess Elizabeth." In fact the same is true for the king or queen regnant. No sources would say for example, "Next year, The Queen Camilla will visit" Washington."
Catherine of Aragon was not divorced from Henry VIII, the marriage was annulled which means legally it never took place. She retained the courtesy title of Princess of Wales because she had been married to Henry's late elder brother when he was Prince of Wales. Dowager means widow, which is a clear reference to her late husband, not Henry.
Anyway, you need a reliable source that says Camilla's title is "The Queen," otherwise it is just OR. TFD (talk) 23:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
There are so many things wrong with this. Actually, "the" is capitalized in formal titles, all you have to do is look at the court circular, or even just the royal.uk website. As a Princess, Elizabeth was HRH, not HM. No sources will say "The Queen Camilla" because that's grammatically incorrect. The Times has referred to Camilla as "The Queen" for several months, and other sources in the nomination also use "The Queen". Estar8806 (talk) 23:46, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
It only seems wrong because you are unfamiliar with the actual rules. Why do you think it is grammatically correct to refer to "The Princess Elizabeth," but not "The Queen Elizabeth?" It's because "The" is part of the title of princesses with substantive titles. In fact it is grammatically incorrect to capitalize "The" in "HM The Queen," but could appear in archaic writing. Note the UK parliament uses lower case "the" for the king and queen, as do most sources.
Again, you need sources for any changes you want to make to the article.
BTW,the coronation is only four hours away and it appears that Camilla's title will be changed at some point during the day and reliable sources will begin referring to her as Queen Camilla perhaps even earlier. Hope that takes a weight off your mind. TFD (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes I apologize for failing to provide sources but here's a few, along with those above. [18]
[19]
[20]. Also, I may have misspoken by claiming grammatical incorrectness. But in any case, "The" is almost always capitalized, in the Court Circular [21], by Parliament [22], in the London Gazette [23]. In any case that capitalization is irrelevant to the article title. But I'm glad we're in agreement that her title will change tomorrow, which was the whole point with the timing of this RM. It was not my intent to have the page moved ahead of the coronation, which is why I proposed this when I did (and I think there's been some confusion in that regard). Estar8806 (talk) 00:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
No, you have provided a source that "The Queen" is a queen's title in the UK. Anyway, if you feel strongly, then get the Manual of Style changed, because it would apply to countless articles. TFD (talk) 04:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
The BBC has done a detailed article on the order of service and in it, Camilla is clearly referred to as "The Queen": Their Majesties The King and The Queen arrive at the West Gate. A fanfare is sounded. All stand. Keivan.fTalk 06:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
The official Royal Family website now lists her as "The Queen." Therefore, all points on the matter are now obsolete. Queen Camilla is The Queen, end of debate or discussion. 81.140.89.191 (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
“Buckingham Palace has published the Order of Service for the Coronation of Their Majesties The King and Queen, which will be held in Westminster Abbey at 11:00am today, Saturday 6th May.” “The Coronation of The Queen
The Coronation of The Queen will follow that of The King in a similar but simpler ceremony in which she will be anointed and crowned and presented with her own items of regalia.” From order of service published by Buckingham Palace.
The order of service refer to Camilla as the Queen issued by Buckingham Palace. Is this convincing enough?
