Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duchess of Cornwall

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 20:48, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Duchess of Cornwall
Certainly a valid topic, but shouldn't we wait until this is settled? Wikipedia is not a news source. Many things can happen to prevent her from actually becoming the Duchess of Cornwall. Until then, we can add to Camilla Parker Bowles. JoaoRicardo 12:05, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I do not believe the reason provided by the VfD proposal submitter is valid. Maybe redirect to Camilla Parker Bowles, but anything else would be erasing valid information. Phils 12:56, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, don't redirect, and expand to discuss history of the title. Samaritan 12:58, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Let me remind you that we already have a Duke of Cornwall article. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it the same title? Is there such a great diference on the gender of the title holder to justify two diferent articles? JoaoRicardo 13:35, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I second Samaritan's views above. Berek 13:12, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete This article has no value at all. There's no point in having an article on various Duchesses of Cornwall, they were already Princesses of Wales! The history of the title should be on a page called "Duke of Cornwall", not this one! The info in this article should be, and is, in the article on Prince Charles, so deleting this article will not eliminate info. And on 8 April, this can redirect to what should then be the newly moved article "Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall", jguk 13:29, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * A quick google for "Duchess of Cornwall" reveals a long history of apparently independent use as well. Heck, Regan, Duchess of Cornwall is King Lear's daughter in the Shakespeare play! Samaritan 13:38, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, as per Samaritan's comment. James F. (talk) 14:54, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is not an independent title; and its history is already in Duke of Cornwall.  The factoid in the article is already in Camilla Parker Bowles, where it belongs.    When they marry, we can all argue about the appropriate title for the article about her.  At present, her name is Camilla Parker Bowles.  --BM 15:04, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Historically valid article, although it needs to be expanded to discuss the history of the title. (And I don't consider Duke of Cornwall and Duchess of Cornwall to be the same thing, any moreso than Prince of Wales and Princess of Wales, and both title has its historical figures). I think this article should also explain why Camilla is receiving this title instead of Princess of Wales. 23skidoo 15:41, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I'd be fascinated to learn what, exactly, the reasoning is to strip her of her rightful title as wife of the Prince of Wales. :-) James F. (talk) 16:04, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Because allowing her to become Queen would, righly or wrongly, damage the monarchy as it would be unacceptable to many people in Britain. It is simply pragmatism, a modern version of morganatic marriage. Philip 16:08, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Philip 16:08, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Should be expanded to help people fully understand the complications the relationship between Charles and Camilla brings to the monarchy and the reaons behind the decisions they and the monarchy make!
 * I've expanded it a little. It turns out that there is already an article about morganatic marriage, of which this is a variant. PS, you need to sign your votes or they don't count. Philip 16:34, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep --Neo 17:17, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment.  As I said above, this is not an independent title.  The Duke of Cornwall is always the eldest son of the British monarch; it is not a hereditary title.   Duchess of Cornwall is a courtesy title only ever given to the wife of the Duke of Cornwall.  The eldest daughter of the sovereign and heir to the throne is not the Duchess of Cornwall.   There is already discussion of the complications related to Camilla Bowles title if she marries Prince Charles -- in both the articles on her and on the prince.   