Talk:Queen Camilla/Archive 5

Untitled
No mention of her descent from Alice Keppel, King Edward's mistress? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.159.35.30 (talk) 03:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed move for this article and for other articles on Wives of Royal Peers see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles). Mac Domhnaill

Re proposed move: see bottom of page. FearÉIREANN 01:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Royalty?
Why on Earth did she not have a front row seat at the recent memorial service for Princess Diana? that is an intrusive question isnt it? rather fine fine detail for an encyclopedia to even mention she was there, that fact alone is news material but not more and as for the detail you require i think you need to be in her social circle to know that and not to be putting it on here 213.106.120.242 (talk) 06:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC) 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The article explains why she did not attendFlaviaR 18:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Was she linked to the Royal Family in any way when she was brought up as a very young child?

Rejected by Royal Family?
What evidence is there that marriage between Charles and Camilla was ever discussed back in the early 70's and that Camilla was rejected by the royals as being unsuitable? It is my understanding that Camilla wasn't interested in marrying Charles at that time, that she was pursuing Andrew Parker-Bowles. I think a firm reference for this statement is required.68.72.107.16 15:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Remember, also, that Queen Elizabeth II did not attend part of the wedding. I do not believe she is very fond of Princess Camilla either. Tarheelz123 (talk) 23:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Her Majesty's true feelings about Camilla are only known to the members of the family. There certainly is a lot of conjecture that Her Majesty doesn't care for Camilla, but Her Majesty did not attend the wedding as a result of her position as Supreme Governor of the Church. It was thought that given her position, it would be appropriate not to attend.  Her Majesty DID attend the blessing ceremony held afterward. Dphilp75 (talk) 16:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

My question is titles since Camilla is a divorcee and her marriage not sanctioned under the COE (it was a civil ceremony) does this article give her the titles of Princess of Wales and Dutchess of Rothsay titles reserved for HRH's. But according to the news was ONLY to use the title Duchess of Cornwall? I would love to know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Violetwanda (talk • contribs) 18:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Partner or mistress?
Someone keeps changing the description of Camilla as being Charles's partner for many years before they married to being his mistress. Strictly speaking, since Charles's divorce around 10 years ago, she was not his mistress. Nor was she his mistress before he married. Therefore the term "partner" is more appropriate, as it covers all the time they were together before they were married, not just a small proportion of it. Please keep it on the more accurate "partner". Many thanks, jguk 13:17, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

If you want accurate, it should read "homewrecking tramp!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.115.10 (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I would she was his mistress during the time of Charles' marriage to Diana, however, partner is a more appropiate term given their long relationship before his first marriage, and subsequently after. Astrotrain 14:27, May 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't think the term 'mistress' required the man to be a married man. [Dictionary.com] defines 'mistress' as "A woman who has a continuing sexual relationship with a usually married man who is not her husband and from whom she generally receives material support." I think Mistress might be more appropriate as 'partner' suggests business partner.


 * I say this without any malice towards her - I just think it would be more correct.DavidFarmbrough 09:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * While Camilla continued to be with Charles while he was married, did he give her material support? Other than a few token gifts, I was under the impression that the bulk of Camilla's income came from her own husband or some inheritance. She might have been his mistress between 1980 and 1995 (or '96?), but not before nor after. "Partner" is an appropriate term, then. I have heard it used before to describe long-term unmarried couples, both gay and straight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.164.87.123 (talk) 07:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Problem with 'Partner' is that it's a rather twee vogue word. Having said that, whatever description is used, the article makes the relationship clear, so there should be no confusion. DavidFarmbrough 11:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The term "partner" is preferable because it is more neutral and less judgmental. Viewfinder 11:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, and yet this issue is coming up again. --Cameron* 08:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate references
Removed statements that I felt were inappropriate: "strumpet". Psy Guy 18:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Rosemary
I'm sure I read something recently about her not having had the name "Rosemary" from birth, but I can't remember the detail. Or did I imagine it? (Old age doesn't come alone.) I'll bet one of those clever wikipedians knows... Deb 21:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Title Princess of Wales
Have added to that Camilla is indeed the Princess of Wales BUT may as well not be as its a Taboo Title.


 * Camilla is Princess of Wales by virtue of her marriage to the Prince of Wales. In the U.K., a woman takes the title(s) and status of her husband.  But she has chosen not be be styled Princess of Wales, presumably out of respect for Diana, Princess of Wales.

Important to differentiate between TITLE and STYLE. She's TITLED Princess of Wales allright, but not STYLED as such, just as she holds the title Countess of Chester but no-one ever calls her that because it's a lower rank. No-one would usually call her HRH The Countess of Chester as that would belittle her true status unless for a specific reason BUT that does not stop her BEING the Countess of Chester.


 * It actually the style "HRH" that gives them the real status, being titled Duchess of Cornwall or even Baroness of Renfrew for that matter does not mean a lot. Look at Sophie Wessex, being HRH The Countess of Wessex does not belittle her at all.  She is still a Princess of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and a Royal Countess, by virtue of being the wife of a Prince of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and a Royal Earl.  User:Eddo

You're right but style also includes CHOICE of title (using princess, duchess, countess etc including HRH. HRH means she's royal (like with Sophie Wessex) but Duchess looks beyond that to show she's higher ranking than others eg sophie wessex It would belittle her because Camilla holds titles HIGHER than just a countess as she's a royal countess twice over, a royal duchess twice over and princess of Wales so it doesn't make that much sense referring to her randomly as a countess when she's normally a duchess, eg calling her Countess of Chester would imply thats her highest rank and therefore at first sight looks equal to Countess of Wessex so its better to call her duchess to show she's higher. For any other consort it would be silly to call a Princess of Wales The Duchess of Cornwall all the time because the Duchess title is below the Princess but this is an exceptional case because of public sensitivity. No other de facto princess of wales has called themselves Duchess of Cornwall have they? (unless they were in Cornwall I guess as Prince Charles is called Duke of Cornwall there, but even then maybe not.

I dont understand all the fuss over Princess of Wales. They are obviously admitting that she is in some way sub-standard to Diana.


 * That's one of the reasons that some people have a problem with it. It is certainly pandering to the sentiment of the ignorant (as in: unknowing; no actual insult intended) who cannot grasp that titles do not belong to just one person, but are merely given to each holder in turn.FlaviaR 18:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Order of Precedence
Taken from Royal Insight courtesy of www.royal.gov.uk

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page4287.asp (July 2005 Mailbox Page 2)

Q: Marc - South Africa ''I read that HM The Queen has just reviewed the precedence list to include The Duchess of Cornwall. Apparently, HRH The Duchess of Cornwall is only fourth on the list, after The Princess Royal and Princess Alexandra. I was under the assumption that due to her being the wife of The Prince of Wales, the Duchess is the second highest ranking woman in the Royal Family after the Queen. Why then is the Duchess only fourth on the precedence list?''