https://www.westminster-abbey.org/abbey-news/buckingham-palace-publishes-order-of-service-for-the-coronation-of-the-king-and-queen 223.16.62.17 (talk) 02:26, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Queen Camilla" should be a disambiguation page, there being Camilla (mythology), a queen of the Volscians. And Queen Camilla (novel) -- leaving at least 3 entries for a disambiguation page -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 03:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
    Absolutely not. The mythological figure was not even a real queen and the novel is on the subject of this page. Keivan.fTalk 03:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
    @Keivan.f: can you stop wp:bludgeoning the discussion? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 03:15, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
    Maybe you should follow that advice yourself as well. Keivan.fTalk 03:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
    Oh come on, I haven't responded to almost every single comment disagreeing with me like you have done. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 03:19, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
    To be fair — Keivan.f is not merely contradicting opposing viewpoint but rather giving reasoning other than mere contradiction… AKTC3 (talk) 06:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
    That still counts as bludgeoning especially when you're repeating the same points. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
    I have not repeated the same points simply because those who voted "oppose" were not consistent in their arguments to begin with. Keivan.fTalk 19:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
    You have essentially, just let the process play out without cross-examining every person who opposes. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
    It's not cross-examination; it's called debate. And those who have opposed haven't fallen behind in leaving their own comments; you included. Keivan.fTalk 20:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
    I disagree, since Queen Camilla would be a secondary title for the mythological figure. Not normally how one might search for that. A "see also" at the top would suffice. That said, I still think we should hold off on renaming the article, unless something has changed in the last few hours (having been keeping up on the developments regarding Camilla, so not sure if it has been made clearer if she will formally use the title "Queen Camilla" as her primary title). SecretName101 (talk) 05:42, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
    I think the Royal warrant comes incredibly close. But it is still unclear whether that is the title they want used in all primary contexts, or if it was just the title preferred specifically for the prayer and not for other circumstances. SecretName101 (talk) 05:58, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
    Regardless of whether it is intended to apply to contexts other than prayers, the Royal warrant is a primary source. We are supposed to be considering actual usage (not just mention) in a significant majority of independent, reliable secondary sources. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
    @A primary source indicating WHAT? If it only indicates that it will be how she is referred to in prayers, than that is no reason to move. If it is the title she will be formally referred to primarily, it is. That matters a whole lot to determine actual usage. SecretName101 (talk) 22:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
    Camilla, Queen Consort is by far the most viewed page out of any of the three you've cited for a potential disambig. [24] It's a textbook definition of a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Estar8806 (talk) 11:42, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support, but wait. Obviously her (used) title will change on the date specified in the royal warrant. When that happens, move. Not before. Charlie A. (talk) 09:08, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

There is overwhelming support for a move now, yet those few who insist on waiting until tomorrow get they way regardless. Wikipedia at its worst. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:59, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote, and whoever closes this RM will look at policy-based reasoning, not a numerical count of support vs oppose. And the usual duration of an RM is at least 7 days anyway. Rosbif73 (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Strong Support Totally agreed. Her Title is Queen of the United Kingdom. The Coronation is tomorrow. Absolutely Wikipedia at its worst. Yeungkahchun (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Since the move request says it will be completed after the coronation, you cannot assume that support votes are for moving the article before her title changes, since that was never the question. TFD (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support and holy freaking cow, lol, this is about as WP:POINTy of a discussion as I've seen in years. Red Slash 21:03, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support and MOVE NOW The Royal Family website has updated her title to Her Majesty The Queen
  • Comment The Royal Family website has dropped consort in favour of her legal title, HM The Queen. I request that the move to Queen Camilla happen as soon as possible. GandalfXLD (talk) 08:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Agreed! No need to wait the 7 days now. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 08:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Now that her used title has changed over (as anticipated) it’s time to move the page. But the (conspiracy) theory that keeping the page at her previously-used title until and unless the change actually happened was all just bad-faith/non-npov is a bit weird. Charlie A. (talk) 09:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
The reason for keeping her then current title rather than her future title was that is common usage. Similarly we didn't start calling Rishi Sunak PM before he assumed the office and continued to call Liz Truss PM even after she announced her resignation. The argument for an immediate move was not that her title would change but that it had always been Queen Camilla. TFD (talk) 11:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support as of a few minutes ago (the point this RM should actually have been opened). U-Mos (talk) 11:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
    There wouldn't have been any point to have a move request after she assumed her new title, since no one would have opposed a move request. TFD (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
    Yep; if it wasn't for the endless premature discussions that preceded this moment, the move would be uncontroversial and would probably have been able to take place more swiftly than it will :) U-Mos (talk) 11:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
    I don't know why we're assuming it would have been uncontroversial- it probably wouldn't have been. It may be uncontroversial to the vast majority of us here and to more of those who opposed this than not, but there are certainly some who's oppositions are not based on timing but rather an argument of WP:COMMONNAME. Estar8806 (talk) 11:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
    And at this point a there's nothing wrong with a slightly early closure. If you want to put this up on WP:CR, I don't see why not to. Estar8806 (talk) 11:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
    @The Four Deuces The point is that this is not a “new title”. HM the Queen has been her title since September 2022. That wikipedia continues to be so laggardly in recognising it, and that the reasons put up against doing so continue to be so appallingly pettifogging, does not reflect well on the site. Svs02 (talk) 11:51, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
    Well that may be technically/partially true, she was officially and commonly called Queen Consort up until the last few weeks, where a shift has occurred. It would have been OR then to call her "Her Majesty The Queen", a case which is not now. Estar8806 (talk) 11:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
    Basically the article followed reliable sources. Previously the article did not call her the Princess of Wales although that might have been her title, and Prince Harry's children were not called prince and princess until he decided to use them.