There is no need for an article on a courtesy title. --BM 18:18, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Important topic especially as the Prince of Wales is now officially engaged to Camilla Parker-Bowles. The Shakespeare reference is an important reference as well. Capitalistroadster 18:35, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Duke of Cornwall seeing as when she actually receives the title by wikipedia naming standards her article will be moved to Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall making this article redundant once more. -- Francs2000 | Talk 18:37, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I think this has got to be kept as a disambig at least. Kappa 18:56, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. --Duffman 19:02, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirects are cheap, and the courtesy title flows directly from the Duke of Cornwall. After Charles and Camilla marry, then we can have an article on Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall&mdash;assuming that's how the titles are worked out. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 19:19, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, and merge any useful content from the current Duchess article, of course. Perhaps add a section to the Duke's article, and add a column to the table of Dukes to list their corresponding Duchesses...? --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 19:35, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Since posting, it's been wonderfully expanded, so far by Pcpcpc, Neo and Jdforrester. Samaritan 19:25, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's helpful, even if it is boring. Wyss 19:49, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. Redirect to Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall after the wedding.--Centauri 21:06, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The term is soon going to become much talked about. As mentioned above, all the article needs is some expansion on the history of the title. -- Old Right 21:13, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please don't think I am picking on some people's votes, bu I still don't understand what is the reasoning here. The history of the title is already covered in Duke of Cornwall. Category:Dukedoms shows that the format Wikipedia has adopted is to have articles about Dukedoms in the masculine form, covering both the Dukes and the Duchesses. Are there other articles like this one? Why should this standard be broken now? And many things can happen until the date of the wedding, she is not Duchess now. I am sorry, but I am completely lost on this one, and I would like to understand better the arguments of people who are voting "keep". JoaoRicardo 21:35, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC).
 * Wikipedia is for the general public, not academics who are already away of all the semantic finesses. Relevant information should be made available in the most convenient possible way providing that the article does not break any policies. The background to the new use of this title is more accessible in a specific article than in an article which also covers many other issues. Philip 15:11, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. I don't understand what you mean when you said "semantic finesses". Do you mean to say that Wikipedia users might not be aware that "Duchess" is the feminine of "Duke"? I find it hard to believe, but if that is so, how about a redirect to Duke of Cornwall? The story of the title is already there. Princess redirects to Prince, Empress redirects to Emperor, Duchess redirects to Duke, Countess redirects to Count etc. Category:Dukedoms shows that this has been the standard, and I believe this is more pratical than having a fork for every feminine form of the title. This would be like having an article for actor and another for actress. JoaoRicardo 23:24, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Or indeed one for First Lady as well as President, or even Second Lady as well as Vice-President? --Neo 23:56, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * "First lady" is not the feminine form of "president". These are diferent concepts. However "duke" and "duchess" are not diferent concepts; they are diferent words for one same concept. JoaoRicardo 00:55, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The Duchess of Cornwall is the wife of the Duke, not the femenine form, the First Lady is the wife of the president, not the femenine form... don't seem so different to me... --Neo 10:26, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