In order to reflect the Duchess's wish to be called The Duchess of Cornwall rather than The Princess of Wales, The Queen took the opportunity to clarify the precedence list for members of the Royal Family. The Duchess's place in this list reflects the fact that she is a Duchess and not a Princess; thus she comes after The Princess Royal and Princess Alexandra. (END)


 * I think Royal Insight has made a mistake. By virtue of her marriage to a prince of the United Kingdom, Camilla automatically takes her husband's titles and thus she IS a princess.  To my knowledge, only princes and princesses are entitled to the style HRH.  If tradition were to hold, as de facto Princess of Wales, she should take precedence as a female directly after the Queen. Something was done here to change the traditional precedence, for what purpose is anyone's guess.  Surely, when Charles ascends the throne, Camilla will be the top-ranking female in the U.K.ScottyFLL 01:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Not sure how this works at all - why is she fourth on the list because surely before would come at least The Queen, Countess of Wessex, Princess Royal, Princess Beatrice, Princess Eugenie, Duchess of Gloucester, Duchess of Kent, Princess Michael of Kent, THEN Princess Alexandra and if DoC is aft her thats surely a long way form 4th! I don't know a lot about this, I altered it initially thinking that fourth meant after Queen, Wessex and Princess Anne but if after Princess Alexandra I'm a bit lost! Thanks. (jayboy2005)

Anne is because she is the daughter of a monarch. Alexandra is because she is the granddaughter of a monarch. It terms of granddaughters of a monarch, Alexandra is senior due to age over Beatrice, Eugenie, etc. Spouses of royal children are usually according to title. Sophie is a mere countess and wife of the third son so she is way down. If I remember correctly the Queen gave Alexandra her status ahead of Camilla as an indication of her personal affection for her cousin, who was widowed some time back. Camilla and Charles were OK with the arrangement, took no offence at Charles was glad to see his often forgotten cousin honoured that way. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

A few points: 1) Spouses of royal children are not according to title. They take their precedence from their husband.  This would be true of both Camilla and Sophie.  The wife of a Prince of Wales has always been ahead of royal daughters.  My understanding was that until quite recently, Sophie was being given precedence ahead of the Princess Royal, although this may not have been justified by precedent, and perhaps has changed;  2) Alexandra is not senior due to age, that's nonsense. If you get to do that for women, shouldn't her brother the Duke of Kent be senior due to age over Prince Harry? That's not how it works. 3) Does the Queen just get to alter the Order of Precedence by decree? My understanding was that it was, in some sense, set by statute.  At least some sort of formal instrument would be required to give Alexandra and Anne especially high precedence.  Can anyone point to such an instrument?  The royal family is really getting annoying with all this "We'll just handle this how we feel like it" nonsense with "Lady Louise Windsor" and "HRH The Duchess of Cornwall," and now this. john k 18:46, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

The BBC reported that it was Queen's personal decision to Princess Alexandra the status and that it was because she was the oldest living granddaughter of a sovereign apart than the Queen herself, and so was superior in precedence to other granddaughters like Beatrice, Eugenie and Louise. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:26, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

No, the Queen decided to change the order of precedence to put Princess Alexandra ahead of the others. The standard order of precedence would be something like...


 * 1) HM The Queen
 * 2) HRH The Duchess of Cornwall
 * 3) HRH The Princess Royal (or HRH The Countess of Wessex)
 * 4) HRH The Countess of Wessex (or HRH The Princess Royal)
 * 5) HRH Princess Beatrice of York
 * 6) HRH Princess Eugenie of York
 * 7) Lady Louise Windsor
 * 8) HRH The Duchess of Gloucester
 * 9) HRH The Duchess of Kent
 * 10) HRH Princess Alexandra, the Hon. Lady Ogilvy (or HRH Princess Michael of Kent)
 * 11) HRH Princess Michael of Kent (or HRH Princess Alexandra)

If Anne and Alexandra now rank ahead of the Duchess of Cornwall, it is not because this is how precedence normally works, it's because the queen made special provision to allow them to have higher rank than they should normally have. john k 23:36, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

(Note: The granddaughter of the current sovereign will always rank ahead of the granddaughter of a former sovereign, unless something is done to change it). john k 23:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Intro paragraph... again...
I was thinking: Since "The Princess Charles, Duchess of Cornwall" is incorrect, and just "The Duchess of Cornwall" doesn't seem to provide enough specification, why not introduce her as "Her Royal Highness Camilla Rosemary, Duchess of Cornwall"? Don't go yelling at me saying it is an inappropriate and unconventional style; gazettes have referred to princesses-by-marriage as such. Here are several examples:

When appointing the Duchess of York as a Dame Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire, it says:

To be a Dame Grand Cross of the Civil Division of the said Most Excellent Order:

Her Royal Highness Elizabeth Angela Marguerite, Duchess of York. 

When appointing the Countess of Wessex as a Dame of the Order of St John:

As Dame

Sophie Helen, Her Royal Highness The Countess of Wessex

So, what does everyone think of this proposal? --Matjlav(talk) 23:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * You've shown the Gazette using two completely different styles &mdash; why is one correct and not the other? Proteus (Talk) 11:29, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Both are correct. I'm not saying one's incorrect. --Matjlav(talk) 22:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Well you proposed using one rather than the other; what made you make that decision? Proteus (Talk) 14:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Wait, wait, wait... I'm confused now. Which is the "one" and which is the "other." I have a feeling there's a misunderstanding. --Matjlav(talk) 19:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * "HRH First Names, Rank of Title" (QETQM) is not the same as "First Names, HRH The Rank of Title" (Sophie). (Anyway, I take issue with "Since "The Princess Charles, Duchess of Cornwall" is incorrect", since it's not (apart from the fact that it should be "Princess of Wales" rather than "Duchess of Cornwall", at any rate, but I doubt that's what you meant).) Proteus (Talk) 19:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * True, but I think they're basically showing the same thing. And though those are the only two examples I can find of a royal being called this way, I can find other equivalents in non-royal peeresses. For instance: (The Right Honourable Mary, Baroness Soames);  (the Right Honourable Margaret, Baroness Strickland of Sizergh);  (Her Grace Lavinia Mary, Duchess of Norfolk)


 * And there are countless more examples. There are also examples (which I don't want to look for right now) that say the other, "Mary, The Rt Hon. Baroness Nowhere." And whether you agree with it or not, I think that since it's a convention now on WP not to say Princess Charles, that we have to go with these alternatives.


 * However, since now we omit styles, we will simply say "Camilla Rosemary, Duchess of Cornwall" at the beginning of the page. I wish some more people would start paying attention to this, though. --Matjlav(talk) 01:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The Article is already called "Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall", and her full names are in the intro sentence within parenthesis. There is no need to start the article "Camilla Rosemary, Duchess of Cornwall", as is also the style usually adopted by widowed or divorced peeresses.  She is "The Duchess of Cornwall".  Her names already follow, and is also in the article title. Eddo 23:22, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

HRH
Why, has someone removed the style of Her Royal Highness, it is correct no matter what ur feelings are for her. Mac Domhnaill 22:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia has changed policy on the issue. Instead of using styles up front, where were always going to be provocative, it was decided after a detailed discussion and overwhelming consensus to replace all royal styles by a styles infobox on the page. Fear ÉIREANN \(caint) 22:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I removed the style to bring the article in line with the consensu in Manual of Style (biographies). Gugganij 21:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The removal of the style was reverted with the argument that it contained relevant information, which is in fact not the case, since you can find this information later in the article. Gugganij 16:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

But in order to make it even clearer in the article I added the relevant information a second time in the article. Gugganij 16:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

"Princess of Wales!"
i think it is redicilous that she is not called HRH The Princess of Wales because she is the Princess of Wales. Okay, Diana WAS popularly HRH The Princess of Wales but she is not any more and she made a full ackowledgement to this in the presence of witnesses. There is also much controversy over whether or not she should be styled HM The Queen when the Queen dies. It is a propostorous notion to simply style her HRH The Princess Consort as it simply downgrades her status in the Royal family, and all this because of Diana (who was herself an adulteress). It's similar in suggesting that Camilla should not be called Charles's wife, because that's what Diana would have been. She is the Princess of Wales by right and has a legal claim to being Queen on the Queen's death. The people cannot deny this and it is because of certain individuals with ignorance in respect to the history of the monarchy that she is being allowed to be downgraded in this way. comment by User:81.102.42.51


 * I thank it was a good idea not to style her as Princess of Wales, that title is associated with Diana, Princess of Wales and will always be associated with her for times to come.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.0.2 (talk) 07:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, she is technically the Princess of Wales, but she is the one who decided she would be known as The Duchess of Cornwall. If, in the future, the public becomes more accepting of Camilla, maybe she will be Queen Camilla, but that is in the future.  Let's wait and see what happens. Prsgoddess187 12:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * She will indeed be Queen, whether she uses the title or not. ScottyFLL 01:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

She has chosen not be to known as Princess of Wales, therefore she is "downgrading" herself. She obviously feels inferior to Diana.