    While various editors have made arguments that her title was queen, it's all been based on their personal opinions rather than expert opinion. Ultimately, the King as the fount of all honours can decide what titles people hold. That's one of the advantages of being King. TFD (talk) 13:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Commemt There are many haters here. Page movers and admins are delayed to change name per she was crowned as Queen. Don't be jealous - as you never get royal life. Yes I'm a core fan of Princess Dinana and I dont like Camilla. But Wikipedia is Wikipedia personal is personal. Should not be biased. Shame! 2001:44C8:4653:61FB:8468:F727:182C:BC39 (talk) 11:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME and [25]. --SHB2000 (talk) 11:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. This is overdue. Zacwill (talk) 12:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have no opinion regarding the title, the page had been moved to Queen Camilla of the United Kigdom and then a cut and paste moved performed to rename to Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom. I repaired the cut and paste moves and had not noticed this move discussion in progress. Considering that no resolution had been reached, it would be reasonable to move this back to original title until this discussion concludes. older ≠ wiser 12:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
    I've gone ahead and put in a request at WP:CR simply because I don't think there'd be any opposition to a slightly early closure, assuming there is consensus which I think there probably is. Also pinging @Keivan.f and @U-Mos due to their participation in the discussion about the cut-and-paste move that appears to have been lost. Estar8806 (talk) 12:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
    I'm not sure what happened, but it appears the edit history for the talk page is still at Talk:Queen Camilla of the United Kigdom which has been deleted. I'm not able to restore it as I get a database error due to the size of the history. older ≠ wiser 13:04, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
    I left a message on the admin who deleted the page's talk, I don't know if he will be able to do it? Or if someone higher up will have to? Estar8806 (talk) 13:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
    Thanks Estar, and apologies Bkonrad for assuming you had made the deletion. I've also requested an uncontroversial reversion to Camilla, Queen Consort while this move request concludes. U-Mos (talk) 13:17, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
    The other admin seems to have successfully merged the histories and deleted the old pages and fixed whatever was broken. It might be best to drop the revert request just in case the closure request gets executed first, and we wouldn't want the page to be reverted against consensus. The present title may not be what we want, but hopefully the request I put in will be taken up soon. Estar8806 (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
    The procedual matter of reverting the current move should occur in advance of the move request ending (especially as any closer will have to read this ridiculously lengthy section). If it doesn't, either an admin at RM or me will simply remove it. U-Mos (talk) 13:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
    Support - There is overwhelming support for a name change and more and more websites are reporting to be changing including the BBC. I've also noticed the name has been moved, to Queen Consort once again, if they would like to change the so-called name, it would be better to contact a admin first.
    Links:
    BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/topics/cjnwl8q4negt
    CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/01/uk/queen-camilla-profile-intl-gbr/index.html
    CBC: https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2203210819712
    WRIC: https://www.wric.com/news/u-s-world/biden-congratulates-king-charles-queen-camilla-on-their-coronation/
    Australian Broadcasting Corporation: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-06/live-updates-king-charles-coronation-prince-harry/102201006
    Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/coronation-brimming-with-history-king-charles-britain-look-future-2023-05-05/, https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/rottweiler-queen-reinvention-king-charles-wife-camilla-2023-05-04/. Reuters also mentions Camilla, as Queen in https://www.reuters.com/news/picture/king-charles-queen-camilla-arrive-at-wes-idUSKBN2WW1O9
    New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/05/world/europe/queen-camilla-image.html
    NYMan6 (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support, because she's crowned “Queen Camilla” and for consistency with other current queen consorts:

— Michael! (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

How long is this mess going to continue? And why? Makes Wikipedia look ridiculous. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Queen_Camilla/Archive_12&oldid=1156310732"