NOTE:- DUCHESS OF YORK NO LONGER DIRECTS TO SARAH, DUCHESS OF YORK, IT HAS BEEN EXPANDED BY ME TO A FULL ARTICLE. STRONG keepThere is a seperate article for 'Princess of Wales' which is no more than a courtesy title of the wife of the Prince of Wales (which by the way, Camilla will be, whether she is styled so or not). If you delete this article I STRONGLY SUGGEST you delete the article on the courtesy title 'Princess of Wales' as there is already a 'Prince of Wales' article.--jcuk
 * Your comment is even more apropos given the special characteristics of the title Duke of Cornwall. There is never a Duchess of Cornwall in her own right.  Duchess of Cornwall is a style, a courtesy title, not an actual title.  Indeed, until the Camilla Bowles situation developed it has generally been a secondary courtesy title, since the wife of the heir to the throne is entitled to use the style Princess of Wales, which is a higher title.   We have several articles already explaining British peerage and titles, courtesy titles, styles, etc.   We also have a couple of articles which include the same material as in this article covering the Camilla Parker Bowles situation.  --BM 22:20, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * BM, I guess I missed something in this discussion. People just come here and vote based on an argument which I contested on the first few minutes of the VfD vote: that the history of the title is already covered in Duke of Cornwall. It seems people are giving their opinion without even bothering to read what others have to say on this topic. Am I being ignored for violating some Wikipedia policy or guideline? I am truly amazed at this vote! JoaoRicardo 08:46, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * If you ask me, this is getting ridiculous. Take a look at the newly created articles on the Countess of Wessex and Duchess of York, done by an annonymous user. Aoi 10:26, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep She will be the Duchess in April - like it or not and so of historical importance Brookie\talk
 * Delete. As many people have noted, the Duchess of Cornwall is a courtesy title, nothing more. If anything, this should redirect to the article on Camilla Parker Bowles (as "Duchess of York" redirects to Sarah, Duchess of York) or Duke of Cornwall. Either that, or follow what Centauri suggested above. --Aoi 01:26, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to make clear what I meant. Camilla isn't a duchess in *her own* right, she will be using the title because her future husband is the Duke of Cornwall. Aoi 04:38, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, historical. Duchess of Cornwall is a title that will no doubt be gaining more news momentum in the forthcoming weeks. Megan1967 02:24, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Spinboy 02:48, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or Change When I'm bored I tend to read a lot of the articles on nobility and so forth, this article is inconsistent with Wikipedia's general practices. As the actual Dukedom of Cornwall can not be held by a woman  in her own right (or any man who is not the heir to the British throne for that matter) it would seem very inconsistent to keep this as a seperate article from the Duke of Cornwall article.  I would support keeping it as an article on "Regan, Duchess of Cornwall" or as a disambiguation page with links to "Camilla Parker-Bowles", Duke of Cornwall" and "Regan, Duchess of Cornwall" but as a stand alone article about Mrs. Parker-Bowles it doesn't make much sense. (Just realized somebody else said this!  Oops!) Gabe 08:22, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Duh, keep. &mdash;RaD Man (talk) 09:08, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Good idea. --BM 13:20, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEP. Charles is the Duke of Cornwall and Charles is going to marry Camilla a couple of weeks after Easter, so Camilla is destined to become the Duchess of Cornwall - and one day give it the same autonomy that Scotland and Wales have. Scott Gall 10:11, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Before you vote on the basis of Cornwall autonomy you might actually bother to read the articles. The lands of the Duchy of Cornwall are in Devon.  Apart from the name, the Duchy doesn't have anything to do with Cornwall. --BM 13:20, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The Duchy owns land in many counties, including Cornwall. Philip 15:06, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * To be precise, the bulk of the property is in Devon. The small acreage the Duchy holds in Cornwall does not make it relevant to Cornish autonomy.   The title was first used in the 14th century in just the way it is used now: for the English monarch's eldest sone and heir.  --BM 15:33, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep I wonder if this is the same Camilla who was Gonzo's muppet girlfriend. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 13:25, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wikipedia is not a news source, it is instead a valuable electronic knowledge base of varying sorts of information.  GRider\talk 19:07, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The above comment explains a lot.  GRider, of course you're entitled to your point of view that Wikipedia is an "electronic knowledge base" of miscellaneous information; but many people think it is, or should be, an encyclopedia.  Indeed What Wikipedia is not says specifically that Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. --BM 13:33, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * K. JuntungWu 04:15, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article presents useful information not given at other articles. --Angr 10:05, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is important enough to be here, and unique enough to have its own article.  -- James Teterenko (talk) 17:54, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep, it has been formally announced. If Camilla is run over by a bus prior to the wedding we can deal with it then. AndyL 01:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Keep". It should, however, be expanded. The style of "Duchess of Cornwall" has had usage in the 20th century. After the accession of Edward VII to the throne on the death of Queen Victoria, his son, Prince George, the Duke of York, was not immediately created Prince of Wales. There is some thought that Queen Alexandra was a driving force behind it because she did not want someone else known as the Princess of Wales given her long connection with the title. Prince George and Princess May were, therefore, known as TRH The Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and York until he was created Prince of Wales late in 1901. User:GaryR 12:07, 14 Feb 2005 (EST)


 * Keep, given that, from April, a senior member of the royal family will hold this as their main title in use, it is appropiate for it to be an article. Astrotrain 21:43, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep It will be a royal title soon. --Arbiteroftruth 22:48, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

jcuk
 * It just occured to me that naming an article 'Duke of wherever' is invalid anyhow, unless that title has been held by just one person. If all the 'Duke of...' articles were renamed 'Duchy of....' you could have a history of the Duchy (which most of the 'Duke of' articles seem to be anyhow) plus internal links to individual Dukes AND Duchesses of wherever.

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.