 * We do not know how she feels. It is more likely out of respect for Diana, and her children, and for political reasons, that she has chosen to be known as Duchess of Cornwall.  In the end her title is utterly unimportant - she is married to the heir apparent. ScottyFLL 01:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * She is not avtually downgrading herself, as the title of Duchess of Cornwall is equal to that of Princess of Wales, and always held be the same person. Mac Domhnaill 17:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * She is the one who decided what she would be called. She has not "downgraded" herself.  She had taken into account the continuing popularity of her future husband's ex-wife, and chosen not to try to replace her, which speaks volumes about her character.  If in the future she would rather be known as "The Princess of Wales" and eventually "Queen Camilla" that is her and her husband's decision.

I always thought that a princess ranked higher than a duchess.Why aren't they both styled TRH The Duke and Duchess of Cornwall, to avoid all the confusion over rank.


 * That is a good point, but as he has been known as the Prince of Wales since 1958, it would be a little silly to change now. :) Prsgoddess187 16:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Err... I don't think Duchess of Cornwall is equal to Princess of Wales, it IS lower as a princess IS higher than a duchess, just because they were held by the same person doesn't mean they were equal, so yes, she is choosing a lower title deliberately. I think theyre still calling the prince "Prince of Wales" because he's been called that for a long time and reverting to a ducal title might be seen as a downgrade not befitting for the heir to the throne.


 * yeah she has decided not to be the princess of whales because that was diana's title and she does not want to offend the public i mean people liked diana so since she got maried to the prince right after diana's death it would have made people dislike her being called princess of whales and some people are saying she will be queen when prince charles succeeds the throne she will be queen consort which is the wife of a king not actuall queen same as the queen has a king consort you should look up the title queen consort on here and learn about it Charlieh7337 (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Firstly, "right after diana's death"? They married eight years after her death! Secondly, please, please, oh, please learn some punctuation and grammar. For the love of God. DBD 08:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Picture naming
Anyone else think that maybe a more professional naming scheme should be used than "Dubya_n_royals"?


 * I agree. Could someone rename and relink the picture of President and First Lady Bush together with the Prince and Princess?  Its current name seems a bit cheeky.68.187.198.235 19:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Princess of Wales list
Caroline of Ansbach, was Princess of Wales (1727-37), not (1714-27). She was George II's wife. GoodDay 23:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Well spotted. Feel free to correct the error. As you clearly know a lot about the topic please add in as much as you know to any article. FearÉIREANN 23:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm Completely wrong, Caroline was indeed Princess of Wales (1714-27), She was Queen-consort (1727-37). Please forgive me GoodDay 03:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * No problem. You made sure you were right. I respect that. I wish everyone else here was as thorough. Actually you have gone way up in my estimation for having admitted an error. You clearly take accuracy seriously. That is the sort of contributor WP needs. Stay on board. FearÉIREANN [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\(caint)  13:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed move
I've removed the proposed move link. This should be discussed centrally at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles). It would be a mess, and chaotic, to try to discuss the issue individually on a host of single pages, each of which could decide theoretically on a different contradictory policy. FearÉIREANN 01:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Maiden names for deceased consorts
The problems caused by not using maiden name (or pre-consort marital name if previously married) was shown clearly in this article. It spoke of Camilla, though de jure Princess of Wales, not using that title because of its association with Charles's first wife, Diana, Princess of Wales.

That is linguistic gobledigook. Diana, Princess of Wales was never married to Charles. That was her title after the marriage ended. If one was to refer to the lady in terms of her marriage one would have to use her marital, not post-marital title, which was the Princess of Wales. But writing that would produce more gobbledigook. It would involve saying that Camilla did not call herself PoW because charge was previously married to the PoW!!! That is why historians and genealogists use maiden names not marital or post-marital names for deceased royal consorts. Rather than getting caught up in complicated confusing sentences where a number of people may have had the same title, one uses the pre-marriage name of the deceased consort because it is unique to them and so avoids tangled sentences. Professional historians in that sentence would get around the problem by saying that Charles's first wife was Lady Diana Spencer. That avoids any confusion of marital and post-marital titles. I've changed the sentence to follow that standard historographical style. When in the future Camilla dies, she too in standard historographical naming will be referred to by, in her case her pre-consort name, Camilla Parker Bowles. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 21:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. However this will be controversial. I can just see the front page of the Daily Express on Monday "WIKIPEDIA DOWNGRADES DIANA'S ROYAL STATUS" !!!! Astrotrain 22:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * yup. lol Followed on Tuesday by WIKIPEDIA DEFENDS PAEDOPHILES WRITING ARTICLES FOR CHILDREN (another of our controversies at the moment), then on Wednesday LIBERAL LEFT USE WIKIPEDIA TO ATTACK BUSH, on Thursday WIKIPEDIA INSULTS HER MAJESTY BY DOWNGRADING UK IN HER ARTICLE, and on Friday HOW A GAY CONSPIRACY ON WIKIPEDIA THREATENS OUR CHILDREN. lol. Don't you just love the British tabloids (mid-market and red tops). Ireland has just had the repulsive Daily Mail launch an Irish version and in its first week it has tried to break in to a hospital to get photographs of a TV presenter who had given birth, smeared a TV personality who is a friend of mine over his marriage breakup by hinting at a non-existent affair and delivered semi-literate 'family values' rants. It is the journalism of the sewer. I may write as a journalist some times but some of my journalistic colleagues and their papers give me the creeps. Here endeth the lesson!!! FearÉIREANN [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\(caint)  22:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I corrected the link for Diana. Lady Diana Spencer went to a semi-disambiguation page.  Sent to D,PoW page.  I agree that she should be reverted to LDS, but we can continue that on her page. Prsgodd e ss187 00:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have corrected Diana's title in one of the opening paragraphs as it is incorrect to refer to her by her maiden name 'Lady Diana Spencer'. While it is technically incorrect to refer to her as 'Princess Diana', she is popularly called that in the United Kingdom as she was a Princess and her name was Diana and it is perfectly acceptable to call her that - she even referred to herself as such during her lifetime.

Member of the Royal Family
Who keeps starting off articles on royalty with the worthless line that 'so-and-so is a member of such-and-such Royal Family'. It is completely pointless.
 * 1) Many people are members of Royal Family. Except for the most junior members who have nothing else of note to say about them, it is an irrelevant entry because it implies and equal status between all members of the family. Camilla is constitutionally a lot more important that Sophie, the Countess of Wessex or Lady Louise Windsor, who can also be described as members of the British Royal Family.
 * 2) In writing articles the most important fact goes at the start. For Camilla being a member of the Royal Family isn't the most important fact. The important fact is that she is the wife of the Prince of Wales. So that has to be the opening line.
 * 3) If we say she is married to a member of the Royal Family, then by implication she is one also. You no more have to spell it out when it is obvious than you have to spell out that George W. Bush is a man or Hillary Clinton is a woman.

Please stop starting articles with weak, irrelevant and pointless sentences. It only makes the article look as though it is the work of people who don't know how to write copy in an encyclopaedia. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 20:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

It may have been me who started this phrasing. I thought it better to say so-and-so is a member of such-and-such Royal Family, then state why they are a member. Obviously for less well known members it is important for readers to identify why they are Royal. It also allows us to link to the Royal Family page in the first line. You could also say it is important for royals those with titles that can also be held by non royals (eg Camilla is referred to as Duchess, not an obviously royal title) to be identified as royal upfront.

