Talk:Queen Camilla/Archive 11

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


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

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


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


 * GoodDay, could you please provide a source for your assertion, "The king has 'no say' in what their spouse's title is." So he can determine his own title and that of every other member of the royal family and of anyone else within his realms, but he cannot determine his wife's title. And for some reason, despite being better advised than you or I, he is unaware of this. TFD (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I guess what he was trying to say is that by common law Camilla is The Queen. It is true that the monarch is the fount of all honours but any official change in Camilla's title that would deviate from precedence should come via letters patent. Keivan.f  Talk 18:53, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No one has provided any source whether from a legal decision or textbook that is the common law for the wife of the king. The most one can say is that it is the custom. But it's also the custom for the name of the royal house to be taken from the father of the king (i.e., Mountbatten, not Windsor). It's also not the custom for royals to marry divorced women, which presumably is why Camilla heretofore has been treated differently. TFD (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The name of the royal house is legally defined by Royal Proclamation: it's Windsor not Mountabatten because of that. (You seem to have a misunderstanding there - see this for the 9 April 1952 proclamation fixing the name.) There's little discussion on Queen Consort v Queen before Camilla because the distinction has never before been in issue i.e. no one has ever before seen a distinction. Take Prof. Vernon Bogdanor's 1995 The Monarchy and the Constitution, where he uses "Queen" and "Queen Consort" interchangeably but on page 51 makes the unambiguous statement that "the wife of the king automatically becomes the queen" ...not "the queen consort". In 1995, there was no sense that there was a difference between the two. It has only been with Camilla that there has been a sensitivity, for obvious reasons. DeCausa (talk) 21:01, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * See context matters: "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible." Furthermore, per no synthesis, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." If you are right, then you should have no problem in finding a source that says Camilla's title is Queen.
 * Why not wait under Camilla's expected coronation as Queen? TFD (talk) 01:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Given the coronation invitation, and extensive coverage of it, Queen vs Queen Consort, I would support a a rename now, to happen in this month leading to the coronation. The October 2022 decision “not now” was correct, but the information is different now.  It’s no longer WP:SYNTH to deduce that she will be styled as Queen, unqualified, there is clear evidence and secondary sources that it has happened, and the invitation is reliable evidence.  To wait until the day of the coronation would be silly.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you think that when people are elected or appointed to offices but have not yet assumed them, that we should use their new titles? For example, should Joe Biden have been called president after he was elected but before he assumed office? TFD (talk) 01:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No. A President-elect is not a President.  However, a Queen consort is a Queen.  I see this as decided by COMMONNAME with a large dose of a BLP factor of what the person chooses as their name (“name” interpreted broadly to include title or style).
 * In October 2022, she was not being referred to as “Queen” unqualified, but as “Queen Consort”, predominantly. This has changed already, ahead of the actual day of the coronation, and I think no one doubts that it will be completely changed on the day of the coronation.  The rename should happen on the day of the coronation at the latest, but with the invitation and direct commentary on the invitation, I think now is ok. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree that the title should be changed. The question is what is the most appropriate time for the change? The moment she is coronated is the most logical. Are we prepared to make the change then, as thousands of visitors are probably accessing the article? IlkkaP (talk) 06:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

King and Queen's joint cypher.
Evening, I've seen Their Majesties joint cypher on coronation memorabilia and thought it prudent that we added it to the King and Queen's pages, I sadly don't know how to recreate the image. I've attached a link to the twitter page that shows a close up of the joint cypher so that someone who does know can do so. GandalfXLD (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I suggest taking this request to Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop. Keivan.f  Talk 03:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I actually went ahead and made the request myself. Let's see if someone will pick it up. Keivan.f  Talk 06:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Discussion on how to refer to Camilla in her brother's article
Editors may like to contribute to the discussion at. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