Although at the end of the day I am not really bothered whether it says it or not. But I am surprised you are just mentioning this now, it was like this for nearly a year!. Astrotrain 20:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No prob. I am usually on vandalism watch and so looking at changes made in articles. I accidentally opened this article by mistake and saw the opening. I've already deleted that opening from here once and was annoyed to see it back. I can understand your logic but I think it a wrong way to start articles for senior royals. It would make perfect sense for minor royals for whom their only claim to fame is membership of the Royal Family. But where someone's claim to fame is not membership of the Royal Family but status within it, the line is pointless. (Sorry if I sounded a big gruff earlier. I've been trying to undo vandalism in one article for one hour. Whenever I try to preview the article it deleted the top two-thirds of the article. There seem to be strange things happening on WP tonight. Have we a bug or something?) FearÉIREANN [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\(caint)  21:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Sinister vs. dexter
The section about the coat of arms incorrectly identifies the "sinister" side as on the "right", and "dexter" as on the "left". Not being sure whether it was the proper terms that had been mixed up, or merely the translations, I will leave it to someone else to correct. -Erolos 14:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Dexter and sinister are determined from the point of view of the person holding the shield on which the arms are embazoned (so are reversed from the point of view of someone looking at them - just like your heart will be on the sinister (left) side of your body's midline - absent situs inversus - but will be on the right side as I look at you). -- ALoan (Talk) 14:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Style
What if someone wished to acknowledge her as Princess of Wales? What if someone at court asked for the whereabouts or works of the Princess of Wales? Could they refer to her as such? If not, why not?


 * I have always wondered this, myself. I have the feeling that it would most likely be politely ignored, and treated as if you had called her what was publicly decided she would be called. Privately, it might even be appreciated, but there's no 100% way to know this.FlaviaR 16:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup
There seems to have been a cleanup tag added, but no discussion why, so I've removed it Astrotrain 18:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Edits by 65.77.169.190
I am reverting these, because I do not think they are applicable as Diana is no longer living. Camilla has renounced the Princess and future Queen titles because of public opinion. Viewfinder 18:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

A number of fair use images with shaky fair use claims
I have tagged a number of images on this page as fairuse disputed. No rationale is provided and since the majority appear to be wire service (AP/Reuters) images it seems likely that there is no acceptable fair use rationale. Megapixie 03:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Christened Camilla Rosemary Shand?
This cannot be true - no one is Christened with a surname. Since no one is born with given names, it would be more accurate to say "born a Shand and subsequently Christened Camilla Rosemary." This will probably affect a lot of other biographical articles as well.TharkunColl 12:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this bit of information re: christenings. It never occurred to me, but you are obviously correct.FlaviaR 16:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, nobody is "born" with any names at all. True, where Mr and Mrs Smith have a baby, the normal and overwhelming convention is for that child to also carry the surname Smith.  But afaik there's no law that it must be so.  Mr and Mrs Smith could have a son that they officially name "Peter Frederick Jones".  Also, it's far from uncommon for people to have one name registered officially, and be christened/baptised with something different.  For example, the Register of Births may have "Norman Patrick James Anderson", which is his legal name, but the baptism certificate may have "Norman James Patrick Anderson", or "Norman Patrick Anderson", or some other variant.  Or the name on the birth certificate might be "Joseph Lucifer Morgan", but I can understand a priest refusing to christen a child as such and substituting a saint's name for Lucifer, e.g. Luke.  Where there's any difference between the two versions, the name on the Register of Births is the one that counts as their officially registered and legal name.  So, we really shouldn't generally be talking about whatever names our article subjects were "christened", but about whatever names they were "given".  The only cases where baptism/christening details come into play is people from earlier ages, where often there simply is no birth certificate and we have to rely on their baptism certificate to come up with their date of birth and their name.  --  JackofOz (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Page title wrong?
I'm not sure why this page is called "Camilla, The Duchess of Cornwall" when her title is "The Duchess of Cornwall".

I suspect that this confusion arises out of the re-styling of "The Princess of Wales" as "Diana, Princess of Wales" and of "The Duchess of York" as "Sarah, Duchess of York" after their respective divorces.

Charles is "The Prince of Wales" and Camilla is "The Duchess of Cornwall". Their given names are included in their articles and ought not to be in the titles: this is inaccurate. I believe it is not correct to refer to "Camilla, The Duchess of Cornwall" - even with the word "The".

Please correct me if I am wrong. -- Stevecov 15:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Happy to oblige. It's simply a matter of wikipedia protocol - it makes much more sense to identify Camilla by her name and title, because there have been simply dozens of Duchesses of Cornwall throughout history! Were Diana still alive and married to Charles, her article would be at "Diana, The Princess of Wales" - "The" denoting that she is the current Princess of Wales. Diana, having divorced and died, drops "The" because she's no longer the current Princess of Wales. Similarly, The Earl of Wessex is at "Prince Edward, The Earl of Wessex" because he's a prince (in his own right, unlike Camilla and Sophie), and the current Earl of Wessex // D  B  D  15:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think this answers the question. You correctly identify that there can be only one holder of a title at a given time, hence "The Duchess of Cornwall".  But there is a separate article named "Duchess of Cornwall", which refers to the title itself and its past holders.  Logically speaking, therefore, the Camilla article ought to be "The Duchess of Cornwall" and not as presently.  The existence of the other article negates the need to include her given name as part of her article's title. - Stevecov 18:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Consider these two articles: Prince Edward, Duke of Kent and Katharine, The Duchess of Kent, they are married and yet Edward does not have "The" as part of the article title. How many other inconsistencies are there out there? Also, I suppose we should create Camilla, The Princess of Wales as a redirect to this article. NoSeptember  19:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Will she be the official Queen?
I cannot see why not as Henry VIII made his new wifes Queens,so it stands to reason-surely she cant be blackballed can she?
 * Camilla will, officially, be Queen consort, and could be referred to as HM The Queen, but, unless the pre-wedding, announcement is repealed, she will only ever be styled HRH The Princess Consort. And the announcement will likely only be repealed if public opinion is gauged to be in her favour. DBD 18:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What will she be known in the Realms, given she will be the first consort of a multi-crown King? Astrotrain 19:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Presumably the same as in the UK, Princess Consort. But the announcement doesn't specify, so it's anyone's guess. DBD 19:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * She won't be the first. Anne of Denmark, Henrietta Maria, Catherine of Braganza, and others precede her.  They were all Queen in each realm, so I don't see why Camilla should be any different. 91.109.173.82 (talk) 23:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Will she get a dukedom or whatever for her own when charles will become king (like Prince Philipp as consort..), or will she simply be the "Princess consort"? 23.59, 8.4.2007 USerXeX
 * Interestingly by doing some research, I have discovred that upon Charles Assension to the Throne, it would take an act of parliment to prevent Camilla becoming Queen, this is interesting because I would be very suprised if in the mood of a country where the Queen has just died and there is a new king whether the first thing parliment wants to do is announce the new kings wife is not queen.--Duncanbruce 20:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the announcement deems to suggest HRH The Princess Consort - it'd be very strange for a female royal to be given a royal peerage... DBD 20:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No. The reigning King nor his Queen can have any peerages. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 13:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @ Duncanbruce: Afaik, it's not a legal matter that a King's wife is known as the Queen, just an historical tradition and convention. The Princess Consort would have the same status as all the previous Queens Consort, the only difference being that she'd have a different title.  No act of parliament can do anything about this, because royal consorts have no constitutional power. If Camilla (as Princess Consort) wanted to be known as Queen Camilla to properly reflect her actual status, but Charles didn't want her to have that public title, there's nothing she could do about that either. --  JackofOz (talk) 00:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * @JaclofOz: I am afraid that Duncanbruce is correct in his statement and you are not. The style of a sovereign's consort is indeed a legal matter. The wife of a King, according to English (and UK) law is a Queen. It would take an Act of Parliament to revoke this title. George IV hated his wife and desperately tried to prevent her from gaining the title of Queen upon his acsession. However, all he was able to do was to prevent her attending his coronation (and by extension her own). She was nominally Queen Consort of the United Kingdom of GB and Ireland. Camilla's position is exactly the same. The public may call her whatever they wish but legally and according to law, custom and tradition she will be Queen. The situation is not the same for male consorts married to Queen regnants because the title of King is of higher rank than Queen, so a Queen regnant would be outranked by her own husband! Queen Victoria tried very desperately to give Prince Albert the title of King but was unable to do so because it would have required an Act of Parliament, and Parliament would not sanction it. In the end Albert had to settle for the title of Prince consort, much to Victoria's annoyance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.89.52 (talk) 02:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case, by what authority was it announced that Camilla will be known as the Princess Consort when Charles becomes king? If it takes an act of parliament to alter the consort's style, isn't parliament being snubbed here?  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   02:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

By non other then her own authority. She chose her style to be like that. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 13:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it appears she will be getting the same treatment as Prince Philip. Historically, however, looking back, it seems that king's wives always got to be "queens."  Reigning queens' husbands, however, had to be "Consorts" otherwise they would be Kings and thus appear to rank or equal their spouses, which was unacceptable (except in the case of William III and Mary II, where William had almost as good a claim to the throne as Mary [3rd vs. 1st]).  So in getting the "consort" treatment, Camilla is getting slightly shafted, but better than nothing at all.  Had Diana lived (and not divorced Charles) she would definitely been styled "Queen" IMHO.Bigmac31 (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, what's even more interesting about this case, is that each of the Commonwealth Realms may have to assert their own "title" to her. Short of an act of Parliament of the UK, she *WILL* be the "Official" Queen Consort. What's interesting about this, is that there is a symmetrical agreement between the Commonwealth Realms to not monkey with the order of succession with about approval of all 16.
 * This of course bears no meaning to Camilla, however it does set a possible "precedent" of the 16 Commonwealth Realms also having to agree on her Title. After all, it's odd that through in-action of the Canadian Parliament, Canada might have (EG) "Her Majesty, Queen Camilla" while the UK has "HRH, The Princess Consort/Duchess of XXX/The Princess Camilla, Duchess of XXX/whatever her UK courtesy title becomes"
 * But to add to this, the current "tradition" with in the Commonwealth Realms, is to refer to the Duke of Edinburgh by his UK courtesy title, so would that extend to "Queen Camilla" as well? Man, I love theoretical discussions like this!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dphilp75 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. Legally she will be Queen in all of the Realms. No legislation required! What she chooses to call herself is entirely up to her and non of the Realms can change that by legislation. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Was she related to Diana?
I have noticed that Diana's mother and Camilla both share "Shand" in there name - is there any family connection other than marrying the same man ?
 * No, no family connection. Camilla's father was Bruce Shand, whereas Frances Shand Kydd, Diana's mother, is only Shand Kydd through her later marriage, to Peter Shand Kydd, who is no relation to the late princess. DBD 19:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Camilla is more likely to be related to Charles than to Diana! Camilla's great-grandmother was mistress to Charles' great-great-grandfather. When they first met in 1970, Camilla Shand's chat-up line to Prince Charles is reported to have been "My great-great-grandmother was your great-great-grandfather's mistress, so how about it?" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4253953.stm Constantine 19:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You would have to source any family connection, original research is outside our scope, SqueakBox 19:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The Alice Keppel connection is well documented. The diagram on the BBC web page linked above is quite a good illustration of the links between Charles' and Camilla's families but I don't think there's anything here that warrants an edit to the current Camilla article. Constantine 23:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Go further back in history - to Charles II - and then both Camilla and Diana are related - both being descendents of Charles II (through different illegitmate children) but nonetheless they are both descendents of this king (as is Sarah, Duchess of York)

Camilla, Diana, and Sarah all share Charles Lennox, 1st Duke of Richmond (illegimate son of King Charles II) as a common ancestor. RosePlantagenet 18:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

References broken link
I think this article is good. On the references, though, the London Times link is broken. The article apparently is moved or not available online anymore. ?? --Ashley Rovira 15:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Religion?
what ist or was the religion of Camilla? Roman Catholic as her first husband? oder church of england? I'm asking because on TV (about the wedding in 1981 of Charles and Diana; Charles' girlfriends etc.) it was said that charles and Camilla could not marry in 1970th as she was catholic. This must be wrong, because otherwise Charles could not become King anymore (as he is now married to her). The reason would be the Act of Settlement 1701.

Opinions to Camilla's religion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.23.254.50 (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * See, where some of the contributors appear to be well informed. Viewfinder 17:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Her first husband was a Catholic. She never was. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 13:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Portrait picture
I changed the portrait picture to the one provided by White House. Wikipedia rules stipulate that public domain photos must be used unless there are no alternatives. 99.228.13.46 06:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Parker-Bowles
When did Camilla "lose" her surname? Has anybody any info? Thanks! --Camaeron (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * When she remarried. She has her husband's surname, which is   . Charles 04:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

As her new husband doesnt have a surname I wondered às to why she would lose her old one!? --Camaeron (talk) 15:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Women, upon remarriage, usually lose their previous husband's surname. This is what happened. Charles 21:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Her husband does have a surname. It's Windsor. --74.15.183.27 (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * They are both said to be Mountbatten-Windsor: The following people make use of, in current practice, or have made use of, the surname Mountbatten-Windsor. They are listed in the order of succession to the Crown.


 * Prince Charles, Prince of Wales and his wife, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 03:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Mistress vs partner x2
Taken from our BLP policy: "''Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.

''Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm".''

''This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material."

Partner should be used as mistress is a negative and judgemental word. The Oliver Cromwell article does not use the word usurper even though it is a word that would befit his actions. --Cameron* 09:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's less judgmental because it's not a synonym: Camilla was having sex with Charles while each was married to someone else, which is not quite the meaning of "partner", but is exactly the meaning of "mistress".


 * CNN says Mistress: <http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/04/09/royal.wedding/> "The memory of the drama haunts the big Saturday marriage, in which the prince exchanged marriage vows with Camilla Parker-Bowles, his longtime and publicly disliked mistress". She was clearly his mistress, documentedly and self-admittedly so, and there are no BLP issues involved.  It's quite disingenuous to claim this is a BLP issue. Further, "mistress" is cited, as opposed to the exceedingly cutsie "partner".  - Nunh-huh 09:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Try finding a royal.gov.uk or princeofwales.gov.uk source and I will be fully ready to insert the text again. --Cameron* 10:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't be ridiculous. We don't only parrot official sites. The claim that this is a BLP issue is disingenous. "Usurper" is a judgment; "mistress" is a fact. By the way, you do know that the article is in the Category:Mistresses of British royalty? - Nunh-huh 10:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * One definition of usurper is: "to seize and hold (a position, office, power, etc.) by force or without legal right" how does this not apply?
 * It presupposes who has "legal right", which is of course a point of opinion and not fact.