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


 * The number of people looking for the book would be minuscule compared to the number of people looking for this article, and yet you think it appropriate to put the book at the top, immediately below the title? Are you blind to the intrusion of hatnotes?  Someone actually looking for the book will find it in the See also section.  Nearly everybody else should be allowed to read the article without being forced to read about this book. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The hatnote is totally unnecessary, and the book should not even be mentioned in the "See also" section. A mention in Template:Camilla, Queen Consort along with other cultural references is enough. Keivan.f  Talk 21:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Not worthy" is an absolutely ridiculous reason to remove it. What on earth is that supposed to even mean? It doesn't have to be "worthy". Hatnotes are an absolutely standard and necessary means of disambiguation from a near identical article name or disambiguation page. That's the only criteria. See Also is irrelevant. This isn't about seeking an article with related information. DeCausa (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It is a ridiculous hatnote. It's intrusive and of vanishingly small value.Gugrak (talk) 04:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:SIMILAR tells us When two articles share the same title, except that one is disambiguated and the other not, the undisambiguated article should include a hatnote with a link to the other article. It is not necessary to create a separate disambiguation page.
 * There isn't an exception because we don't think the topic is worthy - if the book is not notable then take it to WP:AFD. BilledMammal (talk) 23:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That is not the part of the guideline that applies here because the two pages do not share the same title at the moment. WP:AMBIGTERM is the correct one which states redirect, or a related template, can be used when an ambiguous title is redirected to an unambiguous title or a primary topic article. "Queen Camilla" is not an ambiguous title IMO. Keivan.f  Talk 03:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. No plausible reader knows about a book, a satire on Queen Camilla, and doesn’t know of Queen Camilla. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a level of ambiguity; while the primary topic is the Queen Consort, another (presumably) notable topic is the book. Hatnotes are simple navigational aides; we put them everywhere that a reader might end up in a location that they did not intend. We shouldn't start complicating that by discussions of whether the hatnote is "worthy"; navigational assistance is always worthy. BilledMammal (talk) 03:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That guideline overreaches even with the flexibility of “should”. It is utterly absurd to believe that a commercial product that uses a common meaning for its name title, for the commercial marketing benefits entailed, automatically gets a top-of-page advertisement.
 * It is also BLP issue to put on the top of a biography, ahead of the lede, supplanting the lede, a link to a relatively obscure satire on that person.
 * Improving Wikipedia does not mean blindly following obscure rules. Hatnotes are a nuisance in cluttering prime real estate, especially when benefiting no one.  No reasonable reader looking for that 2006 satire is going to astonished that entering “Queen Camilla” into the “Go” title auto-complete box is going to be astonished that they arrive at the biography of Queen Camilla. Obviously, they already know the book. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * They're not going to be astonished they ended up here, but hatnotes aren't to prevent astonishment; they're to help the reader get to the article they are looking for. BilledMammal (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Per This is a pretty clear example of where we shouldWP:IGNOREALLRULES. Gugrak (talk) 05:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Exactly. The closest I could find to guide us is from an essay, What about other content?, which says that comparisons with other articles may be helpful. In this case, there are many articles about persons, places and things that have books written about them, yet hatnotes are not typically used. Instead, if those books are significant to the topic, they may be included in "Further reading." TFD (talk) 00:52, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Do have any examples? I looked for some, but I haven't been able to find any and I suspect those that do exist will be due to error, not conscious decision. BilledMammal (talk) 07:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen any biographies that have hatnotes for books about the subject. However I concede this case is unusual because both the title of the book is the same as the subject and it has its own Wikipedia article. There is for example a book called Hillary Clinton by Catherine Wells (2007), but there is no article about it. TFD (talk) 11:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's even more unusual because in the cases where the book does have the same name and does have an article there are normally enough topics using that name that we have a dab page rather than a two-dab primary - for example, Napoleon and the numerous works of the same name. One exception is Vladimir Lenin, which has a hatnote to Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (poem).
 * It's unusual, but I think that is just more reason to follow policy; there are many other unusual circumstances that could justify an argument against using hatnotes, and if we start allowing such arguments we are going to waste a lot of time debating whether we should be including basic - and so far uncontroversial - navigational aides. BilledMammal (talk) 12:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

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


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

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

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


 * I suspect Buckingham palace will update Queen Camilla Title on the day of the Coronation or the day before from Her Majesty the Queen Consort to Her Majesty the Queen. King4852 (talk) 18:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