The definition of mistress is: "a woman who has a continuing, extramarital sexual relationship with one man". Even if the Her Royal Highness were a mistress it should not be included per BLP, and per Blp. Partner has been used in the article successfully, there seems no reason to change it to mistress other that mud slinging. --Cameron* 10:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So we agree, then, with the rest of the world, that Camilla was Charles's mistress. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of BLP. Documented facts are included in articles, even if they are not particularly attractive, when they are important to the reader's understanding. That Camilla was Charles's mistress is rather an important fact. - Nunh-huh 10:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have been citing policies, not interpreting them myself. We ought to wait for further users to discuss the matter, as we are obviously not going to come to an agreement. --Cameron* 10:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You've been citing policies as though they pertained to the question at hand, and in so doing misinterpreting and misapplying them, and placing your interpretations as accusations in edit summaries . I suggest that if you think calling Camilla Charles's mistress is a violation of BLP, you report it at the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. It isn't. - Nunh-huh 10:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You suggest in your statement above ("Partner has been used in the article successfully") that "partner" was of longstanding; in fact you inserted it in the lede only today. "Mistress" has been part of this article throughout most of its history; the same is not true of "partner". - Nunh-huh 10:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't object to using "partner", but don't believe that "mistress" should be excluded because 1. the two words are not synonyms, and 2. mistress is more precise, in that it acknowledges violation of marital vows. "Extra-marital partner" could be a synonym for "mistress": "Partner" simply is not. 3. Charles admitted committing adultery in a televised interview while still married to his first wife. 4. The first wife also went on television and acknowledged that her marriage suffered because "there were three of us in this marriage, so it was a bit crowded." Although Charles said that his marriage had already broken down when the affair began (or resumed), Diana said that Charles's relationship with Camilla contributed to the failure of her marriage. Because Charles and Camilla are living, they are entitled to more "discretion" in print than is Diana, according to Wiki policy. So if the article can be written in a way that protects their privacy, without implicitly contradicting a documented assertion that we have no consensus to reject as inaccurate ("There were three of us in this marriage"), then we should do that. It would be easy if there had not been extensive media coverage, books written, and theses researched on both Charles's marriages and their public impacts: We could simply ignore the tabloids and pretend to know nothing of the affair (exactly as the media did during the Abdication crisis of Edward VIII/Duke of Windsor and Mrs. Simpson). But since all of that info is out there in legitimate texts (including assertions that the future Head of the Church of England was not married to Camilla in that Church or with the Queen as a witness because of the adulterous origin of the relationship), the affair and its impacts on Charles's first marriage are documented history. Moreover, it is indisputably relevant to the "notability" of Charles and Camilla's marriage that he is the first heir to Crown-and-Church who has wed outside of the Church -- which means that how he came to be the first is also fair game for this article. Good luck getting around all that. FactStraight (talk) 22:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * At some point the lede said something along the lines of "She was successively girlfriend, mistress, partner, and wife of The Prince of Wales" which covers it all very nicely. - Nunh-huh 01:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course, all this focusses on her relationship to Charles. A sexual relationship is not a one-way street. What if the boot were on the other foot: she was the Heiress Presumptive, and he was a commoner? We'd be referring to her by her title, and to him as "her lover". It amuses me that female lovers are called "mistresses", but male lovers just get the generic "lover", which could apply to either a male or female lover. How about we remove the sexism and just call her "Charles' lover". -- JackofOz (talk) 00:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep. Lover is great. I totally agree about the sexism. --Cameron* 16:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A gender neutral term which embraces the same relationship as "mistress" is "paramour". It suffers from having become largely a literary word -- though it would not be inaccurate to use it in this case if it is preferred. The problem for those who object here is that "mistress" has not yet become purely a literary or historical term, even though some obviously think that it should; it remains in current usage. But that is a matter of linguistic history which it is not Wikipedia's function to "correct": there is no consensus that "mistress" may no longer be used to describe a female engaged in a sexual relationship with a married male. I do not object to "paramour", but I agree that "lover" is a more current term. Although it lacks relevant specificity, it is acceptable. "Partner", because it is weasel-word vague, is not. FactStraight (talk) 22:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

New picture of couple
I recently uploaded to the Commons this photograph that I shot while on vacation this year. For your consideration on this article.Mattnad (talk) 14:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Ancestry section
is this section really needed? all the tenuous, vaguely verifiable names of people she's supposedly related to? the sources aren't exactly rock solid either. Theserialcomma (talk) 03:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Scandal
Why on earth is there not an entire section dedicated to scandal?

There should information on "Camillagate" and how Prince Charles wanted to be Camilla's tampon. This is historical and factual information which should be included onto this page. The affair is hardly discussed at all. This is a part of history. --Yoganate79 (talk) 05:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It can be included after she's dead, due to BLP.Zythe (talk) 11:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * BLP requires that controversial material be cited to a reliable source, not that it can't be included before the article's subject dies. - Nunh-huh 11:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's been hidden very craftily hasn't it. Why don't you write a section with good references then keep an eye on the section for when The Firm's cronies come along to change it back.86.6.184.62 (talk) 17:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Title of the article
Should it be "Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall"? At WP:PT, it is being discussed if it is mandatory the use of article in this case, being her the second wife of the Prince of Wales. Sounds a bit nonsense to me. Thanks. --Tonyjeff (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I think it ought to be "The Duchess of Cornwall" with no reference to her name, as that is her title of choice. I will say that whatever it SHOULD be, it most definately SHOULD NOT be "Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall", unless or until she and Charles are divorced! At the moment, this article has possibly the most ridiculous name that it could have!! Jcuk (talk) 10:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe the current name is fine. Does anyone think that "Charles, Prince of Wales" is a bad title for an article? Titles of biography articles should include the person's name. The title of an article should not be the person's royal/peerage title and/or style, otherwise this article's title would have to be "Her Royal Highness The Princess Charles, Princess of Wales and Countess of Chester, Duchess of Cornwall..." The title of an article does not have to indicate anyone's marital status; if it describes the person correctly, it's all right. The current title of this article is not meant to indicate her relationship with Charles, Prince of Wales. It includes her name and royal title, so it's fine. Surtsicna (talk) 10:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would agree with Surtsicna here. This article specifically relates to Camilla the person, not 'The Duchess of Cornwall' which is a generic name or style that could be applied to any individual that holds the title in history or in the future. <b style="font-family:arial; color:green;">21st CENTURY</b> <b style="font-family:arial; color:green;"> GREENSTUFF</b> 10:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The title of the article is obviously incorrect and should be changed immediately. Camilla, who as a titled royal by marriage holds no surname, should be referred to by her first name and then her title to indicate her rank. As long as she is married to Charles, she should be referred to as Camillia the (title). Usually, peers and their wives choose to be known by their highest title, in this case the Pricess of Wales; however, for reasons known to all, Camilla has decided to use Charles 2nd highest title in England - Duke of Cornwall. Appropriately she is "Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall" the article sould also be titled as such. Although she is legally entitled to be called Camilla, the Priness of Wales. Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall seems indicate that she is the ex-wife of a peer. The divorced wife of a peer uses her former title as a surname, separated by a comma. Perhaps, a form of stylistic alimony, if you will. For example, Lady Diana Spencer was known as Lady Diana, Princess of Wales after her divorce and prior to her death, whereby she did not use the courtesy title "lady", despite being entitled to it as the daughter of an Earl. Upon divorce, she was no longer entitled to the style HRH nor the use of the title "the Princess of Wales", as this would have indicated that she was currently the wife of the Prince of the Wales. Furthermore, it is important to distinguish between a style and a title. A style is an honourific prior to a persons title or name HM, HRH, His Grace, The Honourable, etc. A title indicates the rank or office held - the Queen, the Prince, the Duke, the Earl, the Viscount, etc. If a person actually holds the title in their own right or by current marriage, the definite article "the" is used. Divorce or death brings changes to the title. The dowager status gets complicated and involves a bit of personal choice and is also determined by other factors such as if the current title holder is married or if there is an existing dowager. I shall leave that discussion for another place; however, a current wife of a peer ALWAYS uses the definate article pior to her style. Therefore, please rename the article either Camilla, the Princess of Wales (legally her name and her highest title) or more politely as she wishes to be known "Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall". One would never refer to Charles as Charles, Prince of Wales. It is an absolute impossibility. Males ONLY use a title without the "the" if they personally are not a peer in their own right AND they are in line for a peerage AND the peer also has a lesser subsidiary title. For example, His Grace the Duke of Norfolk's eldest son is titled in courtesy as Earl of Arundel and Surrey without the "the", as he does not hold the titles, but may use them in courtesy as the heir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaimiethedog (talk • contribs) 23:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Camilla and the Commonwealth Realms
Should there be a mention of what happens to Camilla's title upon Charles's succession? From all the research I have done, and I admit I could be wrong here, not only will there need to be an Act passed in the UK for her to become Princess Consort (Otherwise she just becomes Queen Consort) but similar acts would also *HAVE* to be passed in the Realms to ensure the principal of symmetrical successions.

Of course, Camilla has no bearing on the succession, but she can't very well be Princess Consort of the United Kingdom while at the same time being Queen Consort of Canada..? Dphilp75 (talk) 19:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Edit; I'm aware that the article touches on this, but it doesn't go in to the "what if's"... Should we? Dphilp75 (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * My view is that the tradition of calling the wife of a king "queen" is just that - a tradition. (Just like the wife of Mr Smith is "Mrs Smith", if she chooses to be known as that.  She doesn't have to go through any legalities to make it so, apart from the marriage itself.)  So, it's simply a question of style, not of law.  There was no change to the law necessary when she became known by her current title rather than as Princess of Wales, and there'll be no change required to have her be known as Princess Consort rather than as Queen Camilla.  The Commonwealth Realms will simply refer to her as whatever the Palace wants her to be referred to as.  If a rogue realm insisted on calling her Queen Camilla - well, that's what she'd really be anyway, so it wouldn't be a huge issue.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  10:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No legislation in any of the Realms is required. Legally she will be the Queen in all Realms. What she chooses to call herself however is entirely up to her. No legislation is needed for that nor can any legislation in any Realm change that. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 13:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism
reading the first parts of the article, seems to have been vandalised, sort of craftily, it seems strange to see fox hunting mentioned so prominently in a biographical article, i have read any other biographies that mention it and i'm sure plenty of those ive read have hunted foxes. and dumbells school, seems improbable etc etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.120.242 (talk) 06:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Relationship with the Prince of Wales
The first two paragraphs of this heading are RIFE with issues regarding POV, IMHO. Anyone wanna discuss this before I change it...? Dphilp75 (talk) 11:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

1997 Crash?
How come there is no mention of the collision she has with an interior designer on a country road in Wiltshire? If I remember correctly she was on her way to see Prince Charles at Highgrove when she hit another vehicle at speed tipping it over into a ditch injuring the driver. She then ran off called HRH who had one of his bodyguards pick her up. There was a lot of hoo har at the time because anyone else would have been charged with leaving the scene of an accident (applicable if insurance details have not been exchanged and, in this case, some one was hurt.) I think it seems like a glaring anomaly to not include this incident. 86.163.107.51 (talk) 09:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * She called the ambulance and police before calling Charles, and the other driver refused to make a complaint. I think it would be undue weight to mention such a minor incident, especially in the somewhat hysterical and innacurate way in which you described it. DuncanHill (talk) 12:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's what I like about this site, all the opinion masquerading as fair and right-minded balance: "in the somewhat hysterical and innacurate way in which you described it". Amusingly the article that the detractor used about how "innocent" Ms Parker Bowles was, actually highlights the whole incongruity of the incident. As the first poster rightly notes, she left the scene of the accident. She ran up a hill to call Charles not the emergency services. The reason, after the fact, given was that she was concerned about security. But she hit the vehicle not the other way around. As the oft quoted remark notes, innocent people don't run. Once the bodyguards sent by Charles arrived there was no security issue. I think the quick knee jerk reaction to the defend the royals from the person above is also somewhat "undue weight". Why the lady doth protect too much? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.148.90 (talk) 13:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Spamming of page
Whoever looks after this page may wish to correct the infobox as it looks like a spammer has taken to putting a load of rubbish on it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.163.7 (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Titles and styles
Why in the "Titles and styles" section for 3 March 1995 – 9 April 2005 her 2nd name "Rosemary" isn't included??? СЛУЖБА (talk) 06:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Web site discrapency -- Princess of Wales
Dear Sir/Madam, In the wikipedia, it said “Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall (Camilla Rosemary; née Shand, previously Parker Bowles; born 17 July 1947) is the second wife of Charles, Prince of Wales, and is the current holder of the titles Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay and Countess of Chester.

In the British Royalty web site www.royal.gov.uk, there is no mention of the tytle Princess of Wales ? The web site said “Born Camilla Rosemary Shand, after her marriage to The Prince of Wales, Her Royal Highness chose to use the title The Duchess of Cornwall.

In Scotland, Her Royal Highness is known as The Duchess of Rothesay.

As The Prince is the Earl of Chester, Her Royal Highness also holds the title The Countess of Chester.

When The Prince accedes to The Throne, it is intended that The Duchess will use the title HRH The Princess Consort.

Click here to visit The Duchess of Cornwall's official website

Please reply to address below: Regards,

Lee Wong

9 Stevens Ave, Ottawa, Ontario Canada K1K 1K4

E-mail: lee_wong_004@yahoo.ca Tel: 613 748-7000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.252.136 (talk) 02:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Curtsied to pre-marriage?
In the "Image Rehabilitation" section of the article, it is stated, "In London, she stayed at St James's Palace, where staff curtseyed to her and addressed her as 'Ma'am', as any member of the royal family and at almost all private occasions, she was by now accompanying the Prince." This is so unprecedented and violative of protocol that it requires exceptionally reliable sources to remain in the article. Or is this just fabricated fan-fluff? FactStraight (talk) 07:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You seem to have some sort of animosity towards the Duchess of Cornwall, which I won't even bother asking why, however let me remind you that this is Wikipedia, not a fansite where you can spread your hate. There is a reliable source for the sentence you disagree on, if you keep causing problems on her article, your behavior will be reported. (Libby995 (talk) 02:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As clearly expressed in my comment above, when an alleged fact is extraordinarily unusual (curtseying, by on-duty staff at a royal palace to someone who is entitled neither to the style of Majesty nor Highness) exceptional sources are required to sustain its inclusion in an article. For royal staff to accord treatment reserved in the UK exclusively for royalty to someone who is not royal is so extraordinary that exceptional reliable sources, not merely a single source, is needed to substantiate it. I have not removed the under-substantiated allegation -- although that would have been allowable. Please do not remove the "dubious" tag until the allegation is adequately sourced. FactStraight (talk) 21:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And as I have said it HAS a reliable source, you don't need more sources to tell the exact thing.Nothing surprising about her being called Ma'am and curtseyed to before marriage, it seems to bother only you, no one else. You should Google the word 'reportedly' to understand what the sentence means. You also have no right to remove it as it has a reliable source to support it. Again, I can tell your disruption and attack on this info is not due to sources, but the animosity you have for the Duchess of Cornwall, perhaps your behavior need to be reported as persistent vandalism... And by the way you had NO RIGHT removing the info I just added.(Libby995 (talk) 22:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please avoid making uncivil accusations. According to Wikipedia's Verifiability policy, "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Red flags that should prompt extra caution include...claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people." So I repeat: I have never heard of and consider it an exceptional practice for on-duty staff at a British royal palace in the 21st century to curtsey to someone who is entitled neither to the style of Majesty nor Highness. Since you maintain that, with respect to the former Mrs. Parker Bowles, there is, "Nothing surprising about her being called Ma'am and curtseyed to before marriage", I am not removing the allegation at this time -- although sufficient time for additional reliable sourcing in response to the concern I first raised on this point on 8 October has elapsed. However I have tagged the allegation as dubious pending citation of additional reliable sources. FactStraight (talk) 03:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I just added another reliable source, if that's not enough I don't know what it is. Now I can tell you are either immature or just being ignorant. He chose her not his ex, GET OVER IT and stop living in the past. The dubious tag will be removed. By the way I can tell you just change your little reason for this pathetic disruption from reliable source to verification. If it bothers you the way it is written, you can reword it. As i said before you have no right removing it or adding the tag all because you do not agree... and stop quoting Wikipedia policies to me, I know them and can read. (Libby995 (talk) 03:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing the exceptional documentation needed to substantiate an unprecedented occurrence. FactStraight (talk) 04:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Just dropping by via the Teahouse. I was able to track down a third cite without too much difficulty. I'll agree that it's unprecedented (and if you have a cite for that you should definitely add it). I've removed the tag; if you'd like to see something better-sourced then say the word and I'll see what I can do. <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.9em 'Garamond', serif">Garamond <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.9em 'Garamond', serif">Lethe 06:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Archiving this talk page
Just a quick note that I restored the 81,789 bytes of content that was deleted from this page, and created Talk:Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall/Archive 5. I have added auto archiving code to this talk page that should archive threads with no replies in 90 days automatically in future. 139.218.233.53 (talk) 23:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