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

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

celebrations is an inappropriate word, I suggest commemorations instead. 195.213.213.219 (talk) 14:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Keivan.f  Talk 15:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Chronic ear infections
If a chronic problem like this is indeed an issue to the extent that its discussed as such in RS then it should be covered in article in that context and sourced appropriately, not by reference to a single instance where she missed some engagements for a very mundane and commonplace reason. Gugrak (talk) 01:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * She had it in 2005 and she had a more serious episode in 2012. There are other sources that mention it, but I don't think we need to list every single one of them. That being said, it is still a health issue. Keivan.f  Talk 02:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The sinusitis and ear infections are different things. If we have sources that discuss this as a chronic health issue that's one thing. Listing individual instances of different infections that everyone gets is not significant. Lumping them together without RS demonstrating that there's an ongoing issue is WP:SYNTH and as a health issue verges on being a BLP problem Gugrak (talk) 03:01, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Two similar infections seven years apart isn't chronic. Taking two sick days in twenty years is not evidence of ill health. TFD (talk) 03:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2023
Camilla will be known as queen after the coronation 2A02:C7E:3A14:B200:38CC:C1DA:33D4:5E99 (talk) 13:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Callme mirela &#127809; 13:42, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Title
Her title "Camilla, Queen Consort" can now be changed as the coronation of Their Majesties takes place tomorrow. The Queen Consort of the Netherlands is "Queen Maxima of the Netherlands" so Camilla should be "Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom". 50.235.180.174 (talk) 14:09, 5 May 2023 (UTC)


 * There is already a discussion in progress. AKTC3 (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2023
Please remove the (fake) signature for Queen Camilla. She is not Camilla R (regnans), and would not have claimed that she is. Not even tomorrow! She does not reign, but is only Queen Consort. 2407:7000:9561:9700:7CCA:5873:182C:97C3 (talk) 04:48, 6 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Please change the putative signature on this page “Camilla R” to nothing (remove it). Queen Camilla (after coronation) will not be Camilla R, meaning Regnans. She will not rule in any sense, but just remain Queen Consort. This “signature” is clearly a fake. You might want to block whoever posted it. 2407:7000:9561:9700:7CCA:5873:182C:97C3 (talk) 05:00, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It appears she is signing Camilla R, and it stands for Regina, not Regnans. Gugrak (talk) 05:18, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That's right; see signature source 73.93.5.246 (talk) 05:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * R stands for Regina, which means queen in Latin. In fact, the majority of queens consort sign their name that way, including Queen Letizia of Spain. Keivan.f  Talk 05:26, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Coronation Invite & Royal Website Updates to Queen Camilla
They've officially dropped the use of consort on the site and invitations. I think it's about time the wiki follow suit. 173.212.65.254 (talk) 08:33, 6 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree. She is now referred to as The Queen on the official royal family website therefore her page should reflect as such. Any attempt to dispute this is just a thinly veiled attempt to discredit her as Queen. 81.140.89.191 (talk) 10:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2023 (2)
Queen of the United Kingdom 123.243.85.139 (talk) 11:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.
 * Estar8806 (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Title
Somebody need to correct the title. It should read kingdom. not kigdom.

Saved by God&#39;s grace (talk) 12:26, 6 May 2023 (UTC)


 * All done. MicroSupporter (talk) 12:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Spelling error
I moved the page from Queen Camilla of the United Kigdom to Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom due to a spelling typo. MicroSupporter (talk) 12:33, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The move should be reverted while the RM is still open. BilledMammal (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have made a request (as uncontroversial) to that effect. U-Mos (talk) 13:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Article title and Commonwealth realms
Fair enough re: the move to Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom; BUT for a few years now we've avoided using "of the UK" for contemporary members of that family. To match Charles III, surely this should be at Queen Camilla - it's not like it's ambiguous (apart from quite an obscure book). DBD 13:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The move was made against the discussion (to move the page to Queen Camilla) in progress and will not remain in effect. See above. U-Mos (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Constant changing
Why after the coronation are we seeing constant changes from Camilla, Queen Consort to Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom? 81.140.89.191 (talk) 14:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a move request above to rename the page Queen Camilla. The recent move ignored that process, so has been reverted. U-Mos (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Hatnote: Mythological character
I did a search and did find mentions of the mythological character being called “Queen Camilla”. Did you really not find anything? J3133 (talk) 14:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Could you provide a reliable source? In any case the mythological character does not have the notability to warrant a hatnote nor the relation to warrant see also. Estar8806 (talk) 14:47, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * (I changed the section title to “Hatnote: Mythological character”.) It was argued at that notability is not a valid reason for removing hatnotes.  I am pinging you as you started that discussion. J3133 (talk) 14:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)