When Prince Charles is King
I don't know how to go about this. Clarence House released a statement saying that The Duchess of Cornwall intends to use the title Princess Consort upon her husbands accession to the throne. However, there has since been no changes to the parliamentary bill which states that a wife of a King automatically becomes The Queen Consort. Shouldn't the article make reference to this? Theoretically, the wife of a prince who accedes the throne automatically inherits the full feminine form of his style, title and rank. Therefore, she is automatically the Queen Consort, unless a new law is passed to suggest otherwise.
 * There is no such statute. It's a matter of common law at best, and the announced plan is not that she won't be the King's legal wife, but that she won't use the title of Queen -- no one can force you to use a title, and there are no modern prerogatives attached exclusively to the title of Queen, so non-use of the title is perfectly possible and disturbs nothing legally. The issue's addressed in the article. FactStraight (talk) 00:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You can add the info to the titles section. I'll also see if I can get reliable sources which support it. (Monkelese (talk) 07:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Dubious
As I have pointed out in two edit summaries, the claim that she lived in a seventh century house is ludicrous in the extreme. DrKiernan (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Subsidiary Titles and Edit Warring over them
I notice that two editors have been blocked for edit warring over the mentioning of the subsidiary titles Duchess of Chester and Baroness of Renfrew in the lede, now I find it a bit daft that edit warring is going on, so imagine my surprise when I come to the talk page to see what discussions have been held and views sought, only to find nothing recent at all. A nice little edit war going on with no outside opinion being sought at all ? Anyway, I came here to say I find it a bit daft mentioning such obscure titles in the introduction to the article, I think mentioning the title Duchess of Chester in particular is likely to confuse readers who are looking for information on Duchess of Cornwall and may mistake the actual titles that Camilla is known by, having many non British, non Commonwealth readers from across the globe, to whom the entire peerage and honours system is a complete mystery, we must make it as easy to understand and present the necessary information in the best possible way. I don't think that's achieved by throwing in Duchess of Chester and Baroness of Renfrew right at the start before people have read about titles and why Camilla is known as the Duchess of Cornwall. Just my thoughts, anyway. And no more edit warring, naughty people. Nick (talk) 00:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Restored some info back
Restored info on the image rehabilitation section which was taken out due to poor source, I added a better source and also added some info... (Monkelese (talk) 23:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC))
 * Unfortunately, you've added a lot of material that is directly lifted from a copyrighted source. Therefore, I have reverted to the most recent clean revision that I can identify. If you or your sockpuppets have copied material from other sources before that revision, then please remove that material. You should also examine other articles that you've edited, and clean them of any copyrighted material you've inserted.
 * As I have performed a major revert, several intervening edits by other editors have also been lost. I have tried to rescue those in the lead and titles and styles section, since those sections appeared unscathed by the copyright issues. Editors who have made edits to the article since the 10 April can rescue edits that are lost in the revert, where they can be sure that the re-introduced material is not a breach of copyright. DrKiernan (talk) 11:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * copyright, what i added was from a book, which everyone else does, you had NO RIGHT TO change it back, this is unacceptable, you mean to tell all the books i added was copyrighted ad I couldn't use it on wiki? can you prove to me all my sources has violated copyright?(Monkelese (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC))
 * this is what you deleted, so everything including her recent royal duties which was added and her info box picture of her being at the trooping colour is all copyright...right now all I am waiting is the prove that all that information was copyrighted (Monkelese (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC))
 * The infobox image still says it was taken at the Trooping, and I specifically said I restored the infobox. Why don't you actually investigate properly before spouting off? DrKiernan (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Article: "at The Laines, Plumpton, near Lewes, East Sussex. The house was a five-bedroom, former rectory, conveniently situated opposite Plumpton Racecourse."

Brandreth: "at The Laines, Plumpton, near Lewes, East Sussex (Telephone: Plumpton 890248). The house was a five-bedroom, former rectory, conveniently situated opposite Plumpton Racecourse."

Article: "The school was established in the mid-1880s and, by every account, in 1952, when Camilla arrived, the values of the place and the facilities remained true to their Victorian origins. Biographer Christopher Wilson, in the Windsor Knot quotes a former pupil from the period as saying, "A school inspector came and was dumbstruck. He never knew such a place could exist. The school was so harsh I used to say a child who could cope with Dumbrells could cope with anything."

Brandreth: "The school was established in the mid-1880s and, by every account, in 1952, when Camilla arrived, the values of the place and the facilities remained true to their Victorian origins...Christopher Wilson, in the Windsor Knot, quotes a former pupil from the period as saying, 'A school inspector came and was dumbstruck. He never knew such a place could exist. The school was so harsh I used to say a child who could cope with Dumbrells could cope with anything.'"

Article: "At Dumbrells, on Wednesday afternoons, after games—hockey in winter, Stoolball in summer—the students were expected to rinse off under a cold shower, under the stern eye of Miss Clarke, the long serving headmistress, a former Dumbrells girl herself. According to one former pupil, the headmistress decreed that that any possession found not in its proper place was to be worn by the culprit for a whole day, including mealtimes; "One of the older girls came to lunch wearing three hats; a younger one was sadly hampered by a large sewing basket tied to her waist." Unruly children were punished by having to sit still and in silence underneath the headmistress’s chair. Those guilty of serious misdemeanors received physical chastisement; a smack on the bare bottom with a wooden ruler. Camilla, it seems, thrived in this environment. In the winter, her mother drove her to school. In the summer, she walked three miles between Plumpton and Ditchling with the family nanny. By all accounts, without exception, she was a healthy, happy, lively, chatty, jolly little girl. School was fine and home was fun."

Brandreth: "At Dumbrells, on Wednesday afternoons, after games—hockey in winter, 'stoolball' in the summer (a Sussex variation of cricket and rounders)—you were expected to rinse off under a cold shower, under the stern eye of Miss Clarke, the long-serving headmistress, a former Dumbrells girl herself...According to one former pupil, the headmistress decreed that that any possession found not in its proper place was to be worn by the culprit for a whole day, including mealtimes: 'One of the older girls came to lunch wearing three hats; a younger one was sadly hampered by a large sewing basket tied to her waist.' Unruly children were punished by having to sit still and in silence underneath the headmistress’s chair. Those guilty of serious misdemeanors received physical chastisement; a smack on the bare bottom with a wooden ruler. Camilla, it seems, thrived in this environment. In winter, her mother drove her to school. In summer, she was content to walk the three miles between Plumpton and Ditchling with the family nanny. By all accounts, without exception, she was a healthy, happy, lively, chatty, jolly little girl. School was fine and home was fun."

These examples are just from the first two paragraphs alone. Your theft of text from a copyrighted source is not only a clear breach of our policies, but also creates non-trivial legal issues. You must not copy text from sources that are in copyright. In such an obvious and egregious breach as this it is clearly necessary at the very least to revert to a version before the stolen text was introduced per Copyright problems, and it may be necessary to revdelete all the intervening revisions if the copyright holder presses us to do so. DrKiernan (talk) 21:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You could have discussed this first before deleting everything, I will rewrite it which is not a problem, but recent royal duties were not copyrighted, why remove them, and other edits? i think it's best if this is reported to an administrator to solve this out (Monkelese (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC))
 * I'm an administrator and you should think yourself lucky this plagiarism hasn't resulted in a block for you. Don't ever do this again. --John (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

2012 vs 2013 image
I prefer the 2013 image. It is more neutral. In the 2012 image she comes across as a frosty faced cow, although I agree that in full resolution the 2012 image is clearer. Viewfinder (talk) 11:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, it's new and she's smiling, the 2012 image, it might be close but her facial expression looks bad. Also isn't there a rule on wikipedia that new images should used when available... I'm going to change it. (Monkelese (talk) 17:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC))
 * No, there is no such rule. The rule is that the subject should be easily recognizable and that the image should be of high quality. The 2013 image is blurry and shows two more people with the Duchess, which is definitely not desirable. Surtsicna (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

taking changing to using
A technical change: It is wrong to say that Camilla has 'taken' Duchess of Cornwall as her title rather than Princess of Wales. A more apt way to put it is that Camilla has 'chosen' to use Duchess of Cornwall. 213.233.149.18 (talk) 00:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Already ✅ and by your help. Thanks. TheGeneralUser (talk) 02